What gliders do you hate?

On Friday, January 2, 2015 9:52:05 PM UTC-7, WB wrote:
For me, the most miserable glider I've ever flown is the Schweizer 1-36. Flew a nearly brand new one, thought it horrible. The pitch trim system was the main problem. It was much too powerful and made the stick very heavy. I chalked it up to being new and tight. Flew a different one thinking it had to be better. Nope just as horrible as the first. A few year later, found the mangled remains of that first 1-36 in a repair shop a long way from where I flew it.

Someone mentioned the TG-2. Flew one of those on a 60 mile ferry tow. If you think the 72 mph redline made cross country soaring tough, what about flying the thing for 60 miles on tow behind a towplane that could not tow that slow? I was never so happy to get to a reasonable bail-out altitude. The split ailerons on this one had been covered as single units and would bind a bit, resulting in limited movement and poor roll control. No rudder pedal adjustments and a fixed seat made for a very cramped seating position. However, after reaching the destination at 5000 agl, I found that the thing would spin and recover very well due to that huge rudder.

I think Kirk mentioned the Schweizer 1-23. The D models and later are probably the best gliders Schweizer ever built in serial production. One of my favorite flights of all time was in a 1-23D. Climbed the upwind side of a tall cu from it's 5000' base all the way to 8000' agl, then flew the cloud street like a ridge for an hour. Also had my first outlanding in a 1-23H15.

After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.

Frank Whiteley

Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....

Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!

I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36....


Cookie






After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.

Frank Whiteley

"root" not "rood"......



On Saturday, January 3, 2015 11:58:10 AM UTC-5, Cookie wrote:
Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....

Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!

I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36....


Cookie






After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.

Frank Whiteley

What WB said about the trim might give the same appearance if a pilot were giving it extra effort.

From my limited observations and help rigging and derigging Schweizer single place gliders, I believe there is more butt-end structure where the 1-26's and 1-34's spar carry-through meets than on a 1-36, where if I recall correctly, the carry-throughs don't meet. Could be wrong though, it's been a long time. I was sensitive to this as a 1-36 near Colorado Springs returned from a flight with more dihedral than it departed with and another wound up in a BBQ pit in Boulder when a wing folded up. Not saying both weren't abused in flight, but the second ended up in a lengthy, ultimately unsuccessful, litigation with the operator's estate. Am also aware of at least a 1-26 where the wing folded up also, with better results. But never had access to a 1-26D or E to fly.

Frank Whiteley

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:58:10 AM UTC-7, Cookie wrote:
Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....

Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!

I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36....


Cookie






After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.

Frank Whiteley

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:06:23 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
What WB said about the trim might give the same appearance if a pilot were giving it extra effort.

From my limited observations and help rigging and derigging Schweizer single place gliders, I believe there is more butt-end structure where the 1-26's and 1-34's spar carry-through meets than on a 1-36, where if I recall correctly, the carry-throughs don't meet. Could be wrong though, it's been a long time. I was sensitive to this as a 1-36 near Colorado Springs returned from a flight with more dihedral than it departed with and another wound up in a BBQ pit in Boulder when a wing folded up. Not saying both weren't abused in flight, but the second ended up in a lengthy, ultimately unsuccessful, litigation with the operator's estate. Am also aware of at least a 1-26 where the wing folded up also, with better results. But never had access to a 1-26D or E to fly.

Frank Whiteley

The 1-36 that got bent by the idiot in Boulder lives at our field and flies all the time. It is a testament to Ernie Schweizer's use of multiple redundant members in the spar. Nothing broke. It just yielded and stayed together to save the pilot's life. Irv Prue did the repair and told me he really liked the engineering.
UH

I don't like to see gliders that have not been maintained well.
But that's hardly the glider's fault.
Jim

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 2:54:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:06:23 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
What WB said about the trim might give the same appearance if a pilot were giving it extra effort.

