Personal bests and records climbing in Calif

Nyal Williams wrote in message ...
At 21:12 13 August 2004, Jack wrote:
Kirk Stant wrote:

Until every last one of those dreadful POSs are turned
into hubcaps,
we will remain firmly stuck in twirlybirdland.

Yo Mama!

Jack

Now, now!

You can have fun in a 12-meter sailboat, and you can
have fun on a raft. There is plenty of room for EVERYbody

What do you call a dozen busted 2-33's?

A good start.

Liam Finley wrote:


What do you call a dozen busted 2-33's?

A good start.

I'd call it a sad loss to the sport, as most of those gliders would not
be replaced at today's prices. Each one likely added several glider
pilots to our roles each year, and that won't happen if they are busted.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Nyal Williams wrote:
At 21:12 13 August 2004, Jack wrote:

Kirk Stant wrote:


Until every last one of those dreadful POSs are turned
into hubcaps,
we will remain firmly stuck in twirlybirdland.

Yo Mama!

Jack


Now, now!


You can have fun in a 12-meter sailboat, and you can
have fun on a raft. There is plenty of room for EVERYbody




As Long as you know it's a raft...

Personally - if it flies I'm game. Having learned to fly in a 1956 tube and
fabric, wooden wing vintage I am constantly pleasantly surprised by the other
types I fly. And equally happy to go up in the vintage (German) bird. Just know
what you are flying, and appreciate it for what it is.

Tried to get a flight in a 2-33 last time in the USA but some genius had just
decided to invade Iraq...

Bruce

On 8/14/04 8:31 AM, in article , "Eric
Greenwell" wrote:

Liam Finley wrote:


What do you call a dozen busted 2-33's?

A good start.

I'd call it a sad loss to the sport, as most of those gliders would not
be replaced at today's prices. Each one likely added several glider
pilots to our roles each year, and that won't happen if they are busted.

The 2-33 is a poor sailplane, but a great training glider. It fits its niche
perfectly, as a bulletproof trainer. It is a great introduction to the sport
for many people.

Lots of clubs couldn't exist if they had to use more expensive trainers.

Blaniks are also fine aircraft, but fragile in high volume training
operations. Witness the recent experience of the Air Force Academy: their
switch to Blaniks has just about shut down their operation. 90% of their
2-33 (TG-4A) flights landed on the grass; they broke so many Blanik's doing
that that now 90% of the Blanik flights are going to the paved runway. They
are requiring a through-flight inspection by a mechanic after every flight.
This really slows the training pace, reducing the number of cadets who can
soar at all, let alone solo (they're not saying "soar for all" anymore,
either).

Think about the milestones section of Soaring every month: how many proud
teenage first-solo's are standing in front of 2-33's? Answer: most of them.
Without the availability of an inexpensive trainer, they probably couldn't
afford to fly, and many of their clubs or commercial operations couldn't
stay in business.

You may have grown beyond the 2-33: most of us do after a while. But it fits
it's niche very well, and will likely continue to do so for many years.

Bullwinkle

(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message . com...

The check for your opinion is on it's way.

I wonder how high it will bounce...

Leon Bibb did a song called "Little Boxes", describes kraut plastic perfectly.

"Yes they all made out of ticky tacky
and they all look just the same."

Funny, with the exception of the 2-32, most Schweitzer 2 seaters (and
most of their early single-seaters) look like peas in a pod. And the
quality of the workmanship and engineering in them is pretty
agricultural. Strong, no doubt, but not very refined. If that
satisfies you, that's your problem.

Lennie, when you have 2000 hours in metal, fabric, wood, glass, and
carbon fiber gliders made in the US, Czechoslovakia, Romania,
Lithuania, Germany, or Poland, then you may have an opinion I might
consider listening to. Until then, try learning something for a
change. Like not being such a stupid racist, for a start.

Kirk

Bruce Greeff wrote in message ...

As Long as you know it's a raft...

