PW-6U by Jezow being delivered

Earlier, Hank Nixon wrote:

A little research would show the 2-33 was introduced in about 1972...

Heh, and a little more research would show that the 2-33 actually
dates to five years earlier, in 1967.

The original 2-33 was certificated on 10 Feb 1967, followed by the
2-33A on 7 March 1968 and the kit version 2-33AK on 19 April 1973.
When I worked at Sky Sailing in the early 1980s our 2-33 fleet had
several pre-A models in it, so there was definitely a substantial
number built prior to the Feb 1968 A-model introduction.

Here's the TCDS in .pdf from faa.gov:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/84b126f9575b545d85256721004ee3d9/$FILE/G2ea.PDF

(Would you like TLAs with that?

Personally, I like the 2-33 as a basic trainer because its simple and
rugged, with lots and lots of crash-protection iron. Bill has a point
that it is a distinctly unsexy aircraft. However, in my experience
rugged unsexy trainers outperform broken trainers on most days of the
week.

Thanks, Bob K.

On Aug 15, 11:57 pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
Personally, I like the 2-33 as a basic trainer because its simple and
rugged, with lots and lots of crash-protection iron. Bill has a point
that it is a distinctly unsexy aircraft. However, in my experience
rugged unsexy trainers outperform broken trainers on most days of the
week.

TBH, if you're breaking gliders, you're doing something wrong, and
fixing that should be a higher priority than what kind of gliders to
use :-).

I'd disagree that older gliders are tougher than GRP. The K21 is
immensely strong with a high G rating - much higher than the K13, for
example - and the DG1000 is stronger still (I don't know about the
PW6U though). Both the DG and the K21 have cockpits designed for crash
protection with areas designed to maintain their shape in a crash
(double-wall fuselage, strong canopy frames, roll-over bar) and other
parts that deform to absorb energy - in an older steel-framed glider,
you become the energy absorbing part. That's not good.

Modern GRP gliders tend to have bigger main wheels with good shock
mounting and also nose wheels, which absorb far more energy in a heavy
landing than a nose skid does. That can save your life and certainly
your ability to walk.

On the other hand, repairs to GRP generally cost more than fixing
wood, metal and fabric. But as I said at the top, if you're having to
fix broken gliders, you're doing something wrong.


Dan

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

Personally, I like the 2-33 as a basic trainer because its simple and
rugged, with lots and lots of crash-protection iron. Bill has a point
that it is a distinctly unsexy aircraft. However, in my experience
rugged unsexy trainers outperform broken trainers on most days of the
week.

When I started to take an interest in soaring,(around 23 y/o with a little
extra cash to spare) I went out to the gliderport, looked at all of the
lovely white glass ships and just marveled at them.
On the field also was a little yellow 1-26 and an old Blanik. But mostly
private/syndicate operated glass planes.
I was struck and had to get into one of those things.
I was afraid of needing to train in that clunky looking Blanik and that put
me off a bit.
No problem as all training was done in a couple of K-21s and a G-103. After
getting my license, I happened to be out on Long Island. Terribly bored on
vacation, I saw a tow going on and had to investigate.
I happened upon a little operation that had a 2-33 and a single seat glass
plane. One flight in the 2-33 was interesting to say the least.
Not a horror, but not anywhere near a Pegasus or even a K-21.

I just didn't want to do it again as I needed a few flights to be checked-out
for the solo-seater. Ugh..I decided to wait until I went back home.
Just for me, I was put off by the tube-n-rag slug. I suspect it may be true
for others of my ilk.

fwiw

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...aring/200708/1

I've had a very interesting e-mail (thank you!) from someone involved
at a club who are looking at PW6Us, and I'm sure he won't mind me
passing on some of his comments.

1. Yes, punters do like shiny gliders, but the ones who really want to
fly don't mind what they're in.

2. DGs are quite tricky for early-stage trainees, as they gain speed
rapidly with only small changes in pitch, and have very little wind
noise.

3. The PW6U is half the price of a DG1000. I agree with the my
correspondent that fleet consistency is important - we do have trouble
with pupils in my own club who mostly fly the 13s, but then have
flights in our single 21. It takes them a while to get used to the
different glider, which wastes instruction time. The price of the PW6U
makes a fleet of them realistic; a fleet of DGs is not.

3. PW6Us spin - K21s and G103s don't. (DGs do, at least with their
tail weights fitted.)

4. When they had the PW6U it wasn't thermic, so there's a question
over their XC performance, given their short wing span.

5. K13s and 2-33s led onto K8s and 1-26s perfectly. Nowadays pilots
spend little if any time flying non-GRP single-seaters before moving
on to higher-performance gliders. Something like the PW6U leads into
GRP single-seaters better.

6. The maintenance costs on old gliders can get high - new GRP gliders
don't have that problem.

7. The PW6U has been in full production for some time and reports on
their durability are good.

With regards to point 4, I looked up some values from the Dick Johnson
flight tests of the K21, G103 and PW6U (meters, pounds, fpm, and
knots!):


Glider K21 G103 PW6U
Span 17.0 17.5 16.0
Empty 850 860 760
Test 1230 1240 1150
Min sink 150@41 150@43 160@46
Best L/D 32@53 33@53 31@50


Dan

Kloudy wrote:

Just for me, I was put off by the tube-n-rag slug. I suspect it may be true
for others of my ilk.

fwiw

Interesting...now that I have been recalling that flight, it was fascinating
and rather exhilarating being inside that shaking frame and fabric on tow.

Wow. I was just sitting on a little bench in a cage, wrapped in a sheet....
and we was flyin'.

I forgot about that part. That was fun.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com