What gliders do you hate?

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 11:50:01 AM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Friday, January 2, 2015 9:52:05 PM UTC-7, WB wrote:
For me, the most miserable glider I've ever flown is the Schweizer 1-36.. Flew a nearly brand new one, thought it horrible. The pitch trim system was the main problem. It was much too powerful and made the stick very heavy.. I chalked it up to being new and tight. Flew a different one thinking it had to be better. Nope just as horrible as the first. A few year later, found the mangled remains of that first 1-36 in a repair shop a long way from where I flew it.

Someone mentioned the TG-2. Flew one of those on a 60 mile ferry tow. If you think the 72 mph redline made cross country soaring tough, what about flying the thing for 60 miles on tow behind a towplane that could not tow that slow? I was never so happy to get to a reasonable bail-out altitude. The split ailerons on this one had been covered as single units and would bind a bit, resulting in limited movement and poor roll control. No rudder pedal adjustments and a fixed seat made for a very cramped seating position. However, after reaching the destination at 5000 agl, I found that the thing would spin and recover very well due to that huge rudder.

I think Kirk mentioned the Schweizer 1-23. The D models and later are probably the best gliders Schweizer ever built in serial production. One of my favorite flights of all time was in a 1-23D. Climbed the upwind side of a tall cu from it's 5000' base all the way to 8000' agl, then flew the cloud street like a ridge for an hour. Also had my first outlanding in a 1-23H15.

After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.

Frank Whiteley

I would be curious as to what about the construction of the 1-36 root concerned you.
My experience is that the pitch sensitivity of the 1-36 is not any poorer than that of a 1-26. That said, I do prefer the 1-34 over the 1-36.
FWIW
UH

I've never flown a 1-36. In all the places I've flown, I have only seen 5 that I remember. My samples don't speak well for the poor 1-36. 3 were hanger queens and hadn't seen the air in years. And....I'm not exaggerating here.... the two I saw fly...well... both ended in crashes (just minor thanks goodness.)

There are several gliders that I like quite a lot (maybe even love) that have things I don't like at all.

Grob 103 (many fond memories) You have to file an application to apply rudder before a turn. I have seen only one passenger who wasn't flummoxed by it.

LS-4 (fun plane) The gear on the left? I understand that it kinda works as a gear up protector, but since I have seen that protection "defeated" (not by me, cross fingers) how 'bout we put it on the right side? (where God intended it! just kidding)

304S shark: This is a super awesome plane which make the trim lever that is in the wrong place and moves the wrong direction stand out so much.

2-33: I loved this as a kid. But solo with a light-ish pilot the thing would bang the tail at the start of every tow. As an adult, the tiny back seat can be back ache in the making.

ASW-20: Could the wings be any heavier?

My beloved ASW-27: Its hard to say a negative word about this beauty. Maybe it's just mine, but the trim system requires two hands to actually adjust. Minor... but the damn thing was designed to work one handed.

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 2:04:54 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I've never flown a 1-36. In all the places I've flown, I have only seen 5 that I remember. My samples don't speak well for the poor 1-36. 3 were hanger queens and hadn't seen the air in years. And....I'm not exaggerating here... the two I saw fly...well... both ended in crashes (just minor thanks goodness.)


I went for a passenger flight in a 1-36 once. As whatever inputs I made did not seem to do anything i logged it as a passenger flight! It would make a great Drone. Better still a target drone.

Kerry

What WB said about the trim might give the same appearance if a pilot were giving it extra effort.

From my limited observations and help rigging and derigging Schweizer single place gliders, I believe there is more butt-end structure where the 1-26's and 1-34's spar carry-through meets than on a 1-36, where if I recall correctly, the carry-throughs don't meet. Could be wrong though, it's been a long time. I was sensitive to this as a 1-36 near Colorado Springs returned from a flight with more dihedral than it departed with and another wound up in a BBQ pit in Boulder when a wing folded up. Not saying both weren't abused in flight, but the second ended up in a lengthy, ultimately unsuccessful, litigation with the operator's estate. Am also aware of at least a 1-26 where the wing folded up also, with better results. But never had access to a 1-26D or E to fly.