Personally - if it flies I'm game. Having learned to fly in a 1956 tube and
fabric, wooden wing vintage I am constantly pleasantly surprised by the other
types I fly. And equally happy to go up in the vintage (German) bird. Just know
what you are flying, and appreciate it for what it is.

Tried to get a flight in a 2-33 last time in the USA but some genius had just
decided to invade Iraq...

Bruce


Personally, I also enjoy flying anything with wings -including 2-33s -
they all are interesting in their own way, even their faults are
interesting to discover and work around. My objection to the 2-33 is
that it is SO non-representative of the current state of the art in
soaring that it results in a lot of potential (read "rich enough to
afford the sport") glider pilots leaving the sport shortly after
getting their licence, in search of some sport that doesn't force you
to train and fly in a beat-up doggy glider. These are the poeple
riding $20k motorcycles, boats, etc. NO WAY is a guy (or gal) like
that going to put up with a 2-33!

And since no-one in their right mind (except for some friends of mine
who raced a couple of 2-33s XC yesterday - see the ASA forum for
details) would take a 2-33 XC, they result in the total de-emphasis of
XC glider flying at most US schools, and a lack of XC experience among
US CFIGs.

You want to fly an antique, go for it, and have a good time doing it.
But if you want to grow the sport, get a good, modern trainer. THATS
my beef with the 2-33. Oh, and the trim is dangerous, and the back
seat is uncomfortable and is almost impossible to get out of wearing a
chute, and...

Re Blaniks, funny that the Soviet Air Force had no trouble training
all their pilots using Blaniks for 30 odd years (or more?). I've got a
sneaky suspicion that the real problem at the Zoo was due to a
lingering 2-33 trainig mentality, not a problem with the Blanik, which
was actually designed as a military trainer for the entire Warsaw
Pact.

And since I'm a Zoomie, I can say that!

Well, enough tilting at windmills.

Kirk

In article ,
Bullwinkle wrote:

Blaniks are also fine aircraft, but fragile in high volume training
operations. Witness the recent experience of the Air Force Academy: their
switch to Blaniks has just about shut down their operation. 90% of their
2-33 (TG-4A) flights landed on the grass; they broke so many Blanik's doing
that that now 90% of the Blanik flights are going to the paved runway. They
are requiring a through-flight inspection by a mechanic after every flight.
This really slows the training pace, reducing the number of cadets who can
soar at all, let alone solo (they're not saying "soar for all" anymore,
either).

If they're breaking them that often, they're Doing Something Wrong. I
flew for five years with a club that did all two-seater work, including
ab-initio training, on L-23s, operating off both grass and asphalt. Yes,
I saw them get broken, but not often, and I can put my hand on my heart
and say I never saw a Blanik break where another glider wouldn't have
done. They're plenty tough enough for normal club training operations.

On 8/16/04 3:12 PM, in article
, "Andrew Watson"
wrote:

In article ,
Bullwinkle wrote:

Blaniks are also fine aircraft, but fragile in high volume training
operations. Witness the recent experience of the Air Force Academy: their
switch to Blaniks has just about shut down their operation. 90% of their
2-33 (TG-4A) flights landed on the grass; they broke so many Blanik's doing
that that now 90% of the Blanik flights are going to the paved runway. They
are requiring a through-flight inspection by a mechanic after every flight.
This really slows the training pace, reducing the number of cadets who can
soar at all, let alone solo (they're not saying "soar for all" anymore,
either).

If they're breaking them that often, they're Doing Something Wrong. I
flew for five years with a club that did all two-seater work, including
ab-initio training, on L-23s, operating off both grass and asphalt. Yes,
I saw them get broken, but not often, and I can put my hand on my heart
and say I never saw a Blanik break where another glider wouldn't have
done. They're plenty tough enough for normal club training operations.

There's much truth to both your and Kirk's comments. They are flying them
like 2-33's, and, of course, That's Something Wrong. They're doing better
now: they flattened the approach angle for the Blaniks, and they're not
bending as many. Previously, with the 2-33's, they taught a near-Space
Shuttle approach angle. Try that with an L-13 and you're really asking for
trouble at the roundout/flare.

