Future Club Training Gliders

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 19, 11:56*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
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

So you are saying that the proper landing technique for a 2-33 is to
jam the stick forward? Or only this technique in off field
landings?

BTW 2-33 normally has pretty good brakes....the drum brake model has
good brakes, the disc brake model has great brakes..........(unless
there is a maintenance problem, which is not the glider's fault).

In off field landing, it is better to deal with rough terrain, or
hitting of unseen objects (rocks, etc) with the main wheel/tire, NOT
THE SKID.

I would argue that stopping with brakes is just as good as stopping
with the skid...........but that arguement would not be necessary if
proper landing technique is used in off field landing..........LOW
ENERGY LANDING.........

After a low energy landing, the glider will need very little braking
if any to come to a stop in a short distance, particularily if the
surface is the typical soft dirt farm field.

Of couse a pilot who was incorrectly trained in the "fly it on"
technique will touch down with considerable extra speed and have a
problem in a short field.


Cookie

So you are saying that the proper landing technique for a 2-33 is to
jam the stick forward? Or only this technique in off field
landings?


I was taught that the skid is used for braking *only* as a last resort
to prevent running into the (inevitable here in the northeast US) trees
at the end of the runway. Following an otherwise low energy landing, of
course.

Tony

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

On Sep 19, 11:52*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
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

2-33 should NOT be "flown on" as you suggest above............

Yes, bottom line is "low energy landing" in ANY aircraft..........Low
energy means "slow"....but not "slow a possible" it means slow as
practical..........this leads to the nuances.

But any glider landed in a low energy configuration will not tear
itself into pieces as the 2-33 trained grob pilot did in the scenerio
referred to in the earlier post.

Thousands of pilots have been properly trained in 2-33 and progress
seccessfully to all kinds of "more advanced" gliders without
issue..........

True that a poorly trained 2-33 pilot, or one who has degenerated into
bad habbits, may take those problems with him into the more advanced
gliders.........but this is a training / pilot problem, not an
aircraft problem. I see plenty of pilots, airplane and glider, who
have developed some bad landing habits and have never set foti n a
2-33.

The 2-33 will withstand less than perfect landings by beginners
because it is designed to do so as a TRAINER. We are all allowed to
make mistakes.........The idea is for the student / instructor to work
out all these problems early in the program. Once consistant good
landings are made in the 2-33 the pilot can then easily adapt to any
glider. If poor landing technique is tolerated in the 2-33 then the
less forgiving gliders will show this defeciency.

But this is all the more arguement for the 2-33 as a trainer, and not
using Grob or ASK as a trainer.......

Cookie

The 2-33 will withstand less than perfect landings by beginners
because it is designed to do so as a TRAINER. *We are *all allowed to
make mistakes.........The idea is for the student / instructor to work
out all these problems early in the program. Once consistant good
landings are made in the 2-33 the pilot can then easily adapt to any
glider. *If poor landing technique is tolerated in the 2-33 then the
less forgiving gliders will show this defeciency.

But this is all the more arguement for the 2-33 as a trainer, and not
using Grob or ASK as a trainer.......

Cookie

First, I don't see any "argument" there for using the 2-33 as a
trainer. The 2-33 flies differently than just about anything else out
there. Beyond basic stick and rudder skills, it doesn't prepare the
pilot to fly anything else. The rest of the world seems to be able to
use more modern gliders safely and efficiently without regular damage
- they also seem to produce better pilots, at least from world
championship results.

Teaching low energy landings in a 2-33 can be a bit of a trick.
Because the tail is so high relative to the main wheel there is a
tendency to go "ground seeking" with the tail leading to the glider
stalling before the anything touches down and a nice heavy thud.
Hence, very few true low energy landings are taught in a 2-33
(somewhere in the low 30's vs. right around 40). This also doesn't
prepare for proper 2-points - the angle of attack to 2-point being
much lower in a ASK-21 or similar.

Another thread states the 2-33 works fine because eventually *some* go
on to fly glass, *few* go on to fly X-C, and *fewer* fly a contest.
Again this does not address whether the 2-33 properly prepares pilots
for the types of gliders they will likely be flying - even the author
admits that they must first "transition" (translation: retrain) to the
ASK-21. This whole process could just be skipped without the
potential for developing all the sloppy habits that almost come from
pilots trained in 2-33's.

The only "argument" in this either thread is based on price point.
And I won't argue with that one.

On Sep 20, 10:42*am, Kevin Christner
wrote:
The 2-33 will withstand less than perfect landings by beginners
because it is designed to do so as a TRAINER. *We are *all allowed to
make mistakes.........The idea is for the student / instructor to work
out all these problems early in the program. Once consistant good
landings are made in the 2-33 the pilot can then easily adapt to any
glider. *If poor landing technique is tolerated in the 2-33 then the
less forgiving gliders will show this defeciency.

But this is all the more arguement for the 2-33 as a trainer, and not
using Grob or ASK as a trainer.......

Cookie

First, I don't see any "argument" there for using the 2-33 as a
trainer. *The 2-33 flies differently than just about anything else out
there. *Beyond basic stick and rudder skills, it doesn't prepare the
pilot to fly anything else. *The rest of the world seems to be able to
use more modern gliders safely and efficiently without regular damage
- they also seem to produce better pilots, at least from world
championship results.

Teaching low energy landings in a 2-33 can be a bit of a trick.
Because the tail is so high relative to the main wheel there is a
tendency to go "ground seeking" with the tail leading to the glider
stalling before the anything touches down and a nice heavy thud.
Hence, very few true low energy landings are taught in a 2-33
(somewhere in the low 30's vs. right around 40). *This also doesn't
prepare for proper 2-points - the angle of attack to 2-point being
much lower in a ASK-21 or similar.

Another thread states the 2-33 works fine because eventually *some* go
on to fly glass, *few* go on to fly X-C, and *fewer* fly a contest.
Again this does not address whether the 2-33 properly prepares pilots
for the types of gliders they will likely be flying - even the author
admits that they must first "transition" (translation: retrain) to the
ASK-21. *This whole process could just be skipped without the
potential for developing all the sloppy habits that almost come from
pilots trained in 2-33's.

The only "argument" in this either thread is based on price point.
And I won't argue with that one.

When only about 4% of the SSA members in this country ever fly in a
contest, the idea of needing high performance trainers seems a bit off
point, those who wish to fly contest, more power too you, the other
96% don't and enjoy or flights just as much.

When only about 4% of the SSA members in this country ever fly in a
contest, the idea of needing high performance trainers seems a bit off
point, those who wish to fly contest, more power too you, the other
96% don't and enjoy or flights just as much.

Thats not the point thats trying to be made here. Just because
someone doesn't go anywhere doesn't mean they don't need to be
properly prepared to fly the wide range of gliders they can buy and
fly, on their own, with no additional requirement beyond a PPL.

It appears about 60-70% of the CFIG commentators would not recommend
the 2-33 for ab-initio training, and 30%-40% would. Out of the later
group, some seem to like the 2-33 more on price point than on its
training qualities. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, and I
don't think anyone is suggesting you can't have fun flying a 2-33.
That doesn't mean the glider has all the qualities many of us would
like to see, and I think thats the point thats trying to be made.

I think this thread has been hashed out enough. I'm signing off
before more tomatoes fly my way.