Future Club Training Gliders

On Nov 7, 11:02*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
RN 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

At 13:32 07 November 2010, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:
On Nov 7, 5:52=A0am, Jim Beckman wrote:

Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
seem valid to me, but that's just me.

Yes. As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the
part of the person who rejects the experience. Maybe it really has to do
with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things.

Really, the experience is the capability of the aircraft. The ability to
use the energy in the atmosphere, to climb, to stay aloft, and to cover
the ground. But if appearance is all you care about, then the 2-33 just
isn't going to ring your bell.

P.S. By the way, I'd love to find a really nice Schweizer 2-22 -- now
THAT is a cool lookin' glider! A Grunau Baby would be amazing to own!
Talk about "SOUL" -- those old, ugly gliders (and for that matter the
older gals) have it!

I really wish I could get a chance to fly a Schweizer 1-19. I know
there's one around here, but I don't think it's been flyable for twenty
years or so. And for a real blast, try a 1-26 with the sport canopy
installed.

http://www.126association.org/graphi...t1-26solo3.jpg

Doesn't do much for performance, but the Fun Factor is at least doubled.

Jim Beckman

On Nov 8, 5:17*am, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 13:32 07 November 2010, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:

On Nov 7, 5:52=A0am, Jim Beckman *wrote:

Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
seem valid to me, but that's just me.

Yes. *As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the
part of the person who rejects the experience. *Maybe it really has to do
with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things.

Really, the experience is the capability of the aircraft. *The ability to
use the energy in the atmosphere, to climb, to stay aloft, and to cover
the ground. *But if appearance is all you care about, then the 2-33 just
isn't going to ring your bell.

P.S. *By the way, I'd love to find a really nice Schweizer 2-22 -- now
THAT is a cool lookin' glider! *A Grunau Baby would be amazing to own!
Talk about "SOUL" -- *those old, ugly gliders (and for that matter the
older gals) have it!

I really wish I could get a chance to fly a Schweizer 1-19. *I know
there's one around here, but I don't think it's been flyable for twenty
years or so. *And for a real blast, try a 1-26 with the sport canopy
installed.

http://www.126association.org/graphi...t1-26solo3.jpg

Doesn't do much for performance, but the Fun Factor is at least doubled.

Jim Beckman

I'm pretty sure there is no or very little performance hit for flying
the 1-26 open cockpit. My old club had one, it was a blast but it got
cold at cloudbase.

On Nov 8, 12:30*am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Nov 7, 11:02*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:



RN 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/

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



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

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

People need to just look at that graph for while and then ask
themselves if continuing to do what we've been doing is the right
course. There's a term for doing the same thing over and over while
expecting a different result.

Blaming the customer for not liking what we're selling isn't a
solution. But it's heard a lot - in bankruptcy court.

Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
seem valid to me, but that's just me.

Yes. *As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the
part of the person who rejects the experience. *Maybe it really has to do
with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things.


The guy from the garage sale I was talking about was like 60 years
old... so your 'it's just the youth of today' argument is not actually
relevant to the situation you're commenting on. The story he relayed
to me was unsolicited and unfiltered, so it provides an honest and I
feel valuable insight into what wasn't a game-stopping problem for
most glider dorks on ras (myself included), but is a real issue
nonetheless.

If this were a trivial issue, the advertising industry would not be a
multi-trillion dollar juggernaut. In a world full of enticing choices,
the CEO of XXX corporation doesn't expect people to simply buy their
products 'just because', no matter how useful or wonderful the
products may be. Honest effort is put into trying to figure out how to
best supplant their idea/image, to most widely sell their wares most
effectively with particular emphasis on generating new users (ensuring
survival), and their advertising dept most likely takes the psychology
of aesthetics and marketing pretty seriously.

And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
irrelevance.


-Paul

Paul Hanson wrote:

And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
irrelevance.

-Paul


That is a very perceptive comment. If instant gratification is the
primary demand from our marketplace, and our primary goal is to expand our
customer base, then we should aim for that instant gratification. A single
long introductrory flight in the highest-performance self-launcher to be
found; with the promise of solo in a couple of days, private license
within a week ?

