Future Club Training Gliders

Am 15.09.10 01:13, schrieb John Cochrane:
I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
(chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
fly and teach in.

I don't understand why someone would still buy an ASK21 today when you
can get a DG1000 or a Duo which offer *much* more performance for little
more money. And yes, they are perfectly suited for primary training.

On Sep 15, 6:54*am, John Smith wrote:
Am 15.09.10 01:13, schrieb John Cochrane:

I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
(chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
fly and teach in.

I don't understand why someone would still buy an ASK21 today when you
can get a DG1000 or a Duo which offer *much* more performance for little
more money. And yes, they are perfectly suited for primary training.

I know they can and credit to places that are doing this, but I think
there is still a place for a slightly more "agricultural" primary
trainer. Especially if there is a training fleet to keep busy with
primary instruction. You can learn to fly power in a Bonanza but a
C172 with fixed gear and simpler systems is less likely to get a pilot
in trouble. I know you can get club versions of the DG-1000, with
fixed gear etc, but by the time I had a DG-1000 I'd want the retract
version and use it more XC.

It is unfortunate the some operations may end up in a very tough place
with the L13 issue and it comes at a time when the economy is bad.
Trying to contain costs is a good goal, but I worry that a lot of
clubs/operations in the USA are operating "on the wrong side of the
curve". i.e. focus on driving down to a minial cost - not working on
attracting people who are likely to stay around and fly XC, buy their
own gliders, etc. - that is helped by having a more modern training
fleet and focus on XC capable ships and XC instruction/mentoring to
get people going.

I look at what Morgan is doing at Avenal by having his Duo there and
that seems to be driving a lot more interest/activity in XC soaring by
pilots there. Or at Williams where you have sixteen year old line-boys
working their hours off and getting started flying XC in ASW-24s.
$100k divided by 20 people is $5k each. Scale for the right amount,
but even in tough financial times I'd still hope that type of funding
makes it possible to raise a pool to purchase a glass trainer. I know
it is not going to be possible everywhere.

BTW I have nothing against older gliders, many of them are just
*beautiful* and I'm glad to see them being flown and looked after.

Darryl

Darryl Ramm wrote:
I don't understand why someone would still buy an ASK21 today when you
can get a DG1000 or a Duo which offer *much* more performance for little
more money. And yes, they are perfectly suited for primary training.

I know they can and credit to places that are doing this, but I think
there is still a place for a slightly more "agricultural" primary
trainer. Especially if there is a training fleet to keep busy with
primary instruction.
....
attracting people who are likely to stay around and fly XC, buy their
own gliders, etc. - that is helped by having a more modern training
fleet and focus on XC capable ships and XC instruction/mentoring to
get people going.

You are aware that you are contradicting yourself?

BTW, in Europe, an introduction to cross country flying is a required
part of the primary training.

On Sep 15, 10:04*am, John Smith wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote:
I don't understand why someone would still buy an ASK21 today when you
can get a DG1000 or a Duo which offer *much* more performance for little
more money. And yes, they are perfectly suited for primary training.
I know they can and credit to places that are doing this, but I think
there is still a place for a slightly more "agricultural" primary
trainer. Especially if there is a training fleet to keep busy with
primary instruction.
...
attracting people who are likely to stay around and fly XC, buy their
own gliders, etc. - that is helped by having a more modern training
fleet and focus on XC capable ships and XC instruction/mentoring to
get people going.

You are aware that you are contradicting yourself?

BTW, in Europe, an introduction to cross country flying is a required
part of the primary training.

No, not on this (on other things I am sure frequently). Start in
ASK-21s go to DG-1000S and Duo class machines. That is not a
contradiction, its a compliment. If you can only afford one ship, then
yes the decision is more difficult.

With "more modern training fleet" I had meant to include ASK-21. It
might look old compared to a DG-1000S Club but it has decades on other
frequently used trainers here and removes most of the high-performance
glass transition issues.

I wish USA training had a progression to XC that was more structured/
mandatory than the SSA ABC badges. The ABC badge program is a good
start but many places just see to leave students lost what to do after
they have their license.

Darryl

On Sep 15, 2:54*pm, John Smith wrote:
Am 15.09.10 01:13, schrieb John Cochrane:

I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
(chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
fly and teach in.

I don't understand why someone would still buy an ASK21 today when you
can get a DG1000 or a Duo which offer *much* more performance for little
more money. And yes, they are perfectly suited for primary training.

Lasham bought a couple of DG1000s as all round trainers. However in
practice they are mostly only used for advanced cross-country
training. From a basic instructional point of view they are too
complicated (tail weights etc), too difficult to get in and out of,
and have awful ground handling (we have the 2 wheel version - the tail
weights a ton). They spin rather too well and lose a lot of height in
the process. We also have a couple of K21s which are great general
purpose gliders, but as basic trainers they are, if anything, too
docile and easy to fly, and won't spin with a normal weight male
student in the front seat. We still use ancient although slightly
updated K13s for most basic training. They do everything tolerably
well, although more performance would be nice.

