Sikorsky To Acquire Schweizer Aircraft

Stewart Kissel wrote:

Gee, what a bright comment....I assume you can list
all those superior ships you flew in the '50's, '60's,
and '70's...when Schweitzer kept the US training fleet
soaring.


Have a look at http://www.vintagesailplanes.de/Breguet.htm
(I didn't fly these glider, since I started only in 1995,
but Paul McCready won the worlds in 1956 on one of them
at St Yan).

Eric Greenwell wrote:

They do the job they were designed for admirably IMHO.

I agree, but the job requirements have changed in the 40 years since
they were designed. It is not a criticism of the Schwiezers to say their
40 year old design is no longer the best choice!

I'm pretty happy with the setup at our club. The 'el cheapo
2-33s get students to solo fast. Then the 1-26 adds some variety.
Then the L-13 Blanik shows them spins and some complexity
(since we can train gear and some flap procedures).

At that point they are ready for a checkride, and additionally,
they are ready for no-flap, retract, no ballast glass.
The Blanik gave them spins and tailwheel landings
and procedures, and the 1-26 gave them light controls and PIO,
and the 2-33s got them through the basics.

The benefit of 7 seats for same capital investment and maint
cost as a Grob 103 cannot be overlooked. The extra 5 seats
come in handy on those boomer days when everyone is there
and rides are going.

The flipside is the need for yet another glider, a post-license
glass solo with better L/D than the Blanik, a trailer, and
simple disassembly.

So we had a PW-5 for a while. This was a great transition
ship, and really bridged a gap between 1-26/L-13 and
Something like a PIK or HP.

Some other folks bought Russias, 1-34, etc. and seem to think
the L-13/1-26/2-33 combo was good prep.

In any case, I really like the low cost, high value variety
I have found in the myriad of lower performing gliders.
I've really enjoyed having the 2-33 to get students to solo
very fast, but yes, I agree it is an incomplete transition
ship. But at the low price, it is easy to have a variety of
other tools, and so this hasn't been a limitation for me.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

In article , wrote:
Damned right. I want to drive the price down low enough that I can
make a profit selling them to aluminum recycling plants.

As soon as they learn how to recycle epoxy and fiberglass the PWs will
go too.

ROFLMAO.

c'mon Liam. Why are you holding back? Don't be shy.
Tell us how you REALLY feel.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Partially true,but it's part of the game and rigging/de-reigging is part of
the game. You can say the same thing about most of the 2 seaters currently
used for training, that is, they dicourage landing anywhere they can't be
towed out of because they are such a pain to take apart and put together.

Obviously you have never seen my wee wife and I rig and derig our PW-6U
-- alone -- in 20 minutes. In fact we use our trailer as a hangar and
so assemble each flying day -- no big Deal!!

"Charles Yeates" wrote in message
...

Partially true,but it's part of the game and rigging/de-reigging is part
of
the game. You can say the same thing about most of the 2 seaters
currently
used for training, that is, they dicourage landing anywhere they can't
be
towed out of because they are such a pain to take apart and put
together.

Obviously you have never seen my wee wife and I rig and derig our PW-6U
-- alone -- in 20 minutes. In fact we use our trailer as a hangar and
so assemble each flying day -- no big Deal!!


I can confirm that. I've watched Charlie rig and de-rig the PW-6 and it
looks as easy as any 15 meter single seater. It would make a great 2-seat
XC trainer.

Bill Daniels

The best arguments for the 2-33 are its ruggedness,
low price, and quick time to solo. It most likely
holds people back who don't move on to something else
right away. That is not a problem if the club/fbo
has the proper gliders to move on to quickly.

We must now pose the question 'Can a club or FBO afford
such a fleet?' That depends on a lot of variables,
but it is certainly imaginable. Nowadays, the 2-33
serves somewhat the same function as a flight simulator;
it can be the basis of some cheap/quick initial learning.


There are some people who don't really aspire to X/C
flying or who can't afford either the time or the money
to do anything else than an occasional flight - perhaps
once a month for the season. These particular people
are not held back by the
2-33; instead of limiting them, it gives them a limited
opportunity they might not have otherwise. Don't forget
that the infrequent flyer will probably be safer in
the 2-33 than in something slicker.




