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