Frank Whiteley

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:58:10 AM UTC-7, Cookie wrote:
Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....

Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!

I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36....


Cookie






After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.

Frank Whiteley

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:06:23 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
What WB said about the trim might give the same appearance if a pilot were giving it extra effort.

From my limited observations and help rigging and derigging Schweizer single place gliders, I believe there is more butt-end structure where the 1-26's and 1-34's spar carry-through meets than on a 1-36, where if I recall correctly, the carry-throughs don't meet. Could be wrong though, it's been a long time. I was sensitive to this as a 1-36 near Colorado Springs returned from a flight with more dihedral than it departed with and another wound up in a BBQ pit in Boulder when a wing folded up. Not saying both weren't abused in flight, but the second ended up in a lengthy, ultimately unsuccessful, litigation with the operator's estate. Am also aware of at least a 1-26 where the wing folded up also, with better results. But never had access to a 1-26D or E to fly.

Frank Whiteley

The 1-36 that got bent by the idiot in Boulder lives at our field and flies all the time. It is a testament to Ernie Schweizer's use of multiple redundant members in the spar. Nothing broke. It just yielded and stayed together to save the pilot's life. Irv Prue did the repair and told me he really liked the engineering.
UH

I don't like to see gliders that have not been maintained well.
But that's hardly the glider's fault.
Jim

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 10:58:10 AM UTC-6, Cookie wrote:
Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....

Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!

I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36....


Cookie

There's been a couple of 1-34's come apart in flight due to botched aerobatics and I have seen a couple of other 1-34's that were "loose" all over due to having been overstressed by owners who frequently did aerobatics. What is it about 1-34's that encouraged aerobatic flight? Maybe it's my unschooled eyes, but the 1-34 just does not look an aerobatic mount to me.

Don't know about any 1-36's coming apart. Has to be a tough little sucker to have survived the infamous "barograph notching incident" in CO that more than doubled the dihedral.

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 11:35:11 AM UTC-6, wrote:
In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?

My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.

Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)

I've had two H301 Libelles with over 20 years of 301 Libelle flying. I love the things (and the 201's). However, I have to say that the 301 is an acquired taste. To be honest it can be a bit of chore to fly. Fairly pitchy, not much rudder, wallows around at low speed (but still climbs), and has very poor dive brakes. The squirrely handling at low speeds does not engender confidence during low saves and in the landing pattern. Kinda gives the feeling that one might get bitten if not careful. Might be one reason there have been few Libelles spin in.

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 2:54:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:06:23 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
What WB said about the trim might give the same appearance if a pilot were giving it extra effort.

From my limited observations and help rigging and derigging Schweizer single place gliders, I believe there is more butt-end structure where the 1-26's and 1-34's spar carry-through meets than on a 1-36, where if I recall correctly, the carry-throughs don't meet. Could be wrong though, it's been a long time. I was sensitive to this as a 1-36 near Colorado Springs returned from a flight with more dihedral than it departed with and another wound up in a BBQ pit in Boulder when a wing folded up. Not saying both weren't abused in flight, but the second ended up in a lengthy, ultimately unsuccessful, litigation with the operator's estate. Am also aware of at least a 1-26 where the wing folded up also, with better results. But never had access to a 1-26D or E to fly.

Frank Whiteley

The 1-36 that got bent by the idiot in Boulder lives at our field and flies all the time. It is a testament to Ernie Schweizer's use of multiple redundant members in the spar. Nothing broke. It just yielded and stayed together to save the pilot's life. Irv Prue did the repair and told me he really liked the engineering.
UH



More than one at Boulder I guess. The one I recall was a fatal, 1997. Maybe this link will work to download a PDF. I don't think this one was rebuilt. If it was, it's got another N number.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...97FA033&rpt=fi

The one we had went to Penn State where was written off and rebuilt in Utah I think, where it may still be flying. It was unpopular at our club and was a hangar queen as a result. The last year the amortized cost of insurance per flight was $30, so it went away.

Frank Whiteley