Sikorsky To Acquire Schweizer Aircraft

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

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.

...and 4 notches better on L/D but with a wooden wing. Not sure I would
want to tie one outside in South Florida, something that is no problem with a
1-26.

Vaughn

wrote:

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

You must be one'a them trolls, Doodle.

What I hate is those ugly Discii-clones. They're all the same boring color and you can't
tell where the hell you're going to land when you look out the front window, because the
glide angle is so damn flat. It beats me how anybody can learn anything in one of those.

When I'm in the pattern in a good old 2-33 I just look down at a point about half way to
the horizon and I know I can hit it every time. And I never have to worry about finding
a thermal to get back home again because the breeze here in IL always keeps me real
close to the airport.

Now, next week I'm going to try Fred's PW5 and I expect to get a little farther out,
because I hear they are real easy to take apart and put together again, if I should
happen to have to walk it out to the road a piece at a time. Since those PW5 wings are
so short, I can get my wife to pick-up tow me back into the air as many times as it
takes to get back home -- as long as the Sheriff's boys don't catch us doing it in the
road. Just try that with one of those Discii! You'll bust them long wings right off on a
county road sign or a fence post before you get half way airborne.

When they do figure out how to recycle that epoxy & fiberglass stuff, we can make a
whole bunch of little PW5s out of a few of those big Kraut ships, and that will be good
for the sport as it will help keep prices down. They better hurry too, 'cause I hear the
sun light and those Ultraviolet-type death rays are eating up all that pretty smooth
glass just like mice in the grain.

We got a 1-26 out in the shed that's been in the family for more than thirty years now,
but Uncle Jim says they are too easy to fly and they'll spoil a pilot for anything else.
I figure I'm going to wait until I get real old & feeble before I take it up, so by then
it should suit me pretty well. Another thirty years should do it.

I read the other day where Paul Schweizer, a guy who did more for soaring in the US than
just about anybody, died recently. He and his brothers sold their first glider a few
years before Pearl Harbor, and most people in this country who have flown gliders at all
have probably flown in a Schweizer, especially when they were just starting out. That
means plenty of our soaring champions as well as guys like me have spent some time in
those American metal beauties before they got their heads turned by the Loreleis from
the Fatherland. In fact there's still some records set in 1-26s that have yet to be
broken by them slippery white ships, like Paul Bikle's altitude gain back in '61 of
42,305 ft out in the California desert in an E-model just like ours. I read it in one of
them SSA magazines we got in the outhouse.


Jack

Jack wrote:

In fact there's still some
records set in 1-26s that have yet to be broken by them slippery white
ships, like Paul Bikle's altitude gain back in '61 of 42,305 ft out in
the California desert in an E-model just like ours. I read it in one of
them SSA magazines we got in the outhouse.

According to the FAI, the record was set in a 1-23E. Still, closer to a
1-26 than to a fiberglass glider.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:

According to the FAI, the record was set in a 1-23E. Still, closer to a
1-26 than to a fiberglass glider.

Yeah, you're right -- must have been a fly spot on the page. Some of those magazines
have been around awhile.

I see where there's a famous movie star 1-23H for sale in NY, for only $11,000, but
that's a long ways from the CA desert.


Jack

Eric Greenwell wrote:

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.

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.

Well said. I must say that the PW-5 and the Russia both were just
inexpensive enough and just easy enough to take apart and
just with short enough wingspan that I was very comfortable
flying them X-C. One of our members even landed out in a field in
the PW-5, and it was simply a non-event.

At this stage of my experience level, I'm actually happier with
a worse L/D, lower price, and something easier to land in a narrow
field and trailer.

If I have more L/D, knowing myself, I'm just going to fly in
an area with landouts futher apart, and will still end up landing
out the exact same amount. But at a greater cost.

So for me, cheap, easily replaced 80 pound wings is a HUGE advantage,
if only mentally. With more confidence about landout selections,
I'm sure this will change. Right now I've just been surprised by the
dozens of times I thought something looked like a good landout from
3000 feet, and from 1000 feet it was a complete minefield.

Grapevines, leafless trees, gradually undulating terrain,
low roadside fences, misjudged narrowness, misjudged length,
have all been surprises for me on practice approaches to landout.
I've been chagrined at how challenging it is to truly find
a top notch landable strip in some areas...
--

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

Mark James Boyd wrote:
....snip
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).

