Future Club Training Gliders

On Sep 15, 8:28*pm, Westbender wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:49*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:



On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:

My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
learning to fly in th 2-33.

UH -

1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
other expensive glass ships in this thread.

2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
attractive to younger members! *Either you have great instruction, or
a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
those lines. *They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
2-33, and decide it was a good idea.

I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
continue to fly with the club.

--Noel

Is it really that hard to believe the 2-33 didn't scare everyone away?
Come one, why don't we stop this silly nonsense about how the 2-33 is
the reason why soaring isn't growing. For goodness sakes. Then there's
the "have to be retrained" boloney after learning to fly in a 2-33. It
serves the purpose it was designed to do very well. Basic training.

I don't recall a single prospective member of our club that came
calling because they saw a "cool looking ship" at the field, or backed
away after seeing the 2-33. All of our students are always clamoring
for instruction time in our trainers. They could care less about the
glass ships that are rigging/derigging/departing/arriving when
training flights are operating. They're not stupid. They all know the
2-33 is not the end of the line. It's only the beginning. If you'd
take the time to talk to new students or even prospective ones,
they'll tell you what their expectations and their intentions are. I
garantee you they understand the concept of basic training and
progression.

By the way, our club has a "stepping-stone" approach to better
performing ships, but we can only afford so much. 2 2-33s, 1 2-22, 2
1-26s, 1 1-34, 1 L23. Not all of our ships are on the flightline due
to instructor shortages (that's another discussion). Our students are
always eyeing the single-place ships and a couple of them already
purchased their own ships. Although they're keeping them in the barn
until they're ready to fly them. That's because they're intelligent
people and not lured around by a carrot dangling on a stick.

If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then
it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and
nothing more.

I wonder how many students are more likely to follow through and
become a licensed pilot or even an owner? One attracted by something
shiny? Or one that is driven by the desire to fly?

Unfortunately, I have seen the crestfallen look on prospective glider
pilots when they first looked at a 2-33 - many, many times. After
retirement, I worked at a commercial glider operation for a couple of
years. They used 2-33's and (tried to) fly 7 days a week.

A club down the field has a sleek fleet glass gliders. After a few
flights in our 2-33's, we'd see our customer training in a club DG or
Grob. I'd say we lost 50% of our students to the club. Speaking with
them, they'd say the 2-33 just wasn't what they were looking for in
the sport - or something much less kind.

The owner of the commercial school could only talk about how cheap the
2-33's were - as they sat unused.

One trainer that did not get a lot of focus was the Blanik L23. My
apologies if I missed those comments, but there has been 70 posting and I
might have missed it.

Will the L23 follow the same fate as the L13?

If so, is the reason because the design of the spar for the L23 is the
same as the L13? Or are there other reasons?

Andrew

Even if all the Blaniks were put back in the air tomorrow, and everyone
was in love with 2-33's, the fact is, they are all OLD metal ships that
are wearing out. The current Blanik troubles are not going to be the end
of it. We are going to need something to replace the 2-33's and Blaniks.
Whatever the replacements are, they better have big cockpits...

Speaking of cockpit size: How roomy are the SF-25's? Seems like there
are a lot of those, they can self launch, and they are still in
production.

On 9/15/2010 3:42 PM, Tim Mara wrote:
I honestly think everyone is jumping to conclusions far too early....the AD
on Blanik's will reach a satisfactory conclusion all soon enough .there are
just too many of these world wide in continuous use and for all practical
purposes the AD's on these gliders have been few and far between..they are
still among the best club training gliders available by far..and they are
affordable...

You have a vested interest in this line of thinking and are just trying
to be optimistic and positive. You are unpacking a shipping container,
with a a "new" used L-13 in it, this morning. G

On Sep 15, 8:13*am, Kevin Christner wrote:
I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
Schweizer trained and everyone else.


I trained in the 2-33 as a teenager and now fly an ASH-26E, after
three seasons, haven't crashed it.It seems to me that every aircraft
flies differently a good pilot will be able to deal with these
differences. My parents didn't have much money. Working at McDonald's
during high school, the 2-33 was affordable.

The Nimbus 3 is not a great handling aircraft but you don't hear
people calling for them to be melted down.

Many of us that have good jobs have forgotten what it was like to
struggle to pay rent and put food on the table.

I've been spending a lot of money on L13 parts to restore a glider to
teach some kids in our neighborhood to soar. Sadly, that project has
come to an end. Their parents are low paid federal workers and the
blanik would have been an affordable trainer for their kids.

Jim D

On Sep 15, 12:26*am, JS wrote:
The one redeeming quality of the 2-33 "Dragmaster" is that it laughs
at anything roughly resembling a landing.
Peregrine Sailplane got a government contract a few years ago and
forgot about the glider project, including KR-03A support (ie 3000 hr
life extension).
The PW-6 has been around for a while. Perhaps it is a decent trainer?
Ka13 is a lovely glider to fly, but getting old.
IS28b2 goes nicely but has its share of problems. Never had a go in
the IS32.
Bocian? Capstan? Ka-2? At least they fly better than a 2-33.
Too bad Glasflugel never made a two seater. How about converting 604s?
Twin Astir is a bit of a truck to fly, but seems to take some abuse.
Grob twin 2 is not bad, but I've seen a couple with the fuselage
broken around the landing gear and more with square tail and nose
wheels.
Grob twin 3 handles nicer than the 2, know little of it's use as a
basic trainer.
The Puchacz is nice to fly, but some people just don't like it.
Scheibe SF34 is a nice flyer, easy ground handling, great visibility
front and rear. If the new Scheibe Aircraft puts it back into
production the 34 could be a winner.
DG500 isn't bad, not sure about maintenance. DG1000 is better if you
get the electric landing gear mod and keep the battery charged.
The Duo really is wonderful, especially the X (haven't flown XL) but
not cheap. You cannot intentionally spin the original Duos. Great
support.
AS-H25 and Nimbus 4D are both very nice for XC training, but not for
low time pilots.
AS-K21 gets my vote for this job. Comfortable, sturdy, reasonable
handling. Availablenew or used. Great support.Jim

