Personal bests and records climbing in Calif

On 8/14/04 8:31 AM, in article , "Eric
Greenwell" wrote:

Liam Finley wrote:


What do you call a dozen busted 2-33's?

A good start.

I'd call it a sad loss to the sport, as most of those gliders would not
be replaced at today's prices. Each one likely added several glider
pilots to our roles each year, and that won't happen if they are busted.

The 2-33 is a poor sailplane, but a great training glider. It fits its niche
perfectly, as a bulletproof trainer. It is a great introduction to the sport
for many people.

Lots of clubs couldn't exist if they had to use more expensive trainers.

Blaniks are also fine aircraft, but fragile in high volume training
operations. Witness the recent experience of the Air Force Academy: their
switch to Blaniks has just about shut down their operation. 90% of their
2-33 (TG-4A) flights landed on the grass; they broke so many Blanik's doing
that that now 90% of the Blanik flights are going to the paved runway. They
are requiring a through-flight inspection by a mechanic after every flight.
This really slows the training pace, reducing the number of cadets who can
soar at all, let alone solo (they're not saying "soar for all" anymore,
either).

Think about the milestones section of Soaring every month: how many proud
teenage first-solo's are standing in front of 2-33's? Answer: most of them.
Without the availability of an inexpensive trainer, they probably couldn't
afford to fly, and many of their clubs or commercial operations couldn't
stay in business.

You may have grown beyond the 2-33: most of us do after a while. But it fits
it's niche very well, and will likely continue to do so for many years.

Bullwinkle

In article ,
Bullwinkle wrote:

Blaniks are also fine aircraft, but fragile in high volume training
operations. Witness the recent experience of the Air Force Academy: their
switch to Blaniks has just about shut down their operation. 90% of their
2-33 (TG-4A) flights landed on the grass; they broke so many Blanik's doing
that that now 90% of the Blanik flights are going to the paved runway. They
are requiring a through-flight inspection by a mechanic after every flight.
This really slows the training pace, reducing the number of cadets who can
soar at all, let alone solo (they're not saying "soar for all" anymore,
either).

If they're breaking them that often, they're Doing Something Wrong. I
flew for five years with a club that did all two-seater work, including
ab-initio training, on L-23s, operating off both grass and asphalt. Yes,
I saw them get broken, but not often, and I can put my hand on my heart
and say I never saw a Blanik break where another glider wouldn't have
done. They're plenty tough enough for normal club training operations.

Nyal Williams wrote:
At 21:12 13 August 2004, Jack wrote:

Kirk Stant wrote:


Until every last one of those dreadful POSs are turned
into hubcaps,
we will remain firmly stuck in twirlybirdland.

Yo Mama!

Jack


Now, now!


You can have fun in a 12-meter sailboat, and you can
have fun on a raft. There is plenty of room for EVERYbody




As Long as you know it's a raft...

Personally - if it flies I'm game. Having learned to fly in a 1956 tube and
fabric, wooden wing vintage I am constantly pleasantly surprised by the other
types I fly. And equally happy to go up in the vintage (German) bird. Just know
what you are flying, and appreciate it for what it is.

Tried to get a flight in a 2-33 last time in the USA but some genius had just
decided to invade Iraq...

Bruce

Bruce Greeff wrote in message ...

As Long as you know it's a raft...

Personally - if it flies I'm game. Having learned to fly in a 1956 tube and
fabric, wooden wing vintage I am constantly pleasantly surprised by the other
types I fly. And equally happy to go up in the vintage (German) bird. Just know
what you are flying, and appreciate it for what it is.

Tried to get a flight in a 2-33 last time in the USA but some genius had just
decided to invade Iraq...

Bruce


Personally, I also enjoy flying anything with wings -including 2-33s -
they all are interesting in their own way, even their faults are
interesting to discover and work around. My objection to the 2-33 is
that it is SO non-representative of the current state of the art in
soaring that it results in a lot of potential (read "rich enough to
afford the sport") glider pilots leaving the sport shortly after
getting their licence, in search of some sport that doesn't force you
to train and fly in a beat-up doggy glider. These are the poeple
riding $20k motorcycles, boats, etc. NO WAY is a guy (or gal) like
that going to put up with a 2-33!

And since no-one in their right mind (except for some friends of mine
who raced a couple of 2-33s XC yesterday - see the ASA forum for
details) would take a 2-33 XC, they result in the total de-emphasis of
XC glider flying at most US schools, and a lack of XC experience among
US CFIGs.

You want to fly an antique, go for it, and have a good time doing it.
But if you want to grow the sport, get a good, modern trainer. THATS
my beef with the 2-33. Oh, and the trim is dangerous, and the back
seat is uncomfortable and is almost impossible to get out of wearing a
chute, and...

