Have to agree on the Blanik being a better trainer than vintage wood/tube and
fabric. From experience of a relatively recent learning experience, I am still a
relative beginner having only soloed two years ago, so some of the impressions
are fresh.

Learned to fly in a vintage Bergfalke II/55 (1956 - comparable but still better
than a 2-33 by all accounts) Transition to the Blanik was quite a revelation,
"this is easy"
"there is such a thing as a responsive glider"
"so it is possible to overcome adverse yaw - always"
And then there was the "OK - I thought I knew about stalls and spins, this is
quite different"

That said the K13 showed me that it is possible to have most of the
responsiveness, just not the higher wing loading and fast acceleration.

That low wing loading and dragginess limit the older planes utility as a trainer
too. As an example, in spring there are days when the wind is strong enough to
make it unsafe to fly the lower wing loading fabric planes. The Blanik then
works overtime.

First flight with my Cirrus was exciting enough. Going straight from the 1950s
trainer to the glass would have been a difficult gap to cross. As it was I took
a few flights in a Grob Twin II with an instructor before trying solo in a glass
ship.

My view - the docile old Bergie (2-33) is wonderful to fly, climbs on the
weakest day, and demands accuracy or the yaw string will be all over the place.
But flying it hardly engenders confidence in one's ability to handle a high
performance ship. And rightly so, It is still a little disconcerting how slowly
things happen when I fly the Bergie again (except for the steepness of the glide
angle). The Blanik is much closer in terms of feel even if the speed is lower.
And I am comparing them to a 1970s technology single seater, hardly a Ventus 2
or LS8 or substitute your choice here...

As for toughness, they survive our very rough strip and exclusively winch launch
operations reasonably well. The tail wheel is prone to damage if you repeatedly
land tail first or ground loop. But then, that is what the noisy baggage in the
back seat is for. Teaching students to make well judged low energy landings - we
prefer main and tail together but certainly never tail first. A trainer that is
"unbreakable" may tend to develop flying habits guaranteed to break more normal
airplanes. Habits are easier to learn than modify so I think time to competent
solo pilot is impeded by the limitations and inadequacies of the vintage trainer
fleet. Conversely, once you can fly one of the oldies well with their stability
and control harmonisation challenges you a better pilot. Perhaps it comes down
to variety rather than individual type characteristics. I know my progress has
been helped by a conscious effort to fly at different fields and in different
types.

As an example of habit problems - From comments on this group it appears the
most common approach taught in the USA is to fly the 2-33 onto the ground.
Apparently it is so slow and draggy that it is desirable to carry as much energy
as possible to the round out - so they tend to learn to leave the flare out -
then it becomes the standard taught. Finesse is one thing, but all that energy
has to go somewhere and most glass will not take kindly to this.

Bruce


Bill Daniels wrote:
Good post. This is exactly my experience in the US. Blaniks are a lot more
rugged than they look with the exception of the tailwheel/skid. Some damage
is due to operators not keeping the main wheel strut inflated. Given a
modest investment in maintenance, Blaniks live long lives.
SNIP