Future Club Training Gliders

In article ,
Jim Beckman wrote:

At 23:29 08 November 2010, bildan wrote:

As a former ride pilot, I can assure you "Those People" aren't
"dilettantes", they're just people - mostly very nice people, who
decided to give gliding a try. Judging them to be dilettantes is just
one of many examples of how we chase people away.

I was referring specifically to potential rides who walk away from the
opportunity when they see that the vehicle is going to be something less
than what Thomas Crown (latest version) flew. Those folks, if not
dilettante, are something even denser.

I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
shiny glass slipper....

Appearances matter to almost everybody, to different degrees. This is
simply a fact of life that we have to deal with. If you don't want those
people, that's a perfectly valid desire, but it does mean greatly
limiting your pool. Having something shiny and modern to show off isn't
a fault, and the people it attracts can still be valuable members to
have.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:04:56 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
shiny glass slipper....

Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?


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

In article ,
Martin Gregorie wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:04:56 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
shiny glass slipper....

Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?

Seems pretty sane to me. I welcome glider pilots in any equipment that
makes them happy. I just think that people who claim that looks don't
matter ought to put their money where their mouth is....

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On 2010/11/09 11:36 PM, Mike Ash wrote:
In ,
Martin wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:04:56 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
shiny glass slipper....

Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?

Seems pretty sane to me. I welcome glider pilots in any equipment that
makes them happy. I just think that people who claim that looks don't
matter ought to put their money where their mouth is....


Some folk are strange and actually WANT to fly the vintage trainers.

Now - the opportunity to take the Bergie for a late afternoon lazy amble
over the river as the sun sets is not to be missed. Classic vintage wood
and fabric - gentle lift and peaceful slow flight has many attractions.
But it does not compare to pushing it in a 1:40+ glass single, or even a
composite two seater.
Personally my back is broken after less than an hour the back seat of in
most of the oldies. They are just plain horrible for instruction. My
personal maximum has been 11 flights and around 4 hours in the air in a
G103. Quite a long day if you include all the fetching and pushing
gliders, but no problem. Conversely - 8 launches on one day in a
Bergfalke II-55 cured me of wanting to instruct in vintage gliders... My
back took days to recover.

So depends who you are - I was actually attracted to the club I
initially learned at by the vintage trainers.

Having moved on - I still value some of the lessons they facilitated.
There is something to be said for learning to fly something that fights
back when you abuse it. The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about
the completeness of skills it would provide if it were the only trainer
used.

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:29:17 +0200, BruceGreeff wrote:

Having moved on - I still value some of the lessons they facilitated.
There is something to be said for learning to fly something that fights
back when you abuse it. The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about
the completeness of skills it would provide if it were the only trainer
used.

Which is why we counterbalance ours with a G.103, which is better for
teaching speed control, and a Puchacz, which enthusiastically does all
the stuff an ASK-21 doesn't want to do, and is marvellous to fly solo.


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

On Nov 10, 1:29*pm, BruceGreeff wrote:
On 2010/11/09 11:36 PM, Mike Ash wrote:

Some folk are strange and actually WANT to fly the vintage trainers.

No problem with that. I like old wooden gliders too. I just have a
problem with coercing others to fly them if they want something
better. (A 2-33 isn't 'vintage', it's just old.)

Snip---------

The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about the completeness of
skills it would provide if it were the only trainer used.

Snip---------

As others have pointed out, the K-21 will spin just fine with the CG
aft and weight kits are available just for that purpose. I find even
with the CG well forward, the ASK-21 clearly exhibits all the pre-
stall/stall behaviors a student needs to learn. Just asking them to
compare how the K-21 handles at 36Kts vs 42Kts convinces them it flies
a lot better at 42. It barks, but doesn't bite.

One youngster said in delight, "Hey, it gets wobbley when it's slow
just like a bicycle". Yup!

On Nov 10, 9:27*pm, bildan wrote:
On Nov 10, 1:29*pm, BruceGreeff wrote:

On 2010/11/09 11:36 PM, Mike Ash wrote:
Some folk are strange and actually WANT to fly the vintage trainers.

No problem with that. *I like old wooden gliders too. *I just have a
problem with coercing others to fly them if they want something
better. *(A 2-33 isn't 'vintage', it's just old.)

Snip---------

The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about the completeness of
skills it would provide if it were the only trainer used.

Snip---------

As others have pointed out, the K-21 will spin just fine with the CG
aft and weight kits are available just for that purpose. *I find even
with the CG well forward, the ASK-21 clearly exhibits all the pre-
stall/stall behaviors a student needs to learn. *Just asking them to
compare how the K-21 handles at 36Kts vs 42Kts convinces them it flies
a lot better at 42. * It barks, but doesn't bite.

One youngster said in delight, "Hey, it gets wobbley when it's slow
just like a bicycle". *Yup!

