Schweizer visit to the desert

At 06:48 15 October 2007, wrote:

Yes, there are many kinds of people! But I can't think
of any other
'sporting' activity that supports using 'antique' (not
my words here)
equipment in their mainstream activities or training.


Yes, you make an interesting point and there are many
kinds of people. But there are also eggs and apples
and oranges. Professional sports/entertainment like
NASCAR racing will always use the latest equipment
regardless of cost [but within restraning rules].
Some sports, like sailing, actually become more accessible
with modern equipment - try pricing a clinker-built
hull today against a glass one. And many pieces of
equipment simply wear out beyond repair and are replaced
with modern equivalents. Soaring does not fit into
any of these categories.

Soaring for beginners does cost more in glass in the
USA today. That may not be ideal, but it is true.
Sharing equipment within a club helps bring costs
down, but a 2-33 is still much less costly than a G-103.
And until the sport starts growing again, economics
will still be a very important consideration especially
for beginners.

There is also a strong argument for primary training
in low-performance equipment. You will learn the importance
of glide ratio faster and deeper when you are short
of L/D. You will have penetration burnt into your
memory when you have none. You will really appreciate
climbing in a thermal when it contrasts with sinking
like a stone in dead air. A lot of navies until recently
still had sailing vessels for cadet training for this
very reason, and most still encourage sailboat training
because it does teach you some things about the sea
that you may never learn in a frigate.

Agreed, low-performance training is not to everyone's
taste. But be-littling the Schweizers shows a certain
narrowness of mind. And remember, you are not compelled
to fly them -you only have to find the operation that
uses whatever kind of equipment you prefer.

I don't think you will find any of the Grob family
visiting remote gliderports. So for historic and sentimental
reasons alone, long live the Schweizers.

Ian

Ian Cant wrote:
At 06:48 15 October 2007, wrote:

Yes, there are many kinds of people! But I can't think
of any other
'sporting' activity that supports using 'antique' (not
my words here)
equipment in their mainstream activities or training.



Yes, you make an interesting point and there are many
kinds of people. But there are also eggs and apples
and oranges.

Much sensible stuff snipped...

Agreed, low-performance training is not to everyone's
taste. But be-littling the Schweizers shows a certain
narrowness of mind. And remember, you are not compelled
to fly them -you only have to find the operation that
uses whatever kind of equipment you prefer. More snipped...

Well expressed, Ian. Having begun (U.S.) soaring in 1972 (when there
was a war going on that had nothing to do with oil and the middle
east...meaning, I've experienced 'many/the-usual' next-generational
attitudinal shifts), I've observed the 'new-vs.old' debate as it relates
to soaring, ever since then.

Now at an age when my thinking 'is supposed to he' certifiably ossified,
I'm periodically reminded how uncommon the ability to view things from
multiple (yet non-contradictory) perspectives sometimes seems to be.
The Great Schweizer Debate comes to mind (wry chuckle).

Dissing other's views when they differ from your own is a tactic *far*
over-used IMHO. Scorn is a tool, and shouldn't be over-/mis-used, for
risk of ruining its value entirely. Holding differing views on how to
train future glider pilots isn't fundamentally scornworthy. That's not
to suggest scorn may not have a place in (say) a training debate, e.g. a
view 'obviously' ludicrous/dangerous/economically fatal/etc. should be
exposed as such. After all, ideas have consequences, and not all
approaches have equal value.

That noted, choosing to continue to use older ships (e.g. Schweizers,
Grobs [don't laugh, my club is presently in the throes of precisely this
debate, and a 102 and 103 are 'the bad ships'], AS K-7/13's etc.), is
*NOT* a acornworthy decision, any more than an individual choosing to
keep and maintain an older vehicle (assuming it still meets its mission)
in place of periodically updating it 'just because,' is. Both
approaches have value, and pros, and cons.

Personally, until someone can, or, events (some other club's, ha ha)
demonstrate to me that a bet-the-club, economically risky
(gambling-based?) approach to growing (as distinct from merely
'churning') soaring has value, I find it difficult to out-of-hand
dismiss continuing to use proven hardware that with fundamentally low
carrying costs.

Let the debate continue...!!!


Regards,
Bob - not decisionally impaired - W.

Bob Whelan wrote:

That noted, choosing to continue to use older ships (e.g. Schweizers,
Grobs [don't laugh, my club is presently in the throes of precisely this
debate, and a 102 and 103 are 'the bad ships'], AS K-7/13's etc.), is
*NOT* a acornworthy decision, any more than an individual choosing to
keep and maintain an older vehicle (assuming it still meets its mission)
in place of periodically updating it 'just because,' is. Both
approaches have value, and pros, and cons.

Personally, until someone can, or, events (some other club's, ha ha)
demonstrate to me that a bet-the-club, economically risky
(gambling-based?) approach to growing (as distinct from merely
'churning') soaring has value, I find it difficult to out-of-hand
dismiss continuing to use proven hardware that with fundamentally low
carrying costs.

I'd just like to add one thought: IMO the utility of low performance
trainers depends quite a lot on launch method.

I learnt on ASK-21 / G.103 / Puchacz off a Supacat winch, which pretty
much guaranteed 1200 feet with these gliders under calm conditions and
could give up to 2000 ft as wind strength rose. 1200 ft gives about 7
minutes in no-lift conditions with any of these trainers and a good
chance of thermal flights if there is much lift about. I did all my spin
training, apart from the initial demo, off the winch. IOW we found
enough lift to easily get to 3000+ feet on those flights.

By contrast, I periodically make attempts to get type approval for our
T.21b but its hard going. At 20:1 you don't cross the airfield boundary
without a good thermal climb, so a typical flight is a bare 5 minutes.
The T.21b doesn't climb well on the cable. This is barely enough time to
get a feel for the glider before you're turning base.

From this I make the, possibly dangerous, generalization that if your
club normally aero tows your can get by with lower performance trainers
than, e.g. a flat land winching site can use.

As a corollary, there's an obvious trade-off between tow vs winch costs
and the cost of low performance vs high performance two seaters. If, as
I suspect, increasing fuel prices tilt the balance toward winching then
just maybe the older, low performance trainers will start to look less
attractive.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Ian

I hadn't intended on disparaging the Schweitzer's nor their gliders! I
think the 1-26 may just be outranked only by the Libelle for beauty.

I am a fan of J3's, Champs, Stearmans and AT6's, planes that I have
experienced, but J3's are not used for early training anymore
(although I am now sure to learn from RAS that they most certainly
used in 3 locations worldwide for initial training) although that is
what they were designed for "wayback when"! If General Aviation flight
training had not latched onto the "modern" Cessna 150 or 172 for
general man off the street customers the world of GA would probably be
a lot different, the GA fleet would assumably be much smaller. And
heck, a lot of those flight training FBO's are now looking to replace
their existing fleets with composite aircraft. See the trend?

Again, just my 1.58234 (dollar value changed again this afternoon)
€cents worth!

Bob

Oops

Should be 1.48234 €cents!

Bob