A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Future Club Training Gliders



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old November 11th 10, 10:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Alan[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Future Club Training Gliders

In article Darryl Ramm writes:

Why would you cap a DG-1000 at a 3,000 hour life? There are already
published 3000, 6000, 9000 (and every 1000 hours) inspections for the
DG-1000. There are many high time ASK-21 around well beyond 3,000
hours. Many well used and patched up but still bright and shiny and
modern looking.


My bad. I was way too asleep when I wrote that.

I found later that the service life of the ask-21 is 18,000 hours,
apparently with similar inspections, where the DG claims 12,000 per
another poster. In either case, the cost for that does go way down.


OTOH the price quoted did was too low. No trailer, instruments, other
options, etc. and I'm not sure a linear depreciation is the right
model.



Indeed, all true. I had forgotten about trailer/instruments/etc.,
stupidly assuming they were included. Linear depreciation is most
likely wrong, too, though lots of cost/hour operation calculations
seem to use i.

I should have included insurance costs and other costs that are
calculated into operating cost. For aircraft used for clubs and
training, I would expect this to be a big item, and the order of
magnitude higher price of the glider would have a large effect on
the price of the annual insurance bill.


But, I blew it big on the 3000 hours.

Alan
  #242  
Old November 18th 10, 04:59 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tony V
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Future Club Training Gliders


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.



Low hanging fruit? Perhaps not. I knew a fellow a fellow software
engineer (owned an Aztec), that was about to ditch a 6 figure software
career to fly commuters for peanuts because he "just loved to fly" (his
words). When i mentioned soaring to him, he just shook his head. It
either rings your chimes or it doesn't - and flying one thing does not
automatically translate into wanting to fly something else.

Hang gliding is a lot more accessible now since there is a lot more aero
towing. The funny thing is that when I mention hang gliding to sail
plane pilots, they shake their heads the same way.

Tony
  #243  
Old November 24th 10, 01:18 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Johan Nykvist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Future Club Training Gliders

At 15:47 14 September 2010, 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 .

John


First of all..most important is to have a training glider at the club
whatever it is..well you know..no training no new pilots in the club..

Although, alot of of the older wood/metal/fabric gliders are a treat
to fly and thermal. But more mordern trainers prepares new pilots better
for the newer breed of gliders.

What to buy??

Defenetly depends on how much money one got to spend..That also
mostly depends on how much it will fly per year..

Small club..maby just have little money to spend/ flyes it 100 hrs a
year?
Big club have more money obviusly..they maby can fly it 3-4 times as much
as the small club..

In my oppinion, Duo, DG 500, DG1000 (a beast to ground handle) ect
are not primary trainers. Not rugged enough..

1 If you have/want to spend alot. ASK 21, best trainer in total..of
imortance is that its still in production, and have great quality in build
and manufacturer support! But its expencive..even used.
60.000 Euro for a old with maby 6-8000 hrs on it...But its also a
indicator of popularity and quality. Also, it will hold its walue over
time. Wich probably makes it the cheapest over time. But, again you have
to have the money... If money is not much of an object..Buy a new
ASK-21mi!!

2. If you cant reach a ASK 21, Twin Astirs are alot of bang for the buck.
Yes, handeling is a bit of a tank compared to a ASK 21.
But it glides far better... It is rugged enough for traing. Ofcoarse
Twin 2 and 3 are better, its a development.. You can buy one for about
20-30.000 euros. Grob is after reconstruction still giving
support with bulletins ect. Spareparts sales are outsorced to Lidner
(german glider workshop) So, Twins are good value trainers.

3. Polish glass trainers flyes good, but are of less build quality than
the above, support/spareparts is what I know, unsure..
But also rugged construction.

4. Again, most important is that you have a glider to safely train
new pilots and clubmembers...No trainer, no new members..
Performance is fun, but in the end, flying is fun, whatever u
can fly in!!!

5 Nothing lasts forever..not even gliders (but they do survive longtime)
When too old, its time to replace them with something newer..But risking a
clubs economy to buy something beyond
limits is just stupid..Its better to have the club alive, then not
having a club at all...