Slightly off-topic but...
I'm puzzled why you wouldn't have two Blaniks. Tell students to ignore
the pink and black handles and you have a no-flap, fixed-gear trainer
(if you think that's a good idea). The rest of the world soloes
students from Blaniks about as rapidly as the US does from 2-33s (some
of them even put the gear up and down) and uses them to go further.

Are Blaniks expensive in the US? They sell for the equivalent of about
$US8k here. How does that compare with a 2-33? Could we make a profit
exporting some to you? Low mileage, one careful owner since 1965, only
winched 24,500 times?

The interesting thing is that the Blanik design is about 50 years old,
not 40!

Cheers,
Graeme Cant

Graeme Cant wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:
...snip
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).

I'm puzzled why you wouldn't have two Blaniks. Tell students to ignore
the pink and black handles and you have a no-flap, fixed-gear trainer
(if you think that's a good idea). The rest of the world soloes
students from Blaniks about as rapidly as the US does from 2-33s

Have your students ever damaged one? Does your aerotow training
take more than ten flights for transitioning power pilots?
Have you ever had a student fail to heed your "ignore" advice and
put in flaps instead, destroying the Blanik?

The USAF seems to damage more than a few. They are, in fact,
taildraggers and if the tail isn't kept down after landing then
it slams down. Two Blaniks (in the same club) that I know of were
destroyed by students who in haste used the flap handle as
if it were a spoiler handle.

But with the proper training...LOL. More words = more time.
More time = more time.

The kicker is the insurance company. The insurance costs more
for the same # of hours. And in the US, many experimentals have in the
limitations "must have a pilots license for category and class."
So as an experimental, some Blanik's simply can't be used as
trainers. And as experimentals, they can't be used "for hire"
without a specific exemption.

And 0 US fatalities for 2-33 in 25 years. 6 US fatalities in
L-13 during that time, none of which would have happened in
a 2-33.

2 x stall spin (the 2-33 is almost impossible to stall, even to demo it)

1 suicide on a "ride" (2-33 upright seating means CFI just puts hand over
front seater's mouth and pinches nose. Front seater releases stick,
and bingo, back to CFI control.)

1 too fast overshot landing (2-33 is never accused of being too fast).

1 hit photographer bystander (2-33 landing too slow to hurt anyone,
and too ugly to take pictures of anyway)

1 ATP without a glider rating, 200 ft rope break (hey, man, a trained
ape could land a 2-33. One 2-33 accident report has a solo pilot
who passes out in flight and wakes up with minor injuries after the crash)

Are Blaniks expensive in the US? They sell for the equivalent of about
$US8k here. How does that compare with a 2-33? Could we make a profit
exporting some to you?

I've seen them for $10k frequently here. And they are great
gliders for that, but the 2-33 is about the same price, but
less maint. Just because you don't use the flaps or gear,
the mechanic still has to inspect them here in the US. = $$$$

Low mileage, one careful owner since 1965, only
winched 24,500 times?

Try high mileage, many abusive owners, aerotowed umpteen times,
parts easy to find in the US, crashed on every landing, but with
no injuries and no damage found on the glider. A 2-33 is a tank.

The interesting thing is that the Blanik design is about 50 years old,
not 40!

Hey, I love the Blanik. But for solo of someone who's never flown
a glider, for sheer time to solo I'll always use a 2-33.
I guess the 2-33 just is a more modern technology...
--

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

At 23:36 29 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:

2 x stall spin (the 2-33 is almost impossible to stall,
even to demo it)


Mark,
The 2-33 is very hard to stall in a convincing
way, especially with forwardish CGs. and it may self-recover
so well that fully-developed spins are impossible.
But I would be happy to show you how you can demonstrate
a fairly dramatic departure from controlled flight...

All aircraft can bite. Good trainers [like the
2-33] need some provocation.

Ian

Mark James Boyd wrote:

Graeme Cant wrote:
I'm puzzled why you wouldn't have two Blaniks. Tell students to ignore
the pink and black handles and you have a no-flap, fixed-gear trainer
(if you think that's a good idea). The rest of the world soloes
students from Blaniks about as rapidly as the US does from 2-33s

Have your students ever damaged one?

No (crossed fingers!).

Does your aerotow training
take more than ten flights for transitioning power pilots?

We winch.

Have you ever had a student fail to heed your "ignore" advice and
put in flaps instead, destroying the Blanik?

No. We don't actually say 'ignore'. We explain their use, tell them to
check they're up before launch and landing and "We'll get to use them
later". Then the instructor does what he's there for.