Re Blaniks, funny that the Soviet Air Force had no trouble training
all their pilots using Blaniks for 30 odd years (or more?). I've got a
sneaky suspicion that the real problem at the Zoo was due to a
lingering 2-33 trainig mentality, not a problem with the Blanik, which
was actually designed as a military trainer for the entire Warsaw
Pact.

And since I'm a Zoomie, I can say that!

Well, enough tilting at windmills.

Kirk

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message . com...

Personally, I also enjoy flying anything with wings -including 2-33s -
they all are interesting in their own way, even their faults are
interesting to discover and work around. My objection to the 2-33 is
that it is SO non-representative of the current state of the art in
soaring that it results in a lot of potential (read "rich enough to
afford the sport") glider pilots leaving the sport shortly after
getting their licence, in search of some sport that doesn't force you
to train and fly in a beat-up doggy glider. These are the poeple
riding $20k motorcycles, boats, etc. NO WAY is a guy (or gal) like
that going to put up with a 2-33!

And after they've jumped through all the hoops, all the hurdles, and
are free to buy and fly anything they wish, they drop? No way are
they going to stay with any hobby that requires any skill or
concentration. The glider didn't drive them away, they did what they
always will. Instant gratification is the name of the game today.
("Oh! You've gotta work to do this? See ya.")

And since no-one in their right mind (except for some friends of mine
who raced a couple of 2-33s XC yesterday - see the ASA forum for
details) would take a 2-33 XC, they result in the total de-emphasis of
XC glider flying at most US schools, and a lack of XC experience among
US CFIGs.

Why don't you see what else you can blame on the tool so you don't
have to look at the man? "'Tis a poor craftsman that blames his
tools." It was true when Ben said it, it's true today. The 2-33
didn't stop Judy from hammering "speed to fly" etc., from the first
time I got in until I finally told her I had no interest in it.
(Didn't stop her then either.)

the back
seat is uncomfortable

Maybe for you, but I found it comfortable. However, any of the
plastic I've sat in, with the exception of a Russia, were enough that
I don't want to spend any time in any of them. (Sat in it, not flew
in it, no piece of plastic is going to leave the ground with my ass
strapped in it.) TO be fair about it, I'm six feet tall and 155
pounds, which might explain why I'm not uncomfortable in a 2-33, front
or back. Two more inches of legroom would be appreciated, but that's
about all.

No, sorry. You can try to blame all the human failings on the 2-33,
but it isn't going to make them go away. Trying to build on a sense
of elitism isn't going to build anything but a reputation for
snobbery.

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

As Long as you know it's a raft...

Personally - if it flies I'm game. Having learned to fly in a 1956 tube and
fabric, wooden wing vintage I am constantly pleasantly surprised by the other
types I fly. And equally happy to go up in the vintage (German) bird. Just know
what you are flying, and appreciate it for what it is.

Tried to get a flight in a 2-33 last time in the USA but some genius had just
decided to invade Iraq...

Bruce



Personally, I also enjoy flying anything with wings -including 2-33s -
they all are interesting in their own way, even their faults are
interesting to discover and work around. My objection to the 2-33 is
that it is SO non-representative of the current state of the art in
soaring that it results in a lot of potential (read "rich enough to
afford the sport") glider pilots leaving the sport shortly after
getting their licence, in search of some sport that doesn't force you
to train and fly in a beat-up doggy glider. These are the poeple
riding $20k motorcycles, boats, etc. NO WAY is a guy (or gal) like
that going to put up with a 2-33!

And since no-one in their right mind (except for some friends of mine
who raced a couple of 2-33s XC yesterday - see the ASA forum for
details) would take a 2-33 XC, they result in the total de-emphasis of
XC glider flying at most US schools, and a lack of XC experience among
US CFIGs.

You want to fly an antique, go for it, and have a good time doing it.
But if you want to grow the sport, get a good, modern trainer. THATS
my beef with the 2-33. Oh, and the trim is dangerous, and the back
seat is uncomfortable and is almost impossible to get out of wearing a
chute, and...

Re Blaniks, funny that the Soviet Air Force had no trouble training
all their pilots using Blaniks for 30 odd years (or more?). I've got a
sneaky suspicion that the real problem at the Zoo was due to a
lingering 2-33 trainig mentality, not a problem with the Blanik, which
was actually designed as a military trainer for the entire Warsaw
Pact.

And since I'm a Zoomie, I can say that!

Well, enough tilting at windmills.

Kirk
Hi Kirk

We do have 3 private L13s for slightly more advanced flying, and then there are
a number of private single seater planes for students to move on to. The L13
tought the Soviet airforce to fly for years. They came here and have been worked
hard for thirty years. In general they remain servicable and withstand our rough
runway very well. Being metal and not exactly in the first blush of youth, they
tend to need maintenance, but nothing excessive. The only recurrent problem
appears to be the relatively weak tail post bulkhead which can get damaged by
agressive flares - landing tail first, and ground loops. (2 repairs in 30 years
for the one whose record I know)

Personally, I like the Grob 103 - It is very comfortable, easy to fly, low
maintenance. I only worked out that you COULD fly on trim after solo when I got
to fly a twin Astir...

