Future Club Training Gliders

On Nov 7, 1:26*pm, bildan wrote:
On Nov 7, 1:30*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

A good old
towplane with relatively understandable ownership costs and utility
would be my first choice.

I wouldn't strongly disagree but there are significantly less than 200
- perhaps as few as 160 - tow planes in the US and little chance of
increasing that number in the short term. *If the sport were to
suddenly expand, we may find ourselves waiting a long time for tows.
The last 1800' tow I bought from a commercial operator cost $55 which
is absolutely reducing flying.

Moving training to winches makes sense especially since the ASK-21 is
arguably the worlds best winch glider. *(The 2-33 is arguably the
worst.)

I agree, but by "first choice" meant within the current ecosystem.
Going to self launch motorgliders for training to me is going the
reverse direction than needed. Not that I don't think a newish
training fleet is important - I absolutely believe (and have seen
first hand) people with alternate things bidding for their time, and
with money in their pocket, are turned off but older training gliders.
I suspect soaring in the USA needs to make a larger systemic move
towards winch launching to lower costs and I'm not sure how that
happens. The largest issue I see is suitability of launch sites and
that often correlates with ownership or exclusive access to suitably
sized areas of land close to population centers. Several of my
favorite glider locations you also would not get far XC on winch
launches, coastal effects and valley inversions often dictate long
tows, so they are just sited poorly for winch use even if it was
otherwise possible.

While there are some concerns about towplane supply you should be able
to buy a quite serviceable starting at ~2x the price of a full rebuild
on a modern motorglider engine :-)


Darryl

Now I'm sure there will be some folks out there that we'll hear from
here that are doing instruction in an ASK-21Mi or similar today, I
could see it might sense more for very small clubs with memberships
with high equity ownership and high amounts of supervision, especially
if members want to move up to other motorgliders but in general I
think a bad idea.

Darryl

Things may have changed, but there was once a group in Washington
state that was looking to form a club around a G-103 III SL. At that
time, SSA Plan would not insure for first solo in a self-launcher.
Could be related only to retracts.

FWIW, we did 20 winch launches yesterday. 75F and severe clear with
unlimited viz as we could see Pikes Peak from Owl Canyon glider port,
138 miles as the crow flies.

Frank Whiteley

On Nov 7, 3:29*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
Now I'm sure there will be some folks out there that we'll hear from
here that are doing instruction in an ASK-21Mi or similar today, I
could see it might sense more for very small clubs with memberships
with high equity ownership and high amounts of supervision, especially
if members want to move up to other motorgliders but in general I
think a bad idea.

Darryl

Things may have changed, but there was once a group in Washington
state that was looking to form a club around a G-103 III SL. *At that
time, SSA Plan would not insure for first solo in a self-launcher.
Could be related only to retracts.

FWIW, we did 20 winch launches yesterday. *75F and severe clear with
unlimited viz as we could see Pikes Peak from Owl Canyon glider port,
138 miles as the crow flies.

Frank Whiteley

An owner of a G-103 Twin III SL in Boulder gave up due to the
extremely poor climb performance and sold the glider to a group
operating at sea level.

As attractive as the idea is, AFAIK, no suitable training motorglider
exists with the ruggedness and low cost maintainability required.

On Nov 7, 8:32*am, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:

Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
seem valid to me, but that's just me.
I don't care to argue about it. Nobody is wrong. *If you can afford to
buy a nice lookin' glider for your club, then buy it for them.

I think that it is certainly true that there are some number of people
that would start and continue soaring even with the most outdated
equipment, but there would be more people if the equipment and
operation were more modern and more exciting.

The question is how large is the difference, and would it pay for the
additional cost.

Todd Smith
3S

On Nov 8, 3:18*pm, toad wrote:
I think that it is certainly true that there are some number of people
that would start and continue soaring even with the most outdated
equipment, but there would be more people if the equipment and
operation were more modern and more exciting.

The question is how large is the difference, and would it pay for the
additional cost.

It doesn't need to be very new.

My experience is that if you sit a brand new DG1000 (in 18m config, so
no swoopy tips and winglets) next to a well-maintained late 70's Twin
Astir or Janus then most visitors to the airfield can't distinguish
between them.