The USAF seems to damage more than a few.

Yes. As Wellington said about the Guards(?) "I don't know if they scare
the enemy, but by God they scare me."

They are, in fact, taildraggers

Yep. Whole lotta gliders just like that.

and if the tail isn't kept down after landing then it slams down.

Not in my experience. But why wouldn't you keep it down anyhow?

Two Blaniks (in the same club) that I know of were
destroyed by students who in haste used the flap handle as
if it were a spoiler handle.

That's a new one to me. Students confuse them occasionally but they're
not normally making the selection (between flap and brake) at a high
workload time so no big deal. Solo or dual?

But with the proper training...LOL. More words = more time.
More time = more time.

The kicker is the insurance company. The insurance costs more
for the same # of hours. And in the US, many experimentals have in the
limitations "must have a pilots license for category and class."
So as an experimental, some Blanik's simply can't be used as
trainers. And as experimentals, they can't be used "for hire"
without a specific exemption.

So certification and licensing rules (=insurance costs) are a major
reason for the Blanik not being a cheap trainer in the US?

And 0 US fatalities for 2-33 in 25 years. 6 US fatalities in
L-13 during that time, none of which would have happened in
a 2-33.

The real measure is the overall accident rate. A trainer that kills
nobody but also teaches nothing (so they have accidents in other
aircraft later) shouldn't be given credit for its 'kindness'.

2 x stall spin (the 2-33 is almost impossible to stall, even to demo it)

1 suicide on a "ride" (2-33 upright seating means CFI just puts hand over
front seater's mouth and pinches nose. Front seater releases stick,
and bingo, back to CFI control.)

1 too fast overshot landing (2-33 is never accused of being too fast).

1 hit photographer bystander (2-33 landing too slow to hurt anyone,
and too ugly to take pictures of anyway)

1 ATP without a glider rating, 200 ft rope break (hey, man, a trained
ape could land a 2-33. One 2-33 accident report has a solo pilot
who passes out in flight and wakes up with minor injuries after the crash)

You seem to be saying that people don't really learn to fly on a 2-33.
I don't believe US training standards are that bad.

Are Blaniks expensive in the US? They sell for the equivalent of about
$US8k here. How does that compare with a 2-33? Could we make a profit
exporting some to you?

I've seen them for $10k frequently here. And they are great
gliders for that, but the 2-33 is about the same price, but
less maint. Just because you don't use the flaps or gear,
the mechanic still has to inspect them here in the US. = $$$$

We inspect them too and still find them to be fine, cheap trainers.

Low mileage, one careful owner since 1965, only
winched 24,500 times?


Try high mileage, many abusive owners, aerotowed umpteen times,

Most of the Blaniks in Oz would be around the 15-20,000 hour mark. Our
(now sold) grandmother with 25k winch launches only has about 14000
hours but that's high fatigue cycles. How many aerotows equals 25k
winch launches? And why do 2-33 owners abuse their gliders?

parts easy to find in the US,

Yep. That makes sense.

crashed on every landing, but with
no injuries and no damage found on the glider. A 2-33 is a tank.

I just don't believe the standard of students and instructors varies
that much from country to country. I believe Blaniks get treated just
as badly as 2-33s and stand up to that treatment just as well.

The interesting thing is that the Blanik design is about 50 years old,
not 40!

Hey, I love the Blanik. But for solo of someone who's never flown
a glider, for sheer time to solo I'll always use a 2-33.

But isn't the aim to get them a licence, not just send them solo? In
that case, even if it takes a few more flights to solo (which I'm not
convinced of), in the end isn't it the same total number of flights to
licence test?

I guess the 2-33 just is a more modern technology...
Anything's possible.

Graeme


--

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

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.

BTW, 2-33 tailwheels/tipwheels don't last that long either.

The 2-33 is a state-of-the-art 1933 glider - manufactured in the 1960's.
The 2-33 is a passable trainer for teaching people to fly vintage gliders.
Unfortunately, most people want to fly glass.

Neither the L-13 or L23 are perfect trainers but they are pretty darn good.
They are not harder to fly than the 2-33, just different in a positive way.
Student pilot will learn to fly whatever they train in but they will forever
retain those early impressions of how a glider handles. Blanik trained
pilots will always expect that a glider will spin if mishandled, 2-33
trained pilots won't.

As a trainer, the 2-33 should be judged by the accident rate in the NEXT
glider the pilot flies. Overall, that doesn't look too good.

