Future Club Training Gliders

Now I'm sure there will be some folks out there that we'll hear from
here that are doing instruction in an ASK-21Mi or similar today, I
could see it might sense more for very small clubs with memberships
with high equity ownership and high amounts of supervision, especially
if members want to move up to other motorgliders but in general I
think a bad idea.

Darryl

Things may have changed, but there was once a group in Washington
state that was looking to form a club around a G-103 III SL. At that
time, SSA Plan would not insure for first solo in a self-launcher.
Could be related only to retracts.

FWIW, we did 20 winch launches yesterday. 75F and severe clear with
unlimited viz as we could see Pikes Peak from Owl Canyon glider port,
138 miles as the crow flies.

Frank Whiteley

On 11/7/2010 2:03 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
On 11/7/2010 2:15 PM, bildan wrote:

If you look at a Motorglider like the Phoenix, you can also keep it in
a regular T-Hanger at your local urban airport. Now you don't have to
drive 45 miles to get to a glider port. That's another huge plus for
both established glider pilots as well as new prospects.

I'm skeptical that this kind of aircraft, as lovely as it is, would
appeal to glider pilots. It seems like too much airplane and not enough
glider, both in performance and the "feel" of it when you are sitting
inside it. And I wonder how well it would work for training, since it is
so different from the other common trainers, and so very different from
the single seat gliders we'd expect the student to move into. Has anyone
used a Phoenix or similar as Mike suggests?

Perhaps the Taurus would be better choice for *glider* pilots. It's wing
is 15 meters, but the panels are light enough, they could be removed and
stored beside the fuselage in stands in a hangar, taking less space than
the Phoenix. I think the two-wheel main gear would make this practical,
but don't know anyone that does this.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Nov 7, 2:02*pm, Berry wrote:
How are the Scheibe touring motorgliders as basic trainers (not the ones
with the smaller engines)? Back around 2000, when the dollar was counted
as real money, I seriously considered buying an SF-25 out of Europe.
They were many being sold dirt cheap. Of course, they pretty much all
needed recovering and/or engine rebuilds.

Why would you want to do this? Besides dirt cheap....

They are an old design, and probalby do not look modern top many
people so does not address that concern/issue.

Who mantains the glider? The engine? The prop? And where are they
located?

The fuselage is tubular steel and some wood and fiberglass
construction right? (I'm not sure about the wings), for a training
glider that is going to be bumped around I'd much take a solid
composite glider with well know/USA avaialable repairability like the
ASK-21.

Have we learn about risks with older gliders like the L-13 yet?

Do you really want to put high hours on the engine. What is the cost/
supply of new/replacement engines?

For the tail dagger models expect to be pulling it out of the weeds
next to the runway when students have problems. And maybe paying high $
$$ engine/prop repairs not just fixing fiberglass skuffs. I know some
have tricycle U/C, I'm not sure what the typical configuration is.

I'd argue at ~22:1 (p to 25:1?) it may be a lot of things, but not a
(modern) glider. Transition to high performance glass may be as much
as issue as from older conventional gliders. Going XC is going to be
problematic and less likely to be instantly addictive in the way it
can in a Duo Discuss class two seater.

I'd hate to see people trying to teach XC soaring in 22-25:1
motorglider. The risk is the engine will be being restarted all the
time. The last thing I think new XC pilots ought to see.

Is it type certificated ? Some are I think, but I am not sure which
ones.

Again, if you want one for your own use knock yourself out. It could
be a fun and affordable tourer for the right owner. But as a basic
trainer, yuk...

Darryl

On Nov 7, 2:03*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 11/7/2010 2:15 PM, bildan wrote:



On Nov 7, 10:42 am, John
wrote:
On Nov 7, 10:13 am, *wrote:

Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
seem valid to me, but that's just me.
This discussion should be about the thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, who didn't become glider pilots because they were put off
by unattractive gliders, trashy operations etc...

Yesterday I gave 6 young people their first rides in an ASK-21 - they
all wanted more. *However, at lunch break, I couldn't help noticing
the picnic table was 6 feet from an overflowing garbage can. *We can
do better.

There is a tendency around soaring to mistake what we want, and what
we think people should want, with what they actually do want.
The world has changed. People have more money, less time, and higher
expectations. And many more choices. We can tell them they should want
something different, but they vote with their feet.