6 To keep the the new pilot active, he/she needs something
fun to fly after he got the licence too..so one maby shouldnt spend
all the funds on a trainer..a glider with resonable performance
for XC ect.. Some clubs (including my club) have been so focused
primary training that they forgets about the next steps in the gliding
career..So many basic trained pilots quits way to early..
That is a bad example of wrongly distrubuted enery and assets.


We changed ouer 2 Bergfalkes for Twins 15 years ago, and never
looked back. If we could afford it, we would buy ASK 21. But Twins have
worked great. No major issues at all, due to construction ect. Repaires
yes, if you damage a wing, it needs
repairs..regardless of manufacturer ect.. Thousends of landings with new
pilots. Some better than others..some really hard..never
a damaged undercarrige. It has done good job as trainer. Its also used
for xc traing. All in all, its a good club glider.

Now, as most clubs, we dont have the same amount of new members that want
to learn to fly. So, we want (if we can find the funds) to sell 1 twin,
instead buy a Duo. Its a good 2 seater
for the more "advanced" training, XC ect. But still a very good
glider for the members who are more experienced..And yes, hotter ship for
trial flights and "gift certificate flights".. Better promotor glider
than the now well used Twins...



  #244  
Old November 24th 10, 10:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 961
Default Future Club Training Gliders

On Nov 24, 1:18*pm, Johan Nykvist wrote:
In my oppinion, Duo, DG 500, DG1000 (a beast to ground handle) ect
are not primary trainers. Not rugged enough..


What do you base this on?

We just moved from Twin Astirs to DG1000s. I can't see any way in
which a fixed gear DG1000 Club is more of a beast to ground handle
than a Twin Astir! In particular, lifting the tail to put the dolly on
is considerably lighter.

That this is so should be fairly obvious from the fact that a properly
ballasted DG1000 Club is very nearly balanced on the main wheel and
may sit on either the nose wheel or the tail wheel.

Lacking nose wheels, and not wanting the nose to come into contact
with the ground either at rest or when using the wheel brake, the main
wheel on the Twin Astir is considerably further forward than it is on
a 3-wheel undercarriage glider such as the ASK-21, Twin II/III, or
DG1000 Club. The same is also true of the non-Club version of the
DG1000 -- the retractable wheel is very far forward and there is a lot
of weight on the tail.

Perhaps you are not distinguishing between the (cheaper) Club and
standard versions of the DG1000?

Here's what I'm talking about:

http://is.gd/hGLKd

I'm also not sure where you get the "Not rugged enough" opinion. They
seem to be very well built.
  #245  
Old November 24th 10, 08:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tim Mara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default Blanik L-13 Future Club Training Gliders

I'm told the Blanik L-13's are flying in the Czech republic now as long as
they have a properly documented history
anyone heard anything new on the status in the USA?
tim



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5646 (20101124) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com




  #246  
Old November 24th 10, 09:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike Schumann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 539
Default Future Club Training Gliders

On 11/17/2010 9:59 PM, Tony V wrote:

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.



Low hanging fruit? Perhaps not. I knew a fellow a fellow software
engineer (owned an Aztec), that was about to ditch a 6 figure software
career to fly commuters for peanuts because he "just loved to fly" (his
words). When i mentioned soaring to him, he just shook his head. It
either rings your chimes or it doesn't - and flying one thing does not
automatically translate into wanting to fly something else.

Hang gliding is a lot more accessible now since there is a lot more aero
towing. The funny thing is that when I mention hang gliding to sail
plane pilots, they shake their heads the same way.

Tony


Did this guy ever take a glider ride?

--
Mike Schumann
  #247  
Old November 24th 10, 10:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Johan Nykvist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Future Club Training Gliders

At 09:10 24 November 2010, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Nov 24, 1:18=A0pm, Johan Nykvist wrote:
In my oppinion, Duo, DG 500, DG1000 (a beast to ground handle) ect
are not primary trainers. Not rugged enough..


What do you base this on?