Its been said by myself and a couple of others in this thread, but let
me try to rephrase it:

Those of you saying "well it worked for me" are missing the point.
YOU are on the inside, looking out. YOU are one of the rare people
who overcame the obstacles and pitfalls in the current system of
enciting and training new glider pilots. You are NOT one of the
millions of people who have no idea what a sailplane is, or how it
works, or haven't ever given much thought to aviation.

If we're only attracting people who are already interested in flying
gliders, then we're not doing any real recruiting at all; and we
certainly will never grow the sport.

--Noel

On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:16:11 -0800, noel.wade wrote:

Its been said by myself and a couple of others in this thread, but let
me try to rephrase it:

Those of you saying "well it worked for me" are missing the point. YOU
are on the inside, looking out.

That's not what Bruce is saying. Look back at his comment. I agree with
him too: on Saturday we had a trail flighter and some starting student
pilots out and were using an ASK-21, a G.103 Acro II with out Puchacz
visible in the hangar. The visitors and students really didn't
distinguish between the three two-seaters, even one Polish guy who knows
his power planes well enough to know what a Wilga is.

I think Bruce is right: if a two-seater has a composite airframe, is
painted white, and is well-maintained even a Puchacz and an ASK-21 are
similar enough that that anybody who isn't 'one of us' won't make
distinctions between them.


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

At 13:32 07 November 2010, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:
On Nov 7, 5:52=A0am, Jim Beckman wrote:

Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
seem valid to me, but that's just me.

Yes. As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the
part of the person who rejects the experience. Maybe it really has to do
with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things.

Really, the experience is the capability of the aircraft. The ability to
use the energy in the atmosphere, to climb, to stay aloft, and to cover
the ground. But if appearance is all you care about, then the 2-33 just
isn't going to ring your bell.

P.S. By the way, I'd love to find a really nice Schweizer 2-22 -- now
THAT is a cool lookin' glider! A Grunau Baby would be amazing to own!
Talk about "SOUL" -- those old, ugly gliders (and for that matter the
older gals) have it!

I really wish I could get a chance to fly a Schweizer 1-19. I know
there's one around here, but I don't think it's been flyable for twenty
years or so. And for a real blast, try a 1-26 with the sport canopy
installed.

http://www.126association.org/graphi...t1-26solo3.jpg

Doesn't do much for performance, but the Fun Factor is at least doubled.

Jim Beckman

On Nov 8, 5:17*am, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 13:32 07 November 2010, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:

On Nov 7, 5:52=A0am, Jim Beckman *wrote:

Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
seem valid to me, but that's just me.

Yes. *As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the
part of the person who rejects the experience. *Maybe it really has to do
with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things.

Really, the experience is the capability of the aircraft. *The ability to
use the energy in the atmosphere, to climb, to stay aloft, and to cover
the ground. *But if appearance is all you care about, then the 2-33 just
isn't going to ring your bell.

P.S. *By the way, I'd love to find a really nice Schweizer 2-22 -- now
THAT is a cool lookin' glider! *A Grunau Baby would be amazing to own!
Talk about "SOUL" -- *those old, ugly gliders (and for that matter the
older gals) have it!

I really wish I could get a chance to fly a Schweizer 1-19. *I know
there's one around here, but I don't think it's been flyable for twenty
years or so. *And for a real blast, try a 1-26 with the sport canopy
installed.

http://www.126association.org/graphi...t1-26solo3.jpg

Doesn't do much for performance, but the Fun Factor is at least doubled.

Jim Beckman

I'm pretty sure there is no or very little performance hit for flying
the 1-26 open cockpit. My old club had one, it was a blast but it got
cold at cloudbase.

At 13:43 08 November 2010, Tony wrote:

I'm pretty sure there is no or very little performance hit for flying
the 1-26 open cockpit. My old club had one, it was a blast but it got
cold at cloudbase.

At one of the 1-26 Championship contests within recent memory, there was
an effort to get as many competitors as possible flying with the Sport
Canopy. As I recall (I wasn't there, I've only been to two of the
Championships) there were six or seven 1-26s competing with open
cockpits.

Jim Beckman