At 22:18 27 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
Robertmudd1u wrote:

Do you feel the 2-33 has caused your progress in soaring
to be less than it
would have been if you had learned in something else,...

As a CFIG for over 30 years and with time in almost
every model of trainer
produced in that time span, I have to answer 'yes'
to this question. The 2-33s
not only retards the individual progress but also the
progress of the sport in
general.

In my case, not so. If it weren't for the 2 x 2-33s
and the 1-26,
my club wouldn't have had money to buy 5 seats in other
gliders.

Without the five seats, and the business they give
him, the
tow pilot would have moved away a long time ago to
a golfing
resort.

And then, no tows for the rest of the glass ships...

More tows always = better. I seldom fly the 2-33 (I
prefer
the Blanik because I don't generally do primary
training). But I'm very happy those 5 seats fly all
the time
because it keeps our tuggie happy, and therefore our
tow rates down.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

In article ,
Charles Yeates wrote:

Partially true,but it's part of the game and rigging/de-reigging is part of
the game. You can say the same thing about most of the 2 seaters currently
used for training, that is, they dicourage landing anywhere they can't be
towed out of because they are such a pain to take apart and put together.

Obviously you have never seen my wee wife and I rig and derig our PW-6U
-- alone -- in 20 minutes. In fact we use our trailer as a hangar and
so assemble each flying day -- no big Deal!!

The DG1000 here lives in its trailer also. I find the wings a tad heavy
for two people (and I've only been on the tip end so far) but it seems
to go together easily enough.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

"Gary Boggs" wrote
It's hard to beat the 1-26 for a fun day on the ridge. If you haven't flown
one for a while, you should go rent one. They are an absolute blast to fly.
It's the most maneuverable ship I've ever flown.

I used to love the 1-26 when I first flew it, but then I flew a Ka-8.
Just as docile, just as old, just as cheap to buy - and a better
flying ship in every way.

Michael

Pete Reinhart wrote:

"So what" is big problem. A hard to derig and retrieve glider really
discourages a student from even contemplating cross-country unless he
can be sure of landing at airports for an aero retrieve, and the low
performance means it is impractical to stay within reach of airports.
Practically speaking, it means most students won't take a 2-33 away from
the home airport.


Partially true,but it's part of the game and rigging/de-reigging is part of
the game.

It's not partially true, it's entirely true. If the "game" is a huge
pain in the butt, people won't play it.

You can say the same thing about most of the 2seaters currently
used for training, that is, they dicourage landing anywhere they can't be
towed out of because they are such a pain to take apart and put together.

I have said the same thing about other 2 seaters, including the Blanik
our club had, BUT if the glider has enough performance to easily stay
within range of airports as it goes cross-country, then pilots are more
willing to fly it cross-country. This is far harder to do in most places
if you are flying a 2-33; even a Blanik makes it noticeably easier.

This "concept" applies well beyond students in low/medium performance
gliders: many (probably most nowadays) pilots fly their high performance
ships so they can land at an airport if they can't stay up, so they can
get an aero retrieve instead of a ground retrieve. Pilots of big Open
class gliders especially hate to land in a field, because they are such
beasts to pack out. What you fly very much affects how you fly.

I don't have anything to sell and I don't have the opinion that only a
European glider is worthy of my effort to fly it, but I still echo
Robert's comments. Please stick with responding to what a person says
instead of disparaging motives you can only speculate about.

--I was entirely responding to what he said and I disagree with the tone

of his comments; it is also my privilege to speculate on whatever I care to.

Privilege or not, it still detracts from the discussion to make
unfounded, gratuitous comments about other pilots. In this particular
case, it seemed especially egregious, given Robert's substantial
contributions to bringing the Genesis to the market. Perhaps you recall
the Genesis was not a European design?


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:

If you were a truly excellent instructor, you would realize how much the
trainer affects what you can teach.

So then, what do you excellent instructors prefer as a type for initial training, or
what would you want to see a new pilot get into immediately after his time in the 2-33?


Jack