Derek C

"Derek C" wrote in message
...
snip

Lasham bought a couple of DG1000s as all round trainers. However in
practice they are mostly only used for advanced cross-country
training. From a basic instructional point of view they are too
complicated (tail weights etc), too difficult to get in and out of,
and have awful ground handling (we have the 2 wheel version - the tail
weights a ton). They spin rather too well and lose a lot of height in
the process. We also have a couple of K21s which are great general
purpose gliders, but as basic trainers they are, if anything, too
docile and easy to fly, and won't spin with a normal weight male
student in the front seat. We still use ancient although slightly
updated K13s for most basic training. They do everything tolerably
well, although more performance would be nice.

I had the good fortune to get a bimble to Chievley and back last year in the
turbo one. Ground handling is fine with the tail dolly on, but one of the
dollys was defective so we had to go to the launch point to get the one that
was OK. The tail is no heavier than my glider, and if you sit someone on
the cockpit rail lifting it to get the dolly on is pretty easy.

I agree it's difficult to get into, especially for the short of leg, and
there is the danger of falling into the canopy which of course would
probably do a lot of damage. All that needs is one of those plastic steps.
That high wheel (assuming it doesn't collapse!) must be a great asset for a
field landing if the stuff in the field isn't ideally short.

We didn't spin it, nor did it feel anywhere near spinning at reasonable XC
and thermalling speeds - unless it doesn't have a pre-stall buffet.

Tail weights are IMHO a big improvement over water - for one thing no
problem if it's going to be sub-zero - for another they are quicker to
change than pouring water in or extracting it from a 500/505.

I found the DG1000 was easy to fly and very easy to land - it has massively
powerful airbrakes and wheel brake, there was no problem landing it in a
small area from a position that was really too high and too close.

However it's never ever going to be a primary trainer, as you wouldn't send
someone for their first solo in it.

Originally Posted by Surfer![_2_]

"Derek C" wrote in message
...
snip[color=blue][i]

Lasham bought a couple of DG1000s as all round trainers. However in
practice they are mostly only used for advanced cross-country
training. From a basic instructional point of view they are too
complicated (tail weights etc), too difficult to get in and out of,
and have awful ground handling (we have the 2 wheel version - the tail
weights a ton).

I found the DG1000 was easy to fly and very easy to land - it has massively
powerful airbrakes and wheel brake, there was no problem landing it in a
small area from a position that was really too high and too close.

However it's never ever going to be a primary trainer, as you wouldn't send
someone for their first solo in it.

I knew a couple of ladies who both did all their ab initio training and first/early solo flying in a Janus A. How does it compare to the DG1000 for ease of flying? I have some Janus time but none in the DG

Colin

On Sep 23, 6:15*pm, "Surfer!" wrote:
However it's never ever going to be a primary trainer, as you wouldn't send
someone for their first solo in it.

We've sent a number of people on first solos in our DG1000s in the 3
1/2 years in which they've been our only training aircraft!

One of them (at least) even did a fair bit of her training in a
borrowed Blanik for a few months after we'd sold the Grobs and the
DG1000's hadn't arrived yet.

"Bruce Hoult" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 6:15 pm, "Surfer!" wrote:
However it's never ever going to be a primary trainer, as you wouldn't
send
someone for their first solo in it.

We've sent a number of people on first solos in our DG1000s in the 3
1/2 years in which they've been our only training aircraft!

If they are your only training aircraft you don't have much choice! I
gather from your later post these are the club version with fixed u/c rather
than the version that Lasham have.



One of them (at least) even did a fair bit of her training in a
borrowed Blanik for a few months after we'd sold the Grobs and the
DG1000's hadn't arrived yet.

Surfer! wrote:
We didn't spin it, nor did it feel anywhere near spinning at reasonable
XC and thermalling speeds - unless it doesn't have a pre-stall buffet.

It doesn't buffet, it just gets mushy on the controls. But it doesn't
drop a wing by itself unless you stomp the rudder. However if you do,
then it does spin.

Tail weights are IMHO a big improvement over water - for one thing no

You don't need to add any tail ballast for instruction. Adding proper
ballast does improve the handling, but it isn't needed. Personally, I
think it's a fine idea to show the students right from day one that
there is such a thing as a CofG with which you can tinker.

there was no problem landing it in a small area from a position
that was really too high and too close.

One could even argue that it has too powerful airbrakes for primary
instruction. Learning in a DG1000 spoils you for the Duo...

as you wouldn't send someone for their first solo in it.

Why not?