The real question should be, what about self launch. My ideal trainer
is the ASK21 with motor. It's much more economical on time, the thing
we are all short of. Alas our airport is too short.

John Cochrane

Agreed, John.

Aero tow corresponds to skiing's rope tow - it's slow and requires
skill. *Self launch corresponds to helicopter skiing - fast, exclusive
and expensive. *For those of us with less money, more time and room,
there's winch launch which might be said as corresponding to a chair
lift.

To this I would add instructor supervised simulator training. *This is
a proven adjunct to pilot training which can be done anywhere, anytime
with no weather or equipment restrictions. *With the loss of 50% of
our training fleet due to the L-13 grounding, I'd think this would be
an attractive option for a lot of people. *With a data projector
(beamer) it lends itself to classroom sessions with a number of
student pilots in attendance. * The use of simulators can
significantly reduce the demands on scarce training gliders.

Bill Daniels

If you look at a Motorglider like the Phoenix, you can also keep it in a
regular T-Hanger at your local urban airport. *Now you don't have to
drive 45 miles to get to a glider port. *That's another huge plus for
both established glider pilots as well as new prospects.

--
Mike Schumann

Are you talking abut the Phoenix as a potential private owner or for
instruction? (which was the context here?).

Its a tail-dragger tourer. I'm not sure about the insurance issues
there, while possible (but expensive?) I've seen issues with owners of
their own type-certificated power tail daggers getting insurance for
receiving instruction in their own aircraft even when coupled with
high time tail-dragger instructors.

When will it be type certificated in the USA? As an LSA you are able
to do exactly what instruction today...?

You can keep training gliders like a Duo Discus in its box and rig it
daily if needed. I know operation that do that. And I know lots of
folks, including me, that rig without problems at public airports. So
while I'm not disagreeing on the potential for storage in a hangar as
begin a convenience for an owner I'm just not sure it removes a
significant barrier to providing glider training in new places. The
ability to more easily taxi a touring motor-glider especial around
runway and taxiway lights etc. might be a more significant advantage
for operating out of GA airports. Hard to guess a general statement
there.

Darryl

On Nov 7, 3:29*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
Now I'm sure there will be some folks out there that we'll hear from
here that are doing instruction in an ASK-21Mi or similar today, I
could see it might sense more for very small clubs with memberships
with high equity ownership and high amounts of supervision, especially
if members want to move up to other motorgliders but in general I
think a bad idea.

Darryl

Things may have changed, but there was once a group in Washington
state that was looking to form a club around a G-103 III SL. *At that
time, SSA Plan would not insure for first solo in a self-launcher.
Could be related only to retracts.

FWIW, we did 20 winch launches yesterday. *75F and severe clear with
unlimited viz as we could see Pikes Peak from Owl Canyon glider port,
138 miles as the crow flies.

Frank Whiteley

An owner of a G-103 Twin III SL in Boulder gave up due to the
extremely poor climb performance and sold the glider to a group
operating at sea level.

As attractive as the idea is, AFAIK, no suitable training motorglider
exists with the ruggedness and low cost maintainability required.

On Nov 7, 2:36*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:


Why don't you fly the Blaniks in the Winter?


Snowbanks, especially on the taxiway and around the tie downs. The
2-33 wing goes over them, and the 1-26 fits in between them.

-s-

On Nov 7, 8:32*am, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:

Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
seem valid to me, but that's just me.
I don't care to argue about it. Nobody is wrong. *If you can afford to
buy a nice lookin' glider for your club, then buy it for them.

I think that it is certainly true that there are some number of people
that would start and continue soaring even with the most outdated
equipment, but there would be more people if the equipment and
operation were more modern and more exciting.

The question is how large is the difference, and would it pay for the
additional cost.

Todd Smith
3S

On 11/7/2010 4:43 PM, Scott Lamont wrote:
On Nov 7, 2:36 pm, Eric wrote:


Why don't you fly the Blaniks in the Winter?


Snowbanks, especially on the taxiway and around the tie downs. The
2-33 wing goes over them, and the 1-26 fits in between them.