And of course, the zero defect mentality (which extends throughout most of
the USAF these days) means that accidents don't just happen anymo
something breaks, and that means somebody's to blame, and that means
somebody's got to pay. Even if it's just a routine training accident. Oh,
and that's followed by a bunch of new rules and regs designed NOT to prevent
the accident from happening again, but rather to show their superiors that
the unit commander is Doing Something To Fix The Problem. (Looks great on
the OPR, especially if there aren't any more similar accidents before the CC
and DO leave, and might get the officer involved a DP. Because they Did
Something, and It Worked.)

Sorry: my cynicism is showing again.

I, too, have some inside knowledge of that program. By the way, they're
afraid to let anyone fly the 2 new Duo Discus's they bought.

You know, Tom Knauff is reported to have referred to the USAFA soar-for-all
program as "teaching Monkeys to fly." As in: if you make it simple enough,
and take judgment out of the equation making it just a hand-eye coordination
thing, you could teach a monkey to fly a glider.

It's worse than that. USAFA takes the very best Monkeys, and makes them into
IP's. Thus it is really Monkeys teaching Monkeys how to fly.

That's a gross oversimplification, and probably not fair to the many caring
and concerned folks trying hard at the 94th FTS, but there are some nuggets
of truth there.

But I still think the 2-33 has its place! Maybe not YOUR place, but plenty
of other places.

Best wishes, and let's agree to disagree.

(

Just remember, various critics of lowly gliders: If
all those horrible, cheap, clunky gliders disappeared,
YOUR glider would be at the bottom of the list of what's
good, and the rest of those pilots still flying would
be kicking dirt in YOUR face.

There is dignity in flying any kind of glider. If
you don't believe that, then you are attempting to
use gliding as a social weapon instead of sport or
recreation. Can you not endure the thought that lowly
pilots without your status are having as much fun as
you?

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message . com...

Personally, I also enjoy flying anything with wings -including 2-33s -
they all are interesting in their own way, even their faults are
interesting to discover and work around. My objection to the 2-33 is
that it is SO non-representative of the current state of the art in
soaring that it results in a lot of potential (read "rich enough to
afford the sport") glider pilots leaving the sport shortly after
getting their licence, in search of some sport that doesn't force you
to train and fly in a beat-up doggy glider. These are the poeple
riding $20k motorcycles, boats, etc. NO WAY is a guy (or gal) like
that going to put up with a 2-33!

And after they've jumped through all the hoops, all the hurdles, and
are free to buy and fly anything they wish, they drop? No way are
they going to stay with any hobby that requires any skill or
concentration. The glider didn't drive them away, they did what they
always will. Instant gratification is the name of the game today.
("Oh! You've gotta work to do this? See ya.")

And since no-one in their right mind (except for some friends of mine
who raced a couple of 2-33s XC yesterday - see the ASA forum for
details) would take a 2-33 XC, they result in the total de-emphasis of
XC glider flying at most US schools, and a lack of XC experience among
US CFIGs.

Why don't you see what else you can blame on the tool so you don't
have to look at the man? "'Tis a poor craftsman that blames his
tools." It was true when Ben said it, it's true today. The 2-33
didn't stop Judy from hammering "speed to fly" etc., from the first
time I got in until I finally told her I had no interest in it.
(Didn't stop her then either.)

the back
seat is uncomfortable

Maybe for you, but I found it comfortable. However, any of the
plastic I've sat in, with the exception of a Russia, were enough that
I don't want to spend any time in any of them. (Sat in it, not flew
in it, no piece of plastic is going to leave the ground with my ass
strapped in it.) TO be fair about it, I'm six feet tall and 155
pounds, which might explain why I'm not uncomfortable in a 2-33, front
or back. Two more inches of legroom would be appreciated, but that's
about all.

No, sorry. You can try to blame all the human failings on the 2-33,
but it isn't going to make them go away. Trying to build on a sense
of elitism isn't going to build anything but a reputation for
snobbery.