Sikorsky To Acquire Schweizer Aircraft

"Vaughn" wrote
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.

Outside tiedown for rag-and-tube aircraft is bad enough when it's dry
- then you just destroy the fabric. You ever recover a fuselage with
fabric? I have. It's not complicated, but oh man is it ever a bitch
to do. For the effort you put into recovering the fuselage once, you
could have built a primitive hangar.

In Florida, it's worse. Salty rain gets into the fuselage and the
tubes rust. Then, when you take the fabric off, you have a huge
amount of sanding and priming to do, and likely some welding as well.

The 1-26E is not so bad - it only has fabric tailfeathers, and those
you can recover in a long weekend.

Outside tiedown is something you really should only do on all-metal
aircraft, and then only inland.

Michael

Nyal Williams wrote in message ...

(snip) Nowadays, the 2-33 serves somewhat the same function as a
flight simulator; it can be the basis of some cheap/quick initial
learning.

That's it! That explains everything! That's why no one ever gets
hurt in a 2-33 - THEY AREN'T REALLY FLYING! It's just a simulator!
We should paint them all blue and put the instructor's seat on the
outside, next to the student.

I love it!

Kirk

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

Bruce Greeff wrote in message ...

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

Close. The 2-33 has an achilles' heel - a weak tailwheel - that will
not tolerate low-energy tail-first or main-and-tail landings. So
pilots are taught to fly it on the runway level, touching down on the
main wheel only, usually still a bit above stall speed. Kind of like
a wheel landing in a tailwheel powerplane.

Note that you can land a 2-33 nice and slow, by holding it off, but
that is not trained often for fear of that weak tailwheel.

So now you have a student taught to land by "flaring" to a level
attitude, then waiting for the glider to settle on it's mainwheel,
then slowing by using the skid if necessary, who now tries to land a
G-103 for the first time without a comprehensive briefing: Level off
(a bit fast probably), touch down on the main (maybe a bit firmly due
to the touchy divebrakes), then a wicked bounce as the nosewheel
bounces off the ground, and the Grob jumps back in the air - and the
cycle repeats, more violently each time! YeeHA - there goes the
nosewheel, and maybe the tailwheel too. Seen it happen a few times.

Of course, if all you fly are Schweitzers (except the 1-35, maybe),
that technique will work fine (in the 2-22, 1-23, 1-26, 1-34 and 2-32,
for example).

Too bad for the Grob-103 fleet, however!

Kirk

Kirk Stant wrote:
Bruce Greeff wrote in message ...


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


Close. The 2-33 has an achilles' heel - a weak tailwheel - that will
not tolerate low-energy tail-first or main-and-tail landings. So
pilots are taught to fly it on the runway level, touching down on the
main wheel only, usually still a bit above stall speed. Kind of like
a wheel landing in a tailwheel powerplane.

Note that you can land a 2-33 nice and slow, by holding it off, but
that is not trained often for fear of that weak tailwheel.

So now you have a student taught to land by "flaring" to a level
attitude, then waiting for the glider to settle on it's mainwheel,
then slowing by using the skid if necessary, who now tries to land a
G-103 for the first time without a comprehensive briefing: Level off
(a bit fast probably), touch down on the main (maybe a bit firmly due
to the touchy divebrakes), then a wicked bounce as the nosewheel
bounces off the ground, and the Grob jumps back in the air - and the
cycle repeats, more violently each time! YeeHA - there goes the
nosewheel, and maybe the tailwheel too. Seen it happen a few times.

Of course, if all you fly are Schweitzers (except the 1-35, maybe),
that technique will work fine (in the 2-22, 1-23, 1-26, 1-34 and 2-32,
for example).

Too bad for the Grob-103 fleet, however!

Kirk
Hi Kirk

That is pretty much what I was getting at - The 2-33 is held as a paragon of
virtue and the habits it teaches result in damage to the next glider flown. As
logic would have it this seems to result in one of the toughest gliders around
being derided for "always being in the repair shop"

Around here (and most places) the G103 is regarded as one of the strongest and
easiest to fly. Surely if low time pilots are regularly breaking them you should
look for what is wrong with what they are taught?

Bruce

I didn't know that the 2-33 had that weak of a tailwheel. After
instructing in them for the last 5 years (4yrs 357days), 7 days a week
with around 1800hrs in the back of them. Soloing 50+ students in
them, while only allowing low energy landings at our school. I have
watched 1 get broken, not from landing, but a careless student ground
handeling it.

Garret

(Garret) wrote in message . com...
I didn't know that the 2-33 had that weak of a tailwheel. After
instructing in them for the last 5 years (4yrs 357days), 7 days a week
with around 1800hrs in the back of them. Soloing 50+ students in
them, while only allowing low energy landings at our school. I have
watched 1 get broken, not from landing, but a careless student ground
handeling it.