We just moved from Twin Astirs to DG1000s. I can't see any way in
which a fixed gear DG1000 Club is more of a beast to ground handle
than a Twin Astir! In particular, lifting the tail to put the dolly on
is considerably lighter.

That this is so should be fairly obvious from the fact that a properly
ballasted DG1000 Club is very nearly balanced on the main wheel and
may sit on either the nose wheel or the tail wheel.

Lacking nose wheels, and not wanting the nose to come into contact
with the ground either at rest or when using the wheel brake, the main
wheel on the Twin Astir is considerably further forward than it is on
a 3-wheel undercarriage glider such as the ASK-21, Twin II/III, or
DG1000 Club. The same is also true of the non-Club version of the
DG1000 -- the retractable wheel is very far forward and there is a lot
of weight on the tail.

Perhaps you are not distinguishing between the (cheaper) Club and
standard versions of the DG1000?

Here's what I'm talking about:

http://is.gd/hGLKd

I'm also not sure where you get the "Not rugged enough" opinion. They
seem to be very well built.


Oh, Im sorry!
I didnt think of the club version. My experience is from
DG1000T. Its retractble landingear is hard work to operate. Also im not
sure its rugged enough for longterm abuse from learners
somtimes hard landings...well, some experineced pilots too! =)
Not to mention the electrical gear..

Personally I think all of them is great gliders. But maby not for basic
training. I ofcoarse can be wrong. My main point is they might be a to
tricky to for beginners (to hard learning curve) to
maintain correct airspeed at landings ect. Due to the higher performance,
its accelerates very quickly when lowering the attitude.

Is my personal oppinion. Sorry for not being clear enogh.

The perfect world, I think, would be ASK 21 for basic training and
a DuoT, DG1000T or ArcusT for the more advanced training.

Nice ship on the link!! =)





  #248  
Old November 25th 10, 12:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default Future Club Training Gliders

Johan Nykvist wrote:
Personally I think all of them is great gliders. But maby not for basic
training. I of coarse can be wrong.


You are. Our club regularly uses the DG1000 for primary training.
Retractable gear and 20 meters, no problem whatsoever. And rugged it is.
The only weak point is the less than optimal view from the rear seat.

Critics may mention the high cockpit which is hard to enter and the
heavy tail. Well, the technique to enter the cockpit can be learned. And
the heavy tail can easily be lifted if one of the pilots or whoever sits
on the gliders nose. At least we are very happy with it.
  #249  
Old November 25th 10, 02:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Chuck Coyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Future Club Training Gliders

At 20:36 24 November 2010, Mike Schumann wrote:
On 11/17/2010 9:59 PM, Tony V wrote:

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?

From the January 2010 issue to the December 2010 issue of
Soaring Magazine, we published in the Milestones section the
notices of about 20 power pilots who had added the glider rating.
It's pretty doubtful that 100% of the add-on rating recipients send
the photos and info to the magazine. (A few of the ratings in the
January, February issues may have been from 2009). FWIW
Chuck Coyne

  #250  
Old November 28th 10, 04:51 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tony V
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Future Club Training Gliders


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.



Low hanging fruit? Perhaps not. I knew a fellow a fellow software
engineer (owned an Aztec), that was about to ditch a 6 figure software
career to fly commuters for peanuts because he "just loved to fly" (his
words). When i mentioned soaring to him, he just shook his head. It
either rings your chimes or it doesn't - and flying one thing does not
automatically translate into wanting to fly something else.
Tony


Did this guy ever take a glider ride?



Not that I know of. He showed no interest at all.

Tony
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Club Class Gliders Sam Giltner[_1_] Soaring 4 December 3rd 08 04:28 AM
Basic Training Gliders Derek Copeland Soaring 35 December 26th 05 03:19 PM
Basic Training Gliders Justin Craig Soaring 0 December 6th 05 11:07 PM
Basic Training Gliders Justin Craig Soaring 0 December 6th 05 11:07 PM
Soaring club close to NYC, with high-performance gliders City Dweller Soaring 9 September 29th 05 11:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.