![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Club Class Gliders | Sam Giltner[_1_] | Soaring | 4 | December 3rd 08 03:28 AM |
Basic Training Gliders | Derek Copeland | Soaring | 35 | December 26th 05 02:19 PM |
Basic Training Gliders | Justin Craig | Soaring | 0 | December 6th 05 10:07 PM |
Basic Training Gliders | Justin Craig | Soaring | 0 | December 6th 05 10:07 PM |
Soaring club close to NYC, with high-performance gliders | City Dweller | Soaring | 9 | September 29th 05 11:55 AM |