Bill Daniels

"Graeme Cant" wrote in message
...
Mark James Boyd wrote:

Graeme Cant wrote:
I'm puzzled why you wouldn't have two Blaniks. Tell students to ignore
the pink and black handles and you have a no-flap, fixed-gear trainer
(if you think that's a good idea). The rest of the world soloes
students from Blaniks about as rapidly as the US does from 2-33s

Have your students ever damaged one?

No (crossed fingers!).

Does your aerotow training
take more than ten flights for transitioning power pilots?

We winch.

Have you ever had a student fail to heed your "ignore" advice and
put in flaps instead, destroying the Blanik?

No. We don't actually say 'ignore'. We explain their use, tell them to
check they're up before launch and landing and "We'll get to use them
later". Then the instructor does what he's there for.

The USAF seems to damage more than a few.

Yes. As Wellington said about the Guards(?) "I don't know if they scare
the enemy, but by God they scare me."

They are, in fact, taildraggers

Yep. Whole lotta gliders just like that.

and if the tail isn't kept down after landing then it slams down.

Not in my experience. But why wouldn't you keep it down anyhow?

Two Blaniks (in the same club) that I know of were
destroyed by students who in haste used the flap handle as
if it were a spoiler handle.

That's a new one to me. Students confuse them occasionally but they're
not normally making the selection (between flap and brake) at a high
workload time so no big deal. Solo or dual?

But with the proper training...LOL. More words = more time.
More time = more time.

The kicker is the insurance company. The insurance costs more
for the same # of hours. And in the US, many experimentals have in the
limitations "must have a pilots license for category and class."
So as an experimental, some Blanik's simply can't be used as
trainers. And as experimentals, they can't be used "for hire"
without a specific exemption.

So certification and licensing rules (=insurance costs) are a major
reason for the Blanik not being a cheap trainer in the US?

And 0 US fatalities for 2-33 in 25 years. 6 US fatalities in
L-13 during that time, none of which would have happened in
a 2-33.

The real measure is the overall accident rate. A trainer that kills
nobody but also teaches nothing (so they have accidents in other
aircraft later) shouldn't be given credit for its 'kindness'.

2 x stall spin (the 2-33 is almost impossible to stall, even to demo it)

1 suicide on a "ride" (2-33 upright seating means CFI just puts hand
over
front seater's mouth and pinches nose. Front seater releases stick,
and bingo, back to CFI control.)

1 too fast overshot landing (2-33 is never accused of being too fast).

1 hit photographer bystander (2-33 landing too slow to hurt anyone,
and too ugly to take pictures of anyway)

1 ATP without a glider rating, 200 ft rope break (hey, man, a trained
ape could land a 2-33. One 2-33 accident report has a solo pilot
who passes out in flight and wakes up with minor injuries after the
crash)

You seem to be saying that people don't really learn to fly on a 2-33.
I don't believe US training standards are that bad.

Are Blaniks expensive in the US? They sell for the equivalent of about
$US8k here. How does that compare with a 2-33? Could we make a profit
exporting some to you?

I've seen them for $10k frequently here. And they are great
gliders for that, but the 2-33 is about the same price, but
less maint. Just because you don't use the flaps or gear,
the mechanic still has to inspect them here in the US. = $$$$

We inspect them too and still find them to be fine, cheap trainers.

Low mileage, one careful owner since 1965, only
winched 24,500 times?


Try high mileage, many abusive owners, aerotowed umpteen times,

Most of the Blaniks in Oz would be around the 15-20,000 hour mark. Our
(now sold) grandmother with 25k winch launches only has about 14000
hours but that's high fatigue cycles. How many aerotows equals 25k
winch launches? And why do 2-33 owners abuse their gliders?

parts easy to find in the US,

Yep. That makes sense.

crashed on every landing, but with
no injuries and no damage found on the glider. A 2-33 is a tank.

I just don't believe the standard of students and instructors varies
that much from country to country. I believe Blaniks get treated just
as badly as 2-33s and stand up to that treatment just as well.

The interesting thing is that the Blanik design is about 50 years old,
not 40!

Hey, I love the Blanik. But for solo of someone who's never flown
a glider, for sheer time to solo I'll always use a 2-33.

But isn't the aim to get them a licence, not just send them solo? In
that case, even if it takes a few more flights to solo (which I'm not
convinced of), in the end isn't it the same total number of flights to
licence test?

I guess the 2-33 just is a more modern technology...
Anything's possible.

Graeme


--

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