The K21 is very stable, normal amount of adverse yaw, no tendency for
any of the controls to overbalance, and slightly lacking in rudder
power - which is one of the reasons why it is so reluctant to spin.
Many heavier pilots could get the impression that if you get a stalled
wing drop, it will always turn into a benign spiral dive. That is why
it is not a very good trainer.

Derek C

Hi Bill

Our two Bergfalkes had more in common with a packing crate (including
the holes covered with duck tape...)

Having done a refurb on both they are now quite respectable.

Interestingly - I braded them as "Vintage" on our website (hell - it was
about all we could differentiate on) and it worked. We attracted folk
who like old cars, and have a steady trickle of folk coming for an
intro. Even had a couple of international visitors over the years.

Still - we used our Blanik L13 for the more advanced training until
recently.

Maybe something composite and shiny is in the future of the club.

Bruce

On 2010/11/10 11:27 PM, bildan wrote:
On Nov 10, 1:29 pm, wrote:
On 2010/11/09 11:36 PM, Mike Ash wrote:

Some folk are strange and actually WANT to fly the vintage trainers.

No problem with that. I like old wooden gliders too. I just have a
problem with coercing others to fly them if they want something
better. (A 2-33 isn't 'vintage', it's just old.)

Snip---------

The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about the completeness of
skills it would provide if it were the only trainer used.

Snip---------

As others have pointed out, the K-21 will spin just fine with the CG
aft and weight kits are available just for that purpose. I find even
with the CG well forward, the ASK-21 clearly exhibits all the pre-
stall/stall behaviors a student needs to learn. Just asking them to
compare how the K-21 handles at 36Kts vs 42Kts convinces them it flies
a lot better at 42. It barks, but doesn't bite.

One youngster said in delight, "Hey, it gets wobbley when it's slow
just like a bicycle". Yup!

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

On Nov 10, 1:29*pm, BruceGreeff wrote:
On 2010/11/09 11:36 PM, Mike Ash wrote:





In ,
* Martin *wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:04:56 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
shiny glass slipper....

Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?

Seems pretty sane to me. I welcome glider pilots in any equipment that
makes them happy. I just think that people who claim that looks don't
matter ought to put their money where their mouth is....

Some folk are strange and actually WANT to fly the vintage trainers.

Now - the opportunity to take the Bergie for a late afternoon lazy amble
over the river as the sun sets is not to be missed. Classic vintage wood
and fabric - gentle lift and peaceful slow flight has many attractions.
But it does not compare to pushing it in a 1:40+ glass single, or even a
composite two seater.
Personally my back is broken after less than an hour the back seat of in
most of the oldies. They are just plain horrible for instruction. My
personal maximum has been 11 flights and around 4 hours in the air in a
G103. Quite a long day if you include all the fetching and pushing
gliders, but no problem. Conversely - 8 launches on one day in a
Bergfalke II-55 cured me of wanting to instruct in vintage gliders... My
back took days to recover.

So depends who you are - I was actually attracted to the club I
initially learned at by the vintage trainers.

Having moved on - I still value some of the lessons they facilitated.
There is something to be said for learning to fly something that fights
back when you abuse it. The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about
the completeness of skills it would provide if it were the only trainer
used.

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I trained in 2-33's years ago, left gliding, and retrained upon my
return in Blanik L-13's, graduating to an L-33 and Jantar standard.
Now my club also owns a K-21.
My perspective, however, is from doing a stint as maintenance
director.
Regardless of it's flying qualities, the Blanik was designed in 1956
when repair labor was cheap, and
now that repair labor and parts have become very much more expensive,
they are increasingly more pricey to fix properly.
From what I've seen, this trend is going to make any procedure to
recertify them very difficult to make economical.
Moreover, their minium 30 year age is going to make metal fatigue an
increasingly difficult problem to deal with even if they are re-
certified.
The high up front cost of K-21's is a signficant hurdle for all, but
the 18,000 hour life and limited number of metal parts.
is a major ongoing advantage if that hurdle can be crossed.
So even if the current crisis passes, it will only provide breathing
room to find the answer we really need:
a low cost fiberglass trainer with the right handling characteristics
from a company with reliable parts supply.
That will be a very tough bill to fill unless we get a prolonged
period of a 95 cent Euro, which doesn't seem likely.

On Nov 9, 12:32*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:

Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?

Martin -

I think you have misunderstood my last comment and the comments of
others here. No one is saying that you have to buy a DG-1000 or a Duo-
Discus or an Arcus in order to conduct training. Your example of an
ASK-21 is a sex-machine compared to the Schweizer gliders! Compa
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...33C-GWCV01.JPG
to
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._ASK_21_vr.jpg

The point is that even someone who knows nothing about airplanes can
tell which one is more modern and capable. My comments were aimed at
the people who've replied on this thread and talked about how they
worked hard to become a pilot, or transitioned through a bunch of
crappy ships to get to a good one. THEY are the exception. The
average citizen (at least in the USA) is not going to slog through all
that, and their interest-level is certainly going to be affected by
how modern (or at least modern-looking) the aircraft are. Its just
human nature.

--Noel