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.

On 8/16/04 3:12 PM, in article
, "Andrew Watson"
wrote:

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.

There's much truth to both your and Kirk's comments. They are flying them
like 2-33's, and, of course, That's Something Wrong. They're doing better
now: they flattened the approach angle for the Blaniks, and they're not
bending as many. Previously, with the 2-33's, they taught a near-Space
Shuttle approach angle. Try that with an L-13 and you're really asking for
trouble at the roundout/flare.

And of course, the zero defect mentality (which extends throughout most of
the USAF these days) means that accidents don't just happen anymo
something breaks, and that means somebody's to blame, and that means
somebody's got to pay. Even if it's just a routine training accident. Oh,
and that's followed by a bunch of new rules and regs designed NOT to prevent
the accident from happening again, but rather to show their superiors that
the unit commander is Doing Something To Fix The Problem. (Looks great on
the OPR, especially if there aren't any more similar accidents before the CC
and DO leave, and might get the officer involved a DP. Because they Did
Something, and It Worked.)

Sorry: my cynicism is showing again.

I, too, have some inside knowledge of that program. By the way, they're
afraid to let anyone fly the 2 new Duo Discus's they bought.

You know, Tom Knauff is reported to have referred to the USAFA soar-for-all
program as "teaching Monkeys to fly." As in: if you make it simple enough,
and take judgment out of the equation making it just a hand-eye coordination
thing, you could teach a monkey to fly a glider.

It's worse than that. USAFA takes the very best Monkeys, and makes them into
IP's. Thus it is really Monkeys teaching Monkeys how to fly.

That's a gross oversimplification, and probably not fair to the many caring
and concerned folks trying hard at the 94th FTS, but there are some nuggets
of truth there.

But I still think the 2-33 has its place! Maybe not YOUR place, but plenty
of other places.

Best wishes, and let's agree to disagree.