New trainer from SZD Bielsko

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:11:13 -0700, Dan G wrote:


Why do people think instructors are invulnerable? I know instructors
who've destroyed gliders.

Me too... but even the worst instructor should not be able to spin a
*basic trainer* during a winch launch.

That was the rationale behind the K21, which was designed to German
requirements. Unfortunately all single seat gliders will spin, so
training solely on spin-resistant gliders is a receipe for disaster
and has no doubt cost lives.

Definitely.
But I am convinced that the non-spinnable ASK-21 safed more lifes than
it cost.

Spin-training in a truly spinnable glider is certainly necessary -
but a student pilot on his first solo flights needs a glider that is
as safe as possible.






Bye
Andreas

"Andreas Maurer" wrote in message
...

Spin-training in a truly spinnable glider is certainly necessary -
but a student pilot on his first solo flights needs a glider that is
as safe as possible.

Thank you Andreas! I am a believer in spin training, (and even insisted on
it pre-solo) but as a CFIG I always thought it to be of primary importance that
all of my students actually survive the training experience.

It is possible to design a trainer that will do a very convincing spin
without that same trainer being even vaguely spin-prone.

Vaughn

The ASK-21 has a kit to work the spin training issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S..._an_ASK-21.JPG

I prefer to train in a Blanik...because it is a more
tempermental glider to
fly than a K-21 and then I prefer to solo students
in the ASK-21 because it
is much easier and safer to fly.

I have not used the spin kit, however if a club did
not have a Blanik type in
the fleet (that will drop a wing) then the kit is probably
the best all around
choice. If an ASK-21 is chosen for a basic all around
trainer.

It would be intersting to see how the SZD trainer is
for wing dropping.

On 23 Jun, 23:58, Andreas Maurer wrote:

Spin-training in a truly spinnable glider is certainly necessary -
but a student pilot on his first solo flights needs a glider that is
as safe as possible.

Indeed. But he shouldn't /know/ that.

Ian

On 23 Jun, 22:34, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:10:28 -0700, Ian
wrote:

How many gliders can recover from a spin which starts on the winch
launch? I really don't think the Puchacz can be blamed in such cases.

Sorry to repeat myself, but how many primary trainers really DO enter
an unintentional spin during a winch launch with an instructor on
board?

Do you mean how many do, or how many can?

In my opinion a primary trainer (the one that is used for early solo
flights) cannot be spin-resistent enough.

I disagree. I think the glider used for training should spin like a
top. The learner needs to know that this is something which can
happen, can be recovered from, and really shouldn't be allowed to
happen near the ground.

I like K21's, but their lack of spinnability is a mennace. I jave
flown at three different clubs where the message given - effectively -
to student pilots is "Today we are going to learn about something
called a spin. To do that, we are going to need a different glider
from the one you normally fly in, and we are going to have to do very
strange things to the controls." Subliminal message: "This won't
happen to you unless you want it to."

My first spin was in a Bocian - the one I was used to flying in as an
ab-initio, at Portmoak. One day my instructor said "You are flying to
slowly and over-ruddering your turns at the hill. One day you will
scare yourself ****less doing that. Let me demonstrate. I have
control..."

And he proceeded to scare me ****less. So I learned that spinning was
something which could happen to /me/ in gliders /I flew/, doing /
perfectly normal things/ - albeit not very competently.

I do not this a message of "Let's land and go up in a completely
different aircraft" would have made anything like the same
impression ...

Ian

On 23 Jun, 23:11, Dan G wrote:

Tales of "unrecoverable" spins in pooches are probably due to the idea
that the low tail can blank the rudder (actually it won't). In reality
a pooch will always recover with standard spin recovery technique. If
you claim otherwise, please provide a reference to an accident report
stating so.

I think it's laziness. So few training two-seaters need full spin
recovery (especially the bits about "pause" and "until the spinning
stops") that people who fly them get used to the "stop pro-spin input
and recover" method. Which does not work on a Puchacz or a Bocian -
or, as far as I can see, on most things made in Poland.

