Sikorsky To Acquire Schweizer Aircraft

Eric Greenwell wrote:

They do the job they were designed for admirably IMHO.

I agree, but the job requirements have changed in the 40 years since
they were designed. It is not a criticism of the Schwiezers to say their
40 year old design is no longer the best choice!

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).

At that point they are ready for a checkride, and additionally,
they are ready for no-flap, retract, no ballast glass.
The Blanik gave them spins and tailwheel landings
and procedures, and the 1-26 gave them light controls and PIO,
and the 2-33s got them through the basics.

The benefit of 7 seats for same capital investment and maint
cost as a Grob 103 cannot be overlooked. The extra 5 seats
come in handy on those boomer days when everyone is there
and rides are going.

The flipside is the need for yet another glider, a post-license
glass solo with better L/D than the Blanik, a trailer, and
simple disassembly.

So we had a PW-5 for a while. This was a great transition
ship, and really bridged a gap between 1-26/L-13 and
Something like a PIK or HP.

Some other folks bought Russias, 1-34, etc. and seem to think
the L-13/1-26/2-33 combo was good prep.

In any case, I really like the low cost, high value variety
I have found in the myriad of lower performing gliders.
I've really enjoyed having the 2-33 to get students to solo
very fast, but yes, I agree it is an incomplete transition
ship. But at the low price, it is easy to have a variety of
other tools, and so this hasn't been a limitation for me.
--

------------+
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

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

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

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

Mark James Boyd wrote:

... then good luck ... getting soloed before
you get bored, broke, or old...


I found a very easy way to get soloed before getting
old: start when you are already old :-)