Garret

I have to completely agree with Garret. My observations from 3000 hr+
and about 8000 training flights is that ground abuse is the usual
cause of any tailhweel problem.
As to it causing bad habits- the instructor is the issue. A properly
held off, slow landing as taught properly in a 2-33 or other glider,
translates well into skills for the next ship.
UH

(Garret) wrote in message . com...
I didn't know that the 2-33 had that weak of a tailwheel. After
instructing in them for the last 5 years (4yrs 357days), 7 days a week
with around 1800hrs in the back of them. Soloing 50+ students in
them, while only allowing low energy landings at our school. I have
watched 1 get broken, not from landing, but a careless student ground
handeling it.

Garret

Interesting. I've been flying 2-33s for way too many years to admit
and was ALWAYS taught or told to "wheel it on" and avoid touching the
tailwheel. Now I prefer to land 2-33s as slow as I can, so I try to
get the tail as low as I can before touching down, while avoiding
having the tailwheel contact the ground if possible. There is so
little clearance between that little hockey puck and the aft fuselage
that out here on our rocky runway you are asking for damage if you
drag the tail into the ground!

Do your 2-33s have the spring/pivoting tailwheel mod? Those look like
they would have no problem with main-and-tail touchdowns.

But what I see students (and experienced pilots) doing regularly is
the "high-speed 2-33 fly it onto the ground and come to a screeching
halt in a cloud of dust on the nose skid" landing. Ugly and noisy -
when you should be rolling to a gentle stop with full aft stick and
the nose off the ground until almost stopped. (Granted, much easier
with two up and the CG a bit aft)

But hey, you can't break 'em, so who cares how you land 'em.

Kirk

Graeme Cant wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:
Graeme Cant wrote:

Have your students ever damaged one?

No (crossed fingers!).
We haven't either, but we use it AFTER basic training in the 2-33...

They are, in fact, taildraggers

Yep. Whole lotta gliders just like that.
This part does take additional training to achieve low damage chances.
Just like a power plane taildragger. Which is why insurers require
10+ hours in a taildragger and 0 in a Cezzna 152...

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?

Because it isn't there on it's own. In a taildragger, there are still
things going on after landing.

So certification and licensing rules (=insurance costs) are a major
reason for the Blanik not being a cheap trainer in the US?
Yes, if all the other reasons were moot, the certification as
experimental and restriction against "for hire" would probably
keep them out of the commercial gliderports (about 1/4 to 1/2 of
the US gliderports).

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'.

Solo. I think solo is something. It gets credit for that. And it
gives the pilot the skills needed to fly a ... 2-33. So if one has only the
$$$s for a 2-33, then it's a great idea. If we were interested in
ensuring all our pilots could fly any glider proficiently before licensing
them, we'd only let people solo in a mini-nimbus, right? It isn't hard to
figure out what would happen if pilots could only get a license if they
demonstrated proficiency in a glider with flaps, retract gear, spoilers,
and ballast...

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.

What I say on that subject isn't important. The point is: they flew.
And they can do it again and not get hurt or damage anything. And they
can do it with passengers, without getting hurt or damaging anything.
And it didn't cost very much. You can argue whether they "learned to
fly" 'till the Millenium, but the fact is, they flew, and that is that.
The 2-33 isn't for learning to fly, or impressing anyone. It is for flying.
If you want to fly, the 2-33 is more likely to accomplish that goal than
any other glider. If you want to learn to fly, first, figure out what that
means, get 1,000,000 definitions from different people, and then pick one,
and if it requires a mini-nimbus, then good luck finding one, affording it,
finding an adequate two-seater and instructor, and getting soloed before
you get bored, broke, or old...

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?
Well out of my experience to comment...

And why do 2-33 owners abuse their gliders?
I didn't say they abuse them. The glider is never damaged. What I said
was they sometimes "crash" in the sense that if the same thing was done in
a glass ship, it would be damaged. I've seen people cringe at some of the
things done in a 2-33. We even had a huge laugh one time over a perfect
ground loop that didn't even touch a wingtip. In the PIK, the same think
certainly didn't get a laugh... The 2-33 never has a scratch,
and the pilot is fine. Perhaps the word is "forgiving."

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.

Keep in mind, I'm using hyperbole to make a point. I think the
safety standards are always the same, it's just the amount of time it takes
to acheive that standard differs. As I explain to students: When I solo
them, they have an acceptable level of safety. After that, training and
currency and experience simply maintain that same level of safety,
while improving capability...

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?
In my experience, the faster to solo = the better the chance of maintaining
interest. And even if there was no difference between the 1-26, 2-33 and
L-13 in terms of total time to license, I'd still solo them in the 2-33,
and do some after solo training in the (solo) 1-26 and L-13.
--

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

Garret wrote:
I didn't know that the 2-33 had that weak of a tailwheel. After
instructing in them for the last 5 years (4yrs 357days), 7 days a week
with around 1800hrs in the back of them. Soloing 50+ students in
them, while only allowing low energy landings at our school. I have
watched 1 get broken, not from landing, but a careless student ground
handeling it.

Garret

Good for you! Like I said, the 2-33 is a great trainer to get a pilot to
solo. And cheap. Beyond that, if any pilot wants to fly a glider with
different characteristics than anything they've flown before, they
ought to do some preparation beforehand.




--

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