So from relatively recent experience of learning to soar I can say that the
vintage lumps taught me to fly better in terms of much better demonstration of
bad habits like adverse yaw and lack of control harmonisation, and judgement -
"in a headwind if you can see it over the nose it is out of soaring range" .
Conversely I also have noted that there are many things I learned much better
from a more modern glass two seater - and getting my backside into a 1970's
German single seater opened up a whole new universe. I did my first XC in the
L13, and 25 miles was exciting. Best to date is 250km in the Cirrus - it teaches
a whole new perspective. Any club that does not have access to, and teach
something beyond local soaring is missing something important. Without something
to graduate to and continue to grow I think I would soon have lost some
motivation - and flown less. So I agree - to grow the sport you have to have
some modern two seaters, at least of the G103, or K21 league. Even in the deep
rural third world you can see the interest disappear when a visitor sees the
antiques. The two glass planes attract - fact.

Just for interest we had no instructors at my club with any interest in XC.
Though there were two private owners to emulate. Neither were particularly
interested in teaching the art.

So - I get to teach myself - and so far so good.

If we can get there we will work on buying a club glass 2 seater in the next
year or so. Probably buy one of the private L13s first though. Not my
prefference but some things are facts, whether we approve or not.

Tilting at clouds is more fun anyway.

Bruce Greeff wrote in message ...

Just for interest we had no instructors at my club with any interest in XC.
Though there were two private owners to emulate. Neither were particularly
interested in teaching the art.

So - I get to teach myself - and so far so good.

If we can get there we will work on buying a club glass 2 seater in the next
year or so. Probably buy one of the private L13s first though. Not my
prefference but some things are facts, whether we approve or not.

Tilting at clouds is more fun anyway.

Bruce,

That's interesting (about the instructors having no interest in XC),
and I've noticed the same thing here in the US (at commercial
operations, I must add). I also had to teach myself to go XC, and
absolutely think it is what gliding is all about - for me, at least.

Funny, if the military and airlines (who train a lot more pilots than
glider schools do) believed what the "2-33 as the best trainer"
advocates did, they would still be using Cubs, Stearmans, Tiger Moths,
and T-6s to train their pilots. Now, I love those planes (have flown
in all except the Moth) and totally agree that in their day they were
excellent trainers - because they prepared pilots for the planes they
would fly for keeps - big prop taildraggers. But today, pilots moving
to jet, fly-by-wire, glass cockpits planes (that are incredibly easy
to fly by complex to manage) need to start off with trainers that are
similar in the crucial aspects. I just think the same applies to
gliders. For example, energy management (speed control) is more
important than altitude management in modern glass (within limits, of
course!). In a 2-33, it's the opposite: speed management is really
not too critical, but slavish attention to altitude is, if you expect
to get back. So how is this good training for a pilot who wants to
move up to a glass single seater? I've seen several pilots trained on
2-33's have problems converting to glass 2-seaters, and then scaring
themselves in their new (or worse - used) glass single seater - to the
point that they eventually dropped out of the game altogether.

Hey, I know what, lets make the 2-33 the Olympic class! You could put
a camera man/announcer/coxwain in the front seat, and have short
triangle laps around the airfield, in full view of the awed, admiring
(and probably intoxicated) audience!


Kirk

(

Just remember, various critics of lowly gliders: If
all those horrible, cheap, clunky gliders disappeared,
YOUR glider would be at the bottom of the list of what's
good, and the rest of those pilots still flying would
be kicking dirt in YOUR face.

There is dignity in flying any kind of glider. If
you don't believe that, then you are attempting to
use gliding as a social weapon instead of sport or
recreation. Can you not endure the thought that lowly
pilots without your status are having as much fun as
you?

Nyal Williams wrote in message ...
(

Just remember, various critics of lowly gliders: If
all those horrible, cheap, clunky gliders disappeared,
YOUR glider would be at the bottom of the list of what's
good, and the rest of those pilots still flying would
be kicking dirt in YOUR face.

There is dignity in flying any kind of glider. If
you don't believe that, then you are attempting to
use gliding as a social weapon instead of sport or
recreation. Can you not endure the thought that lowly
pilots without your status are having as much fun as
you?

Very well said....flying in a glider is phenomenal. If people are
doing it because of wrong reasons then....

There is dignity in flying any kind of glider. If
you don't believe that, then you are attempting to
use gliding as a social weapon instead of sport or
recreation.

I completely agree with that. However, do not confuse flying a glider
with training to fly a glider. For the latter there are better gliders
than a 2-33 - and I've got about 300 hours in the back seat of one.

Tony V.