New trainer from SZD Bielsko

There's no downside to training in higher performance unless the instructor
THINKS there is. If the instructor is afraid of high performance gliders,
he will pass that fear on to his students.

Bill Daniels
With all due respect I am not sure that this portion of the debate is
meaningful until the participants clarify and agree upon what it is they
are "training" for. If we are training for advanced cross country,
competition, or step up to high performance single seats then the
observation is correct. If we are ab initio training in hope to solo the
student in the subject glider then we need something robust, insurable for
student pilots, and economical for the typical club. Higher performance
rarely serves those needs - so there is a downside.

Roy B.

"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:


There's one possible disadvantage that I'm surprised the nobody has
mentioned: replacing Puchacz/Perkoz canopies is much more expensive than
replacing K-21 or G.103 canopies due to the sheer single piece size.


Why would this cost more? Almost all glider canopies (made by Mecplex or
Weiss in Germany who make nearly all current glider canopies) are molded in
one piece and then cut in two for gliders like the K21 with separate front
and rear canopies, so even if you only need the front canopy for a K21 you
would be paying for the cost of both pieces anyway.
tim

--
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

Oh yea, how about that other new two seater, the Taunus.
That's a nice looking ship! Even available as a self-launcher,
I think.


The Taurus could make an excellent trainer. It is however a tailwheel
glider, for some that may present a problem.
We had hoped to have one for display at Oshkosh/AirVenture but that is
not going to happen. The first one to a USA customer is scheduled for
this fall. More than 12 have been delivered so far.

It is available as a pure glider, selflauncher with a Rotax 503 and
soon in an electric launch version.

Robert Mudd
Pipistrel, Taurus dealer

IT may be.. but we've never seen it here... I wonder where the LLC keeps it.
It also says it was built in 1991.. not really a "new" glider.
BT

"Frank Whiteley" wrote in message
ups.com...
N9439G is registered in Las Vegas, NV.

On Jun 20, 8:12 pm, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
Beautiful! I love a one piece canopy. We need more trainers like this.

The only small thing I see from the pictures that might concern me is the
external mass ballances on the elevator. Many glilder fields are less
than
perfectly clear of debris. It looks as if it might be possible a chunk
of
that debris (or a unused tow rope) might get lodged between the
stabilizer
and the mass balance horn on the takeoff roll. This has happened on older
gliders.

If there's still time in the development phase for these mass ballances
to
be internalized, doing so might improve the glider's marketability.

Bill Daniels

wrote in message

oups.com...

SZD Bielsko is in the final phase of testing of "new" 2 seat glider
designed for initial and advanced training. It will be fully aerobatic
with 17.5 m wings and with 20 m wings it becomes pretty good x-c
sailplane with L/D of 41.8. The reason I am saying "new" with
quotation marks is that the glider was designed in the late 80-ties
and bears name SZD 54 Perkoz. But the SZD Bielsko is working right now
to bring the glider into production.
http://www.szd.com.pl/pdf/szd-54_perkoz_doku_en.pdf

Jacek
Washington State

"Ian" wrote in message
ps.com...
On 21 Jun, 14:30, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:

There's no downside to training in higher performance unless the
instructor
THINKS there is. If the instructor is afraid of high performance
gliders,
he will pass that fear on to his students.

A high performance glider will always be slippery, which means it will
accelerate fast, which means that elevator/attitude/speed control will
be harder to learn. Won't it?

Ian



No. The student just learns what is presented. They are largely unaware of
these 'percieved' difficulties - unless the instructor makes a big deal of
how difficult a particular glider is to fly. The hand/eye coordination just
isn't that difficult to learn. It's the INSTRUCTOR who makes a glider hard
to fly.

Slick gliders are 'hard' to fly only if one has a preconception they are.
The Duo Discus, for instance, is a real pussycat. Even non pilots have no
problem with "elevator/attitude/speed control" if you just tell them to
keep the nose on the horizon.

In fact I'm tempted to say that there are no difficult gliders - at least
none made in the last 30 years. I've never flown a glass glider that
presented the slightest problem. Now a Bell 47 helicopter, THAT is hard to
fly.

Bill Daniels

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Bill Daniels wrote:
This comment is solely about trainer L/D and not this specific trainer.

L/D IS important especially if you operate from a field where nearby
landings are hazardous. Students ( and for that matter some instructors)
aren't good at judging just how far they can glide. In this situation,
extra performance is what gets them home after a mis-judgement. L/D then
becomes a safety factor.

There's no downside to training in higher performance unless the
instructor THINKS there is. If the instructor is afraid of high
performance gliders, he will pass that fear on to his students.

Bill Daniels

wrote in message
ups.com...
for a trainer 40:1 is plenty. heck 18:1 is plenty, as proven by the
multitudes of pilots trained in 2-22 and 2-33 Schweizers over the
years. We're not talking about an open class nationals competitor
here.



I agree conditionally.