From my limited observations and help rigging and derigging Schweizer single place gliders, I believe there is more butt-end structure where the 1-26's and 1-34's spar carry-through meets than on a 1-36, where if I recall correctly, the carry-throughs don't meet. Could be wrong though, it's been a long time. I was sensitive to this as a 1-36 near Colorado Springs returned from a flight with more dihedral than it departed with and another wound up in a BBQ pit in Boulder when a wing folded up. Not saying both weren't abused in flight, but the second ended up in a lengthy, ultimately unsuccessful, litigation with the operator's estate. Am also aware of at least a 1-26 where the wing folded up also, with better results. But never had access to a 1-26D or E to fly.

Frank Whiteley

The 1-36 that got bent by the idiot in Boulder lives at our field and flies all the time. It is a testament to Ernie Schweizer's use of multiple redundant members in the spar. Nothing broke. It just yielded and stayed together to save the pilot's life. Irv Prue did the repair and told me he really liked the engineering.
UH



More than one at Boulder I guess. The one I recall was a fatal, 1997. Maybe this link will work to download a PDF. I don't think this one was rebuilt. If it was, it's got another N number.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...97FA033&rpt=fi

The one we had went to Penn State where was written off and rebuilt in Utah I think, where it may still be flying. It was unpopular at our club and was a hangar queen as a result. The last year the amortized cost of insurance per flight was $30, so it went away.

Frank Whiteley

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 10:58:10 AM UTC-6, Cookie wrote:
Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....

Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!

I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36....


Cookie

There's been a couple of 1-34's come apart in flight due to botched aerobatics and I have seen a couple of other 1-34's that were "loose" all over due to having been overstressed by owners who frequently did aerobatics. What is it about 1-34's that encouraged aerobatic flight? Maybe it's my unschooled eyes, but the 1-34 just does not look an aerobatic mount to me.

Don't know about any 1-36's coming apart. Has to be a tough little sucker to have survived the infamous "barograph notching incident" in CO that more than doubled the dihedral.

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 3:29:24 PM UTC-7, WB wrote:
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 10:58:10 AM UTC-6, Cookie wrote:
Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....

Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!

I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36...


Cookie

There's been a couple of 1-34's come apart in flight due to botched aerobatics and I have seen a couple of other 1-34's that were "loose" all over due to having been overstressed by owners who frequently did aerobatics. What is it about 1-34's that encouraged aerobatic flight? Maybe it's my unschooled eyes, but the 1-34 just does not look an aerobatic mount to me.

Don't know about any 1-36's coming apart. Has to be a tough little sucker to have survived the infamous "barograph notching incident" in CO that more than doubled the dihedral.

Our 1-34 had major re-riveting of the wings as a result of botched flying. It had surprisingly low time to be showing such worry. It was sold and replaced with an LS-4a.

Frank

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 11:50:01 AM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Friday, January 2, 2015 9:52:05 PM UTC-7, WB wrote:
For me, the most miserable glider I've ever flown is the Schweizer 1-36.. Flew a nearly brand new one, thought it horrible. The pitch trim system was the main problem. It was much too powerful and made the stick very heavy.. I chalked it up to being new and tight. Flew a different one thinking it had to be better. Nope just as horrible as the first. A few year later, found the mangled remains of that first 1-36 in a repair shop a long way from where I flew it.

Someone mentioned the TG-2. Flew one of those on a 60 mile ferry tow. If you think the 72 mph redline made cross country soaring tough, what about flying the thing for 60 miles on tow behind a towplane that could not tow that slow? I was never so happy to get to a reasonable bail-out altitude. The split ailerons on this one had been covered as single units and would bind a bit, resulting in limited movement and poor roll control. No rudder pedal adjustments and a fixed seat made for a very cramped seating position. However, after reaching the destination at 5000 agl, I found that the thing would spin and recover very well due to that huge rudder.

I think Kirk mentioned the Schweizer 1-23. The D models and later are probably the best gliders Schweizer ever built in serial production. One of my favorite flights of all time was in a 1-23D. Climbed the upwind side of a tall cu from it's 5000' base all the way to 8000' agl, then flew the cloud street like a ridge for an hour. Also had my first outlanding in a 1-23H15.

After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.

Frank Whiteley

I would be curious as to what about the construction of the 1-36 root concerned you.
My experience is that the pitch sensitivity of the 1-36 is not any poorer than that of a 1-26. That said, I do prefer the 1-34 over the 1-36.
FWIW
UH