SNOW? I'd probably retire for the winter with the Blaniks :-)

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

On 11/7/2010 6:08 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Nov 7, 2:03 pm, Mike
wrote:
On 11/7/2010 2:15 PM, bildan wrote:



On Nov 7, 10:42 am, John
wrote:
On Nov 7, 10:13 am, wrote:

Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
seem valid to me, but that's just me.
This discussion should be about the thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, who didn't become glider pilots because they were put off
by unattractive gliders, trashy operations etc...

Yesterday I gave 6 young people their first rides in an ASK-21 - they
all wanted more. However, at lunch break, I couldn't help noticing
the picnic table was 6 feet from an overflowing garbage can. We can
do better.

There is a tendency around soaring to mistake what we want, and what
we think people should want, with what they actually do want.
The world has changed. People have more money, less time, and higher
expectations. And many more choices. We can tell them they should want
something different, but they vote with their feet.

The real question should be, what about self launch. My ideal trainer
is the ASK21 with motor. It's much more economical on time, the thing
we are all short of. Alas our airport is too short.

John Cochrane

Agreed, John.

Aero tow corresponds to skiing's rope tow - it's slow and requires
skill. Self launch corresponds to helicopter skiing - fast, exclusive
and expensive. For those of us with less money, more time and room,
there's winch launch which might be said as corresponding to a chair
lift.

To this I would add instructor supervised simulator training. This is
a proven adjunct to pilot training which can be done anywhere, anytime
with no weather or equipment restrictions. With the loss of 50% of
our training fleet due to the L-13 grounding, I'd think this would be
an attractive option for a lot of people. With a data projector
(beamer) it lends itself to classroom sessions with a number of
student pilots in attendance. The use of simulators can
significantly reduce the demands on scarce training gliders.

Bill Daniels

If you look at a Motorglider like the Phoenix, you can also keep it in a
regular T-Hanger at your local urban airport. Now you don't have to
drive 45 miles to get to a glider port. That's another huge plus for
both established glider pilots as well as new prospects.

--
Mike Schumann

Are you talking abut the Phoenix as a potential private owner or for
instruction? (which was the context here?).

Its a tail-dragger tourer. I'm not sure about the insurance issues
there, while possible (but expensive?) I've seen issues with owners of
their own type-certificated power tail daggers getting insurance for
receiving instruction in their own aircraft even when coupled with
high time tail-dragger instructors.

When will it be type certificated in the USA? As an LSA you are able
to do exactly what instruction today...?

You can keep training gliders like a Duo Discus in its box and rig it
daily if needed. I know operation that do that. And I know lots of
folks, including me, that rig without problems at public airports. So
while I'm not disagreeing on the potential for storage in a hangar as
begin a convenience for an owner I'm just not sure it removes a
significant barrier to providing glider training in new places. The
ability to more easily taxi a touring motor-glider especial around
runway and taxiway lights etc. might be a more significant advantage
for operating out of GA airports. Hard to guess a general statement
there.

Darryl

I visited the Phoenix factory about a month or so ago in the Czech
Republic. A tricycle gear version of the Phoenix is a distinct
possibility if there is demand for it.

The Phoenix Motorglider is, or will be, LSA certified in the US. I'm
not an expert on the LSA rules, but my understanding is that flying an
LSA plane gives you the ability to get a Sport License, with less effort
than a regular license. However, I don't believe that there is any
reason that you can't get a regular glider license in an LSA certified
motorglider (or glider), if you are getting instruction from a regular
CFIG, meeting the normal requirements, including the regular written
test and FAA check ride.

Similarly, I believe that it is also possible to get a regular SEL
pilot's license in a regular LSA plane, like the Flight Design CT, or
the Cessna Skycatcher.

With the engine off, the Phoenix has an L/D of about 30:1. That's not
that different from a lot of older 2 seat training gliders. Granted,
the actual flight training will involve a lot of stuff that is more
similar to power flight than gliders (you won't learn aero-tow
procedures). For a lot of prospects, who aren't already pilots, that
may actually be perceived as a plus.

Conversely, with this kind of a motorglider, a student might actually
get a lot more cross-country training than what is currently provided by
many clubs, who discourage or prohibit the use of conventional club
gliders for cross country flights, due to a lack of trailers, and/or
concerns about logistical hassles with land-outs.

--
Mike Schumann

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