This is one area where the old crates make better trainers, as the
difference in effective glide ratio is much more affected by wind. The
safe circuit differs markedly with a 1:26 L/D and a wind component that
can be a significant fraction of stall speed. So it is easier to teach the
mental calculations required, and when to draw the line in terms of the -
Is it safe to launch? decision.

How so? A 2-33 stalls (really) at about 40 MPH. My Nimbus 2C stalls at
38mph and I can turn inside a 1-26 if the ballast tanks are dry. If I open
the dive brakes to the point they want to rest, the Nimbus 2C glides about
like a 2-22. If I open them all the way it's 1:1 at 55mph.


A higher penetration , higher performance trainer makes the distances
involved a little bigger, so they may be harder to judge. In this instance
I believe higher performance may lower safety.

Yes harder, but the errors will be on the safe side - i.e. the HP glider
will go farther than the student is willing to believe.


The downside of training exclusively in low performance gliders is that
transition to even a moderate performance single seater is more difficult.

You bet! And once you have created the mind set that higher performance
glider are difficult to fly - they WILL be more difficult to fly for that
student.

Bill Daniels

"Roy Bourgeois" wrote in message
...

There's no downside to training in higher performance unless the
instructor
THINKS there is. If the instructor is afraid of high performance
gliders,
he will pass that fear on to his students.

Bill Daniels
With all due respect I am not sure that this portion of the debate is
meaningful until the participants clarify and agree upon what it is they
are "training" for. If we are training for advanced cross country,
competition, or step up to high performance single seats then the
observation is correct. If we are ab initio training in hope to solo the
student in the subject glider then we need something robust, insurable for
student pilots, and economical for the typical club. Higher performance
rarely serves those needs - so there is a downside.

Roy B.

Are you saying a K-21 or a DG 505 are not insurable for student pilots? I
think they are. The K21 is a VERY robust glider and a great trainer - so is
the 505.

Bill Daniels

Actually, I thought I read in some club NL that it was in Oregon.
Maybe they have one of the Nevada corporations that were being pitched
on the radio a couple of years ago;^)

Frank

On Jun 21, 8:36 pm, "BT" wrote:
IT may be.. but we've never seen it here... I wonder where the LLC keeps it.
It also says it was built in 1991.. not really a "new" glider.
BT

"Frank Whiteley" wrote in message

ups.com...

N9439G is registered in Las Vegas, NV.

On Jun 20, 8:12 pm, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
Beautiful! I love a one piece canopy. We need more trainers like this.

The only small thing I see from the pictures that might concern me is the
external mass ballances on the elevator. Many glilder fields are less
than
perfectly clear of debris. It looks as if it might be possible a chunk
of
that debris (or a unused tow rope) might get lodged between the
stabilizer
and the mass balance horn on the takeoff roll. This has happened on older
gliders.

If there's still time in the development phase for these mass ballances
to
be internalized, doing so might improve the glider's marketability.

Bill Daniels

wrote in message

groups.com...

SZD Bielsko is in the final phase of testing of "new" 2 seat glider
designed for initial and advanced training. It will be fully aerobatic
with 17.5 m wings and with 20 m wings it becomes pretty good x-c
sailplane with L/D of 41.8. The reason I am saying "new" with
quotation marks is that the glider was designed in the late 80-ties
and bears name SZD 54 Perkoz. But the SZD Bielsko is working right now
to bring the glider into production.
http://www.szd.com.pl/pdf/szd-54_perkoz_doku_en.pdf

Jacek
Washington State

At 19:36 21 June 2007, Gary Emerson wrote:

hopefully the issues of Puchacz spins don't present
with this glider
too. They look very similar.

The fact that the Puchacz spins so positively and effectively
with the 'correct' control inputs is one reason why
it's such a popular training glider. Pupils need to
be taught the situations in which a glider will spin,
what they can do to prevent a spin, and how to quickly
recognise one and recover from it if it does occur.
It means they will fly a lot safer in gliders which
might not spin as readily, by not flying too slowly
and unco-ordinated in thermal turns for example, because
they don't only KNOW but HAVE EXPERIENCE that this
method of flying might result in a spin.

One of the main reasons our club bought 2 Puchaczs
was because they spin so well, and we realise the importance
of spin training. Before we had Bocians, which also
spin well.



Don't Disregard Dangling the Dunlop!

We have trained ab.initio and soloed students in a Janus B. No difference
whatsoever in training/soloing students in a Ka7 (which we did in another
club).

"Roy Bourgeois" wrote in message
...

There's no downside to training in higher performance unless the
instructor
THINKS there is. If the instructor is afraid of high performance
gliders,
he will pass that fear on to his students.

Bill Daniels
With all due respect I am not sure that this portion of the debate is
meaningful until the participants clarify and agree upon what it is they
are "training" for. If we are training for advanced cross country,
competition, or step up to high performance single seats then the
observation is correct. If we are ab initio training in hope to solo the
student in the subject glider then we need something robust, insurable for
student pilots, and economical for the typical club. Higher performance
rarely serves those needs - so there is a downside.

Roy B.