Ian

And he proceeded to scare me ****less. So I learned that spinning was
something which could happen to /me/ in gliders /I flew/, doing /
perfectly normal things/ - albeit not very competently.

I do not this a message of "Let's land and go up in a completely
different aircraft" would have made anything like the same
impression ...

"a spin is a normal mode of flight - unsuitable for landing" unknown
British aerodynamicist.

Pretty much all students in my club http://soargbsc.com get spin
training. And not the kind where you yank the nose up 30 degrees and
then stomp on the rudder at the top. I slow the glider way down and
start a turn (at altitude) and tell the student that we're simulating a
runway overshoot while turning from base to final. I add bottom rudder
to "help the turn along" and over she goes and the nose never got above
the horizon. It's a wake up call for many and the mantra to maintain
speed and coordination in the pattern (sorry, circuit :-) ), finally
means something.

Tony V.

On Jun 23, 3:51 am, Paul Hanson
wrote:
... The 50-3 was desinged in 78' I believe, the Perkoz in 91'.
... Come on, it is a completely new aircraft; it just uses
some of the same molds and parts as the 50-3.

"Completely New Aircraft", but:
- designed in 1991 (16 years ago)...
- uses some of the same molds...

I wish them all the best, but this hardly uses all the
knowledge now available to us in 2007...

Best Regards, Dave "YO"

At 15:43 24 June 2007, wrote:
On Jun 23, 3:51 am, Paul Hanson
wrote:
... The 50-3 was desinged in 78' I believe, the Perkoz
in 91'.
... Come on, it is a completely new aircraft; it just
uses
some of the same molds and parts as the 50-3.

'Completely New Aircraft', but:
- designed in 1991 (16 years ago)...
- uses some of the same molds...

I wish them all the best, but this hardly uses all
the
knowledge now available to us in 2007...

Best Regards, Dave 'YO'


I see where you're coming from, but I think it's only
just become financially feasible for them to enter
production recently. Plus, the technology and material
developments since then (even though it's 16 years
ago), while substantial, are not as relevant to them
since they're designing a 'lower'-performance, fully
aerobatic trainer which is financially sensible for
most clubs.

As for a previous idea about 'optimising' the aerofoil
to give better performance, as well as the cost considerations
I imagine that the one they are using at the moment
is both good at climbing, gives effective speed control,
and importantly for a fully aerobatic trainer has both
plenty of strength and inverted performance which has
more stability and better performance than many of
our modern high-speed aerofoils. These are important
characteristics for a trainer- but I wonder if they've
allowed it a higher Vne to enhance its suitability
for aerobatics.

I too wish them the best of luck with this new plane-
I've done ALL of my training in Puchaczs, and would
very much like to try a flight in the Perkoz.

At 15:43 24 June 2007, wrote:
On Jun 23, 3:51 am, Paul Hanson
wrote:
... The 50-3 was desinged in 78' I believe, the Perkoz
in 91'.
... Come on, it is a completely new aircraft; it just
uses
some of the same molds and parts as the 50-3.

'Completely New Aircraft', but:
- designed in 1991 (16 years ago)...
- uses some of the same molds...

I wish them all the best, but this hardly uses all
the
knowledge now available to us in 2007...

Best Regards, Dave 'YO'


I see where you're coming from, but I think it's only
just become financially feasible for them to enter
production recently. Plus, the technology and material
developments since then (even though it's 16 years
ago), while substantial, are not as relevant to them
since they're designing a 'lower'-performance, fully
aerobatic trainer which is financially sensible for
most clubs.

As for a previous idea about 'optimising' the aerofoil
to give better performance, as well as the cost considerations
I imagine that the one they are using at the moment
is both good at climbing, gives effective speed control,
and importantly for a fully aerobatic trainer has both
plenty of strength and inverted performance which has
more stability and better performance than many of
our modern high-speed aerofoils. These are important
characteristics for a trainer- but I wonder if they've
allowed it a higher Vne to enhance its suitability
for aerobatics.

I too wish them the best of luck with this new plane-
I've done ALL of my training in Puchaczs, and would
very much like to try a flight in the Perkoz.