But perhaps the soul of our sport is that it does NOT provide that kind of
instant gratification, that instead it rewards prolonged effort. Then we
restrict our market to that minority of people with similar tastes. We
will not grow so big or so fast. And perhaps people like that are happy
to start out at the bottom of the ladder, learn all the fundamental skills
and work their way to the top. Blaniks or Schweizers as workhorses, with
just a tantalizing glimpse of slippery glass to keep the long-term goal in
mind, might then be appropriate.

The glider does not matter so much compared to the inherent motivation of
the pilot and the skill and dedication of the instructor.

What we often do lose sight of is the need to offer a ladder with all the
rungs in place. There must be an affordable - that means cheap - entry
rung, intermediate rungs to gradually increase capabilities, and top rungs
for the most skilled and competitive. That suggests a mixed fleet.
Perhaps a 2-33 or Blanik, a 1-26 or similar to enjoy solo flight, an
ASK-21 to transition to glass, a Cirrus or Libelle to taste peformance and
a Duo or DG-1000 [possibly self-launching] before the new pilot needs to
buy his personal sailplane of choice.

Just a thought.

Ian

Paul Hanson wrote:

And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
irrelevance.

-Paul


That is a very perceptive comment. If instant gratification is the
primary demand from our marketplace, and our primary goal is to expand our
customer base, then we should aim for that instant gratification. A single
long introductrory flight in the highest-performance self-launcher to be
found; with the promise of solo in a couple of days, private license
within a week ?

But perhaps the soul of our sport is that it does NOT provide that kind of
instant gratification, that instead it rewards prolonged effort. Then we
restrict our market to that minority of people with similar tastes. We
will not grow so big or so fast. And perhaps people like that are happy
to start out at the bottom of the ladder, learn all the fundamental skills
and work their way to the top. Blaniks or Schweizers as workhorses, with
just a tantalizing glimpse of slippery glass to keep the long-term goal in
mind, might then be appropriate.

The glider does not matter so much compared to the inherent motivation of
the pilot and the skill and dedication of the instructor.

What we often do lose sight of is the need to offer a ladder with all the
rungs in place. There must be an affordable - that means cheap - entry
rung, intermediate rungs to gradually increase capabilities, and top rungs
for the most skilled and competitive. That suggests a mixed fleet.
Perhaps a 2-33 or Blanik, a 1-26 or similar to enjoy solo flight, an
ASK-21 to transition to glass, a Cirrus or Libelle to taste peformance and
a Duo or DG-1000 [possibly self-launching] before the new pilot needs to
buy his personal sailplane of choice.

Just a thought.

Ian

Paul Hanson wrote:

And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
irrelevance.

-Paul


That is a very perceptive comment. If instant gratification is the
primary demand from our marketplace, and our primary goal is to expand our
customer base, then we should aim for that instant gratification. A single
long introductrory flight in the highest-performance self-launcher to be
found; with the promise of solo in a couple of days, private license
within a week ?

But perhaps the soul of our sport is that it does NOT provide that kind of
instant gratification, that instead it rewards prolonged effort. Then we
restrict our market to that minority of people with similar tastes. We
will not grow so big or so fast. And perhaps people like that are happy
to start out at the bottom of the ladder, learn all the fundamental skills
and work their way to the top. Blaniks or Schweizers as workhorses, with
just a tantalizing glimpse of slippery glass to keep the long-term goal in
mind, might then be appropriate.

The glider does not matter so much compared to the inherent motivation of
the pilot and the skill and dedication of the instructor.

What we often do lose sight of is the need to offer a ladder with all the
rungs in place. There must be an affordable - that means cheap - entry
rung, intermediate rungs to gradually increase capabilities, and top rungs
for the most skilled and competitive. That suggests a mixed fleet.
Perhaps a 2-33 or Blanik, a 1-26 or similar to enjoy solo flight, an
ASK-21 to transition to glass, a Cirrus or Libelle to taste peformance and
a Duo or DG-1000 [possibly self-launching] before the new pilot needs to
buy his personal sailplane of choice.

Just a thought.

Ian

On 11/8/2010 7:40 AM, sisu1a wrote:

And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
irrelevance.


-Paul


Yes, we must not fall into the trap of thinking "our product is fine,
the problem is with the people who are not buying it."