Future Club Training Gliders

On Nov 9, 5:16*am, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 23:29 08 November 2010, bildan wrote:



As a former ride pilot, I can assure you "Those People" aren't
"dilettantes", they're just people - mostly very nice people, who
decided to give gliding a try. *Judging them to be dilettantes is just
one of many examples of how we chase people away. *

I was referring specifically to potential rides who walk away from the
opportunity when they see that the vehicle is going to be something less
than what Thomas Crown (latest version) flew. *Those folks, if not
dilettante, are something even denser.

Jim Beckman

I would say 100% could tell the 2-32's were old and the Grob Twin III
was a much sexier glider. Grob rides were far more likely to generate
further interest. I would call them discriminating which is a
complement.

On Nov 9, 5:26*am, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 00:32 09 November 2010, Mike Schumann wrote:



1st impressions make a huge difference. *When you are dealing with a new
person who is interested in the sport, you want to make sure that
his/her 1st glider experience is a positive one.

It's not just what kind of glider it is, but also what condition it is
in. *A pristine L-13 can make a very good impression, matching a
mediocre K-21. *The same goes for a museum quality 2-33. *However, a
worn glider that sits outside just, doesn't do it for a lot of people,
including power pilots who are just putting their toes in the water.

I would suggest that the attitude of the ride pilot is just as important,
if not more so, than pure appearances. *And a ride pilot is obviously
going to treat a pilot passenger differently than a novice.

Not to mention the attitude of the other people assisting with the flight
or just hanging around the gliders. *When I first starting taking lessons
to transition from power to gliders, the club on the field took absolutely
*no* interest in what I was doing, or explaining what the club had to
offer, or attempting to interest me in joining. *I practically had to
force myself on them (damn glad I did it, too). *We generally present an
unfortunate impression of aloofness and distraction. *The gregarious,
outgoing, friendly glider folks are a valuable exception.

Jim Beckman

Ride pilots make a huge difference, but even they can't overcome a
trashy glider.

It's a real shame that few ride operations take the time and trouble
to tell their customers what soaring is really all about. In my case,
the owner just wanted to chase them off after they paid for the ride.

If they persisted, they got pitched a $7,000+ "training package" in a
2-33. Once they looked at the 2-33, that deal became a really hard
sell.

A few of them walked over to the club to find they could train in a
well maintained G-103 or DG 505 for a small fraction of the cost, then
passed the word around. The 2-33 deal became nearly impossible to
sell.

In article ,
Jim Beckman wrote:

At 23:29 08 November 2010, bildan wrote:

As a former ride pilot, I can assure you "Those People" aren't
"dilettantes", they're just people - mostly very nice people, who
decided to give gliding a try. Judging them to be dilettantes is just
one of many examples of how we chase people away.

I was referring specifically to potential rides who walk away from the
opportunity when they see that the vehicle is going to be something less
than what Thomas Crown (latest version) flew. Those folks, if not
dilettante, are something even denser.

I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
shiny glass slipper....

Appearances matter to almost everybody, to different degrees. This is
simply a fact of life that we have to deal with. If you don't want those
people, that's a perfectly valid desire, but it does mean greatly
limiting your pool. Having something shiny and modern to show off isn't
a fault, and the people it attracts can still be valuable members to
have.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
...
On 11/8/2010 10:09 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Nov 8, 12:30 am, Darryl wrote:
On Nov 7, 11:02 pm, Jim wrote:



wrote:
The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
will need.

We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.

Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
repair, durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .

Sonex Xenos perhaps? I have no experience with it and am not sure what
the
general consensus is (I doubt there is much informed opinion on them
since
not too many have been built, so few would have first-hand experience;
but
unless I am missing something their performance seems more than
adequate
for training purposes.)

Upfront new: ~US$34,000 + ~1200 club man-hours to build.
Side-by-side seating: good for training?
Motorglider: Dispense with towplane costs.
Experimental: Lower part and labor costs.
Sonex provides directions on how to get it registered with the FAA as a
glider.

http://www.sonexaircraft.com/images/...Comparison.jpg

With a motorglider you do not "dispense with towplane costs" you
"replace towplane costs with motorglider costs" (and quite possibly
many more issues).

I would be surprised if a 24:1 (i.e. non-glider), homebuilt,
lightweight aluminum glider in a tail dragger configuration is meet
many of the practical needs of most glider clubs. I wonder what
getting insurance coverage for instruction on that would take.

The question was to replace L-13 Blaniks and looking for practical
experience. Is there anybody in the USA using any motorglider for
primary training? Can they share cost and operational experiences? How
many students per year go through to complete their licenses?

---

Wait, I know how about a ASK-21 and a towplane (or winch).

Darryl

Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons

http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/

I am very surprised at the extremely low number of add-on glider ratings.
Can this be right? Last year, only 10 power pilots added on a glider
rating in the entire US?

If that's true, then we should be doing a serious marketing campaign aimed
at power pilots who have let their medicals lapse. That's the really low
hanging fruit.

--
Mike Schumann

I question those numbers as well. I got into gliders 2008 and have known of
at least 4 or 5 add-ons at my small club since, and we are not located in a
hotbed of soaring activity.

Bob McKellar

On Nov 8, 8:15*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:24*pm, Andy wrote:

On Nov 8, 7:09*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:

Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons

http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/

Whatever we did in 1996, we should do it again. Can anyone explain the
spike upward in glider ratings?

9B

Also note the ratios of ab-initio to add-on ratings in that period and
now.

Perhaps the world wide web, increasing costs of flying power,
generation of WWII/post WWII pilots losing medicals, increase
disposable income, 125% loan to value home equity loans?

IIRC, It was also a time when AVGAS jumped from around $.50/gal to $2/
gal. It was a time when a sharp pencil analysis showed it no longer
made economic sense for me to own an airplane.

Fuel costs in a 2000 Hr TBO cycle went from $10,000 to $40,000 which
made fuel four times the cost of the engine overhaul. By 1996, any
trip by GA airplane could be done faster and cheaper by other means.
Burning 10 GPH at 125Kts didn't make sense. Many flying enthusiasts
who could no longer justify an airplane went to gliders.

Prior to the mid-90's, many people actually used GA airplanes as
business travel tools. Afterward, airplane ownership tended to
resemble yacht ownership. The purpose of owning an airplane became a
public display of how much money you had to spend. Money display
types are hard to convert to gliding - it isn't showy enough.

I recall an "airport day" display of a very pretty glass glider next
to a Gulfstream bizjet. The Gulfstream owner was really ****ed when
crowds gathered around the glider and not his flying yacht. He made a
scene with the airport management demanding they, "Get that glider the
hell out of here".

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:04:56 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
shiny glass slipper....

Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

In article ,
Martin Gregorie wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:04:56 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
shiny glass slipper....

Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?

Seems pretty sane to me. I welcome glider pilots in any equipment that
makes them happy. I just think that people who claim that looks don't
matter ought to put their money where their mouth is....

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

At 16:42 09 November 2010, bildan wrote:

If they persisted, they got pitched a $7,000+ "training package" in a
2-33. Once they looked at the 2-33, that deal became a really hard
sell.

A few of them walked over to the club to find they could train in a
well maintained G-103 or DG 505 for a small fraction of the cost, then
passed the word around. The 2-33 deal became nearly impossible to
sell.

I'll bet the commercial operator really appreciates the competition. Do
you not advertise? Why would *anyone* patronize the commercial operation
if you guys are available on the same field?

Certainly if a club can afford to put that kind of gliders on the field,
it's a much better situation than flying 2-33s (at least in some ways).
But my club would have to sell off our entire fleet of five gliders (wanna
buy a Blanik?) to finance just half the price of an ASK-21. It's really
hard to see how we get from here to there, particularly in these
hard-pressed times.

Jim Beckman

On Nov 9, 12:32*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:

Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?

Martin -

I think you have misunderstood my last comment and the comments of
others here. No one is saying that you have to buy a DG-1000 or a Duo-
Discus or an Arcus in order to conduct training. Your example of an
ASK-21 is a sex-machine compared to the Schweizer gliders! Compa
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...33C-GWCV01.JPG
to
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._ASK_21_vr.jpg

The point is that even someone who knows nothing about airplanes can
tell which one is more modern and capable. My comments were aimed at
the people who've replied on this thread and talked about how they
worked hard to become a pilot, or transitioned through a bunch of
crappy ships to get to a good one. THEY are the exception. The
average citizen (at least in the USA) is not going to slog through all
that, and their interest-level is certainly going to be affected by
how modern (or at least modern-looking) the aircraft are. Its just
human nature.

--Noel

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:41:00 -0800, noel.wade wrote:

I think you have misunderstood my last comment and the comments of
others here. No one is saying that you have to buy a DG-1000 or a Duo-
Discus or an Arcus in order to conduct training.

No, I'm with you but a lot are arguing that even an G.103 is outrageous
when a 2-33 will do. I spoke up this time because there seemed to be a
hint of 'people who learn on glass will all be flying the latest and
greatest single seaters' and I wanted to see if I'd misread the writer:
seems that I had.

Your example of an
ASK-21 is a sex-machine compared to the Schweizer gliders! Compa

I don't need to compare them. There's one of the Avenal 2-33s in my log
book. :-)

I like flying our club Juniors in winter or when there's some other
reason I'm not flying my Libelle and, as I've flown an ASK-23, a Ka-8 and
a PW-5, I reckon about there's an unfilled slot in my logbook that is the
same shape as a 1-26. I hear they're fun to fly even if they do penetrate
even worse than a Junior. Can they be winched?

The point is that even someone who knows nothing about airplanes can
tell which one is more modern and capable.

Sure, and I agree that's a no-brainer.

THEY are the exception. The average
citizen (at least in the USA) is not going to slog through all that, and
their interest-level is certainly going to be affected by how modern (or
at least modern-looking) the aircraft are. Its just human nature.

I'm probably one of them to some extent: the ASK-21 hooked me where an
ASK-13 couldn't, though to be fair that happened 10+ years after I had
the K-13 ride, I was no longer totally gung-ho about competition free
flight and was probably subconsciously looking for a new challenge.

There's a similarity: my favourite models always have been F1A towline
gliders and now winch launching is my preferred way of getting airborne,
outnumbering aero tows this year by better than 15:1.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |