Future Club Training Gliders

Our club does a high volume of training and we see the same thing in
terms of Schweizer trained pilots. There is typically a steep remedial
training curve to build the finesse required to fly something as
docile a Grob 103. Our instructors immediately recognize the
Schweitzer induced habits that have to be unlearned.

When this discussion occurs the cost issue always comes up. But
really, what similar sport do you know that trains with antique
equipment. Golf, skiing, boating, and even regular attendance at
sports events are not inexpensive… and neither is soaring. If people/
clubs really want to fly in decent equipment they become creative and
find a way. My guess is that the perceived low cost of operating
Schewizer equipment probably results in more people leaving the sport
than the assumed high cost of operating good equipment.

Bob


On Sep 15, 11:13*am, Kevin Christner
wrote:
I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
Schweizer trained and everyone else. *Place these two types in an
ASK-21. *Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
and speed properly. *The other students seem to do much better. *The
Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. *Being trained in
a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
back.

Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.

KJC

On Sep 15, 7:34*am, Tony wrote:



The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
the L-13.

Is this statement based on actual issues with 2-33 wings or just the
fact that "it is metal, it will fatigue eventually"?

I see no mention in any of the Schweizer Service Bulletins about
issues with 2-22 or 2-33 wing structure and have never heard of any
problems either.

I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
Schweizers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sep 16, 8:13*pm, RL wrote:
Our club does a high volume of training and we see the same thing in
terms of Schweizer trained pilots. There is typically a steep remedial
training curve to build the finesse required to fly something as
docile a Grob 103. Our instructors immediately recognize the
Schweitzer induced habits that have to be unlearned.

When this discussion occurs the cost issue always comes up. But
really, what similar sport do you know that trains with antique
equipment. Golf, skiing, boating, and even regular attendance at
sports events are not inexpensive… and neither is soaring. If people/
clubs really want to fly in decent equipment they become creative and
find a way. *My guess is that the perceived low cost of operating
Schewizer equipment probably results in more people leaving the sport
than the assumed high cost of operating good equipment.

Bob

On Sep 15, 11:13*am, Kevin Christner
wrote:

I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
Schweizer trained and everyone else. *Place these two types in an
ASK-21. *Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
and speed properly. *The other students seem to do much better. *The
Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. *Being trained in
a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
back.

Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.

KJC

On Sep 15, 7:34*am, Tony wrote:

The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
the L-13.

Is this statement based on actual issues with 2-33 wings or just the
fact that "it is metal, it will fatigue eventually"?

I see no mention in any of the Schweizer Service Bulletins about
issues with 2-22 or 2-33 wing structure and have never heard of any
problems either.

I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
Schweizers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I watched a pilot total a G103. He bounced on the first contact with
the runway but not so the situation was unrecoverable. I was close
enough I could see his face as he mentally shifted to landing the 2-33
he was trained in. He wanted down and stopped RIGHT NOW so he tried to
push a non-existent skid into the runway to stop the Grob. The Grob
responded with its characteristic nose-to-tail PIO bounce and broke
up.

I'd bet if you carefully analyzed every Grob 103 tail boom breaking
accident, in the majority of the cases, you'd find a recently trained
2-33 pilot was at the controls. When I look at a logbook and see
initial training in a 2-33, I know it's going to take some through
remedial training for a Grob transition.

I could see his face as he mentally shifted to landing the 2-33
he was trained in.

You must be great to have around the campfire with the stories you
tell...

On Sep 17, 11:15*am, Westbender wrote:
*I could see his face as he mentally shifted to landing the 2-33
he was trained in.

You must be great to have around the campfire with the stories you
tell...

I will say that visiting with Bill is one of the highlights come
convention time. There is no shortage of great story tellers in this
sport.

On Sep 17, 10:45*am, bildan wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:13*pm, RL wrote:





Our club does a high volume of training and we see the same thing in
terms of Schweizer trained pilots. There is typically a steep remedial
training curve to build the finesse required to fly something as
docile a Grob 103. Our instructors immediately recognize the
Schweitzer induced habits that have to be unlearned.

When this discussion occurs the cost issue always comes up. But
really, what similar sport do you know that trains with antique
equipment. Golf, skiing, boating, and even regular attendance at
sports events are not inexpensive… and neither is soaring. If people/
clubs really want to fly in decent equipment they become creative and
find a way. *My guess is that the perceived low cost of operating
Schewizer equipment probably results in more people leaving the sport
than the assumed high cost of operating good equipment.

Bob

On Sep 15, 11:13*am, Kevin Christner
wrote:

I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
Schweizer trained and everyone else. *Place these two types in an
ASK-21. *Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
and speed properly. *The other students seem to do much better. *The
Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. *Being trained in
a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
back.

Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.

KJC

On Sep 15, 7:34*am, Tony wrote:

The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
the L-13.

Is this statement based on actual issues with 2-33 wings or just the
fact that "it is metal, it will fatigue eventually"?

I see no mention in any of the Schweizer Service Bulletins about
issues with 2-22 or 2-33 wing structure and have never heard of any
problems either.

I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
Schweizers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I watched a pilot total a G103. *He bounced on the first contact with
the runway but not so the situation was unrecoverable. *I was close
enough I could see his face as he mentally shifted to landing the 2-33
he was trained in. He wanted down and stopped RIGHT NOW so he tried to
push a non-existent skid into the runway to stop the Grob. *The Grob
responded with its characteristic nose-to-tail PIO bounce and broke
up.

I'd bet if you carefully analyzed every Grob 103 tail boom breaking
accident, in the majority of the cases, you'd find a recently trained
2-33 pilot was at the controls. *When I look at a logbook and see
initial training in a 2-33, I know it's going to take some through
remedial training for a Grob transition.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where did this guy ever get this dumb idea"???? His problem was not
"training in a 2-33", it was poor, improper training, or bad habit
after training!!!!

This "jam the skid into the ground" deal with the 2-33 is an IMPROPER
LANDING TECHNIQUE......should not be taught, should not be
tolerated........

A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)

Landing a 2-33, on touch down, the nose should be slightly high, the
tailwheel low, almost toughing the ground, and the touch down on the
main wheel..........the ground roll should be with the nose up, skid
off the ground, rolling on the main wheel, using wheel brake if
required, until the glider is so slow that the nose comes down by
itself.......stick should be way back at this point.......glider
should be nearly stopped before the skid touches the ground.

I see many pilots do what I call "landing in a pile".....they touch
down, and immediately let the stick go forward........jamming the nose
wheel (or skid) onto the ground..........some even push the stick
forward!!! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!............

With a nose dragger glider, the nose wheel is NOT a "landing gear", it
is merely for ground handling and slow taxi....SAME for the skid on a
nose dragger glider.........it is not a "landing" skid, it is just to
support the glider when stationary or during the very beginning of the
take off roll, and the very end of the landing roll. Same for the
nose wheel on a tri gear airplane...........

Bad habits come easily.......in our repair shop, we have had a rash of
airplane repairs where the tricycle gear airplane was landed nose
wheel first.......(or bounced into a nose first landing) resulting in
flatened front wheel, bent landing gear, bent firewall, and sometimes
prop strike and engine rebuild.........I see "wheel barrow " landings
at our field all the time......BAD TECHNIQUE!!!!!

Airplanes, gliders, nose dragger, tri gear, tail dragger, all should
be landed nose up, tail down. Landing loads taken by the main gear,
and pitch control maintained throughout the ground roll.......

So don't blame the 2-33......

Cookie

On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "
wrote:

A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)

Really? The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
Grob"!). I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
pads!

Some older gliders (and not all nose draggers) require a flown on
landing - tail low, but on the main wheel - due to the tail wheel not
being stressed for landing forces. Examples are the 2-33 and Blanik
(note, one is a nose dragger, one a tail dragger). This is similar in
concept to a wheel landing in a taildragger airplane - or a somewhat
flat normal landing in a tricycle-geared airplane. The trick is that
once you have established the pitch attitude for touchdown, you can't
continue to increase the angle of attack to slow down or you will
touch the weak tail wheel/skid too early, so some judgement and skill
is required.

The later generation of trainers, whether nose draggers (k-21, g-103)
or tail draggers (DG-500/1000, Duo) are designed to land main and tail
at the same time - minimum energy landings - the equivalent of a 3-
point landing in a taildragger airplane. This is also the way almost
all current single seat gliders are designed to be landed, for obvious
reasons - gliders are now heavier and land faster, and need to be
landed at the slowest possible speed in an off-field landing.

That is one of the reasons the 2-33 is a poor trainer for today's
glider pilots (assuming they intend to move on to something more
interesting than a 1-26). If all training is done in a 2-33 (or
Blanik, to be fair), then a careful checkout in a modern glider is
essential to properly prepare the transitioning pilot for the landing
characteristics of most modern gliders.

Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
(assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...

Kirk

On Sep 18, 11:50*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "

wrote:
A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)

Really? *The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
Grob"!). *I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
pads!

Some older gliders (and not all nose draggers) require a flown on
landing - tail low, but on the main wheel - due to the tail wheel not
being stressed for landing forces. *Examples are the 2-33 and Blanik
(note, one is a nose dragger, one a tail dragger). *This is similar in
concept to a wheel landing in a taildragger airplane - or a somewhat
flat normal landing in a tricycle-geared airplane. *The trick is that
once you have established the pitch attitude for touchdown, you can't
continue to increase the angle of attack to slow down or you will
touch the weak tail wheel/skid too early, so some judgement and skill
is required.

The later generation of trainers, whether nose draggers (k-21, g-103)
or tail draggers (DG-500/1000, Duo) are designed to land main and tail
at the same time - minimum energy landings - the equivalent of a 3-
point landing in a taildragger airplane. *This is also the way almost
all current single seat gliders are designed to be landed, for obvious
reasons - gliders are now heavier and land faster, and need to be
landed at the slowest possible speed in an off-field landing.

That is one of the reasons the 2-33 is a poor trainer for today's
glider pilots (assuming they intend to move on to something more
interesting than a 1-26). *If all training is done in a 2-33 (or
Blanik, to be fair), then a careful checkout in a modern glider is
essential to properly prepare the transitioning pilot for the landing
characteristics of most modern gliders.

Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
(assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...

Kirk

Having flown a number of different gliders and power planes over the
years, no two of them handle or land the same, different aircraft take
different methods of landing, what works for a Cessna 150 may not do
so well in a Bonanza, or what works in a 2-33 wont wor'k well in a
Blanik,Lark,ASK21, etc. Thats why we have instructors to work us
throught the transistion. Orvile and Willber were the only guys who
had a valid reson to teach themselves to fly..

On Sep 18, 8:53*pm, ray conlon wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:50*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:





On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "

wrote:
A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)

Really? *The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
Grob"!). *I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
pads!

Some older gliders (and not all nose draggers) require a flown on
landing - tail low, but on the main wheel - due to the tail wheel not
being stressed for landing forces. *Examples are the 2-33 and Blanik
(note, one is a nose dragger, one a tail dragger). *This is similar in
concept to a wheel landing in a taildragger airplane - or a somewhat
flat normal landing in a tricycle-geared airplane. *The trick is that
once you have established the pitch attitude for touchdown, you can't
continue to increase the angle of attack to slow down or you will
touch the weak tail wheel/skid too early, so some judgement and skill
is required.

The later generation of trainers, whether nose draggers (k-21, g-103)
or tail draggers (DG-500/1000, Duo) are designed to land main and tail
at the same time - minimum energy landings - the equivalent of a 3-
point landing in a taildragger airplane. *This is also the way almost
all current single seat gliders are designed to be landed, for obvious
reasons - gliders are now heavier and land faster, and need to be
landed at the slowest possible speed in an off-field landing.

That is one of the reasons the 2-33 is a poor trainer for today's
glider pilots (assuming they intend to move on to something more
interesting than a 1-26). *If all training is done in a 2-33 (or
Blanik, to be fair), then a careful checkout in a modern glider is
essential to properly prepare the transitioning pilot for the landing
characteristics of most modern gliders.

Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
(assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...

Kirk

Having flown a number of different gliders and power planes over the
years, no two of them handle or land the same, different aircraft take
different methods of landing, what works for a Cessna 150 may not do
so well in a Bonanza, or what works in a 2-33 wont wor'k *well in a
Blanik,Lark,ASK21, etc. Thats why we have instructors to work us
throught the transistion. Orvile and Willber were the only guys who
had a valid reson to teach themselves to fly..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True, but the BASIC concept is the same...........

Tell me of any nose dragger where the method is to jam the stick
forward right at touch down as the guy did in the 2-33 / Grob story
above.........


Cookie

Tell me of any nose dragger where the method is to jam the stick
forward right at touch down as the guy did in the 2-33 / Grob story
above.........

Cookie

Under certain circumstances (off field landing in very short field)
that is exactly the method that should be used - IF you are in a
glider with a big skid and useless brakes. That's why it is there.
But again - it's a specific technique for a specific condition, not to
be applied universally - and especially not in the G-103! The skid is
not the same as the nose wheel currently used, it serves a different
purpose.

Kirk

On Sep 18, 5:53*pm, ray conlon wrote:

Having flown a number of different gliders and power planes over the
years, no two of them handle or land the same, different aircraft take
different methods of landing, what works for a Cessna 150 may not do
so well in a Bonanza, or what works in a 2-33 wont wor'k *well in a
Blanik,Lark,ASK21, etc. Thats why we have instructors to work us
throught the transistion. Orvile and Willber were the only guys who
had a valid reson to teach themselves to fly..

Having flown a number of gliders and power planes over the years, they
are all pretty much landed the same - at the slowest possible speed
allowed by the configuration of the landing gear (and the conditions
at hand - for example a strong gusty crosswind may require a different
technique than a calm day on a short field). It's that gear
configuration that requires different techniques for different
airplanes, not aerodynamics.

That gear configuration is a driving factor in how 2-33s and Blaniks
are landed vs how most modern gliders are landed (I say most because
the PW-5 & 6 may be different, but I have no first hand experience in
those two).

If a student isn't taught the REASON for the specific landing
technique (fixed attitude, slightly tail low, "flown-on" in 2-33s and
Blaniks, due to weak tail vs tail and main at same time, min energy in
glass such as K-21 or G-103) they will probably think that the first
technique they are taught will apply to all future gliders. That can
get very expensive.

Kirk