Jim,

I'm interested in your comment on the ASK-21: "Available new or used"
I have placed ASK-21 Wanted ads in several US publications and have
received only one reply. That one had been damaged and the useful
load was unacceptable. Are there used K21's in your area? Do you
have any suggestions where I could place a Wanted ad in the UK or
Europe? Thanks for any help.

Carl B

Am 16.09.2010 19:58, Carl6703 wrote:
On Sep 15, 12:26 am, wrote:
The one redeeming quality of the 2-33 "Dragmaster" is that it laughs
at anything roughly resembling a landing.
Peregrine Sailplane got a government contract a few years ago and
forgot about the glider project, including KR-03A support (ie 3000 hr
life extension).
The PW-6 has been around for a while. Perhaps it is a decent trainer?
Ka13 is a lovely glider to fly, but getting old.
IS28b2 goes nicely but has its share of problems. Never had a go in
the IS32.
Bocian? Capstan? Ka-2? At least they fly better than a 2-33.
Too bad Glasflugel never made a two seater. How about converting 604s?
Twin Astir is a bit of a truck to fly, but seems to take some abuse.
Grob twin 2 is not bad, but I've seen a couple with the fuselage
broken around the landing gear and more with square tail and nose
wheels.
Grob twin 3 handles nicer than the 2, know little of it's use as a
basic trainer.
The Puchacz is nice to fly, but some people just don't like it.
Scheibe SF34 is a nice flyer, easy ground handling, great visibility
front and rear. If the new Scheibe Aircraft puts it back into
production the 34 could be a winner.
DG500 isn't bad, not sure about maintenance. DG1000 is better if you
get the electric landing gear mod and keep the battery charged.
The Duo really is wonderful, especially the X (haven't flown XL) but
not cheap. You cannot intentionally spin the original Duos. Great
support.
AS-H25 and Nimbus 4D are both very nice for XC training, but not for
low time pilots.
AS-K21 gets my vote for this job. Comfortable, sturdy, reasonable
handling. Availablenew or used. Great support.Jim

Jim,

I'm interested in your comment on the ASK-21: "Available new or used"
I have placed ASK-21 Wanted ads in several US publications and have
received only one reply. That one had been damaged and the useful
load was unacceptable. Are there used K21's in your area? Do you
have any suggestions where I could place a Wanted ad in the UK or
Europe? Thanks for any help.

Carl B

Carl,

there are several ASK 21 around € 55000 (+/-) advertised in

http://www.segelflug.de/classifieds/

You can aslo place an ad there to search for one.

Also look in

http://adverts.gliderpilot.net/
--
Peter Scholz
ASW 24 JE

On Sep 14, 10:47*am, 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

Texas Soaring Association near Dallas bought three ASK-21s, brand
new. Club instructors considered several other options, and chose the
21s over the PW-6 and others. We like them a lot, although they are
hard to spin without putting the spin ballast on the tail. They get a
lot of use and are holding up well. Previously, we had the Puchacz
and the Grobs. Both were satisfactory, but the Puchacz was a better
training aircraft. Downside to the Puchacz is that it is hard to
repair when something breaks on it and parts are damn near impossible
to find in the US.
Phil Umphres

Carl6703 wrote:
Do you have any suggestions where I could place a Wanted ad
in the UK or Europe? Thanks for any help.

One of the better places is the German glider forum. The ads are he
http://www.segelflug.de/classifieds/
Click on "Biete Doppelsitzer" (double seaters offers)

I see two ASK21 ads. Quite a few Jani are offered, too. While the Janus
is a flapped glider, it performs better than the ASK and isn't difficult
to master. (But it does spin.) I wouldn't hesitate to use it for
advanced student training.

Our club does a high volume of training and we see the same thing in
terms of Schweizer trained pilots. There is typically a steep remedial
training curve to build the finesse required to fly something as
docile a Grob 103. Our instructors immediately recognize the
Schweitzer induced habits that have to be unlearned.

When this discussion occurs the cost issue always comes up. But
really, what similar sport do you know that trains with antique
equipment. Golf, skiing, boating, and even regular attendance at
sports events are not inexpensive… and neither is soaring. If people/
clubs really want to fly in decent equipment they become creative and
find a way. My guess is that the perceived low cost of operating
Schewizer equipment probably results in more people leaving the sport
than the assumed high cost of operating good equipment.

Bob


On Sep 15, 11:13*am, Kevin Christner
wrote:
I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
Schweizer trained and everyone else. *Place these two types in an
ASK-21. *Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
and speed properly. *The other students seem to do much better. *The
Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. *Being trained in
a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
back.

Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.

KJC

On Sep 15, 7:34*am, Tony wrote:



The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
the L-13.

Is this statement based on actual issues with 2-33 wings or just the
fact that "it is metal, it will fatigue eventually"?

I see no mention in any of the Schweizer Service Bulletins about
issues with 2-22 or 2-33 wing structure and have never heard of any
problems either.

I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
Schweizers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -