Scheibe/Alliance SF-34

"Charles Yeates" wrote in message
...


Tim

Fortunately, the factory price of a PW-6, instrumented in both cockpits is
US 60,000 today -- trailer extra

I doubt there is market enough for 100-200 new two seat gliders at
$100,000 -$150,000 each today and that's likely what would be needed for
anyone to be successful with a new design.


I know Charles is the North American dealer and he's pushing his product but
this is a really great deal. I've flown his PW-6 and it' s a sweet, very
well built trainer. If anything, Charles is understating the PW-6's
qualities. It deserves to be on everybodys short list for a new trainer.

The only concern I have is that the low mounted tailplane has elevator
balance horns with a small gap between the stabilizer and horn. If you
operate from a trashy, littered airfield there is a tiny chance FOD could
get jammed in that gap. On any respectable airfield, that should never be a
concern.

Disclaimer: I have no financial connection.

Bill Daniels

I have a fair amount of time in the back seat of the SF-34. From a
CFI's, (at least this CFI), point of view, it's easier to fly than the
G103 in that the controls are more haromonized and it does well in weak
lift. At speeds above about seventy knots it seems to out run, (albeit
slowly), the G103. The useful load is better as most 103's in this
country have less useful load by virtue of their age and damage
history. From a student or at least a front seat point of view, there
is a bit less foot room than the 103 as the nose is more pointed. The
SF-34 ground handles better than the 103 because of the manner in which
it is so easily balance on the main wheel. There is quite a lot of
room in the back seat and I even need some extra cushions, (I'm 5' 10")
in order to reach the stick in it's full forward position. There are
only two in the US that I know of and the one I've been flying is at
the Moriarty airport in NM. All-in-all, the SF-34 is a lot of bang for
the buck.

Regards,

Billy Hill

In article .com,
wrote:

I have a fair amount of time in the back seat of the SF-34. From a
CFI's, (at least this CFI), point of view, it's easier to fly than the
G103 in that the controls are more haromonized and it does well in weak
lift. At speeds above about seventy knots it seems to out run, (albeit
slowly), the G103. The useful load is better as most 103's in this
country have less useful load by virtue of their age and damage
history. From a student or at least a front seat point of view, there
is a bit less foot room than the 103 as the nose is more pointed. The
SF-34 ground handles better than the 103 because of the manner in which
it is so easily balance on the main wheel. There is quite a lot of
room in the back seat and I even need some extra cushions, (I'm 5' 10")
in order to reach the stick in it's full forward position. There are
only two in the US that I know of and the one I've been flying is at
the Moriarty airport in NM. All-in-all, the SF-34 is a lot of bang for
the buck.

Regards,

Billy Hill


Thanks for the info. I flew the other one 3 times when it was based at
Bermadoo high about 20 years ago (hi Frank!). Once from the front seat
and twice from the back giving rides. My faint recollection is that it
was a pleasant ship to fly. Except for an ominous clunking that sounded
like the wings were trying to fall off. As it turns out, there was
eventually an AD on that because the wings WERE trying to fall off. I
trust the wing issue has been dealt with on the Moriarty SF-34.

Now that you mention it, I do remember the ease of ground handling.

To see some IGC files of SF-34 flights look for example the
http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2...0 b09ba100d9f

The whole point is being missed!

A 2 place ship with handling flaws, but which can demonstrate the necessary
points and is affordable, is far superior to a better ship that is
unaffordable!

Buy it--save up--sell it later!

--
Hartley Falbaum


"Wallace Berry" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:

I have a fair amount of time in the back seat of the SF-34. From a
CFI's, (at least this CFI), point of view, it's easier to fly than the
G103 in that the controls are more haromonized and it does well in weak
lift. At speeds above about seventy knots it seems to out run, (albeit
slowly), the G103. The useful load is better as most 103's in this
country have less useful load by virtue of their age and damage
history. From a student or at least a front seat point of view, there
is a bit less foot room than the 103 as the nose is more pointed. The
SF-34 ground handles better than the 103 because of the manner in which
it is so easily balance on the main wheel. There is quite a lot of
room in the back seat and I even need some extra cushions, (I'm 5' 10")
in order to reach the stick in it's full forward position. There are
only two in the US that I know of and the one I've been flying is at
the Moriarty airport in NM. All-in-all, the SF-34 is a lot of bang for
the buck.

Regards,

Billy Hill


Thanks for the info. I flew the other one 3 times when it was based at
Bermadoo high about 20 years ago (hi Frank!). Once from the front seat
and twice from the back giving rides. My faint recollection is that it
was a pleasant ship to fly. Except for an ominous clunking that sounded
like the wings were trying to fall off. As it turns out, there was
eventually an AD on that because the wings WERE trying to fall off. I
trust the wing issue has been dealt with on the Moriarty SF-34.

Now that you mention it, I do remember the ease of ground handling.

In article ,
"HL Falbaum" wrote:

The whole point is being missed!

A 2 place ship with handling flaws, but which can demonstrate the necessary
points and is affordable, is far superior to a better ship that is
unaffordable!

Buy it--save up--sell it later!

--
Hartley Falbaum



Good point Hartley. Our membership is at a point right now that we have
need of both another 2 seater and another single place. We can only
afford one bird right now, so we pretty much decided to go with whatever
good deal popped up. An LS-4 is at the top of our list for a single
seater, although we've been looking at baby Grob's and Juniors. We have
procrastinated and missed a good Cirrus 75 (fixed stabilizer) with the
enhanced dive brakes that would have been a good club ship. We also
missed out on pretty good Twin Astir (am I allowed to use the words
"good" and "Twin Astir" in the same sentence"?). We have so many pilots
at 6 feet and over 200 lbs that cockpit size is a major constraint.

Charlie Finn is going out to look at the SF-34 tomorrow. If it is as
represented, we are going to buy it. However, it don't got no treller.
Wanna loan us the MGSA ASK-21 trailer? Actually, we have a trailer, but
it's originally for a 2-33 so it's not set up for a glass ship. The guys
at Moriarty said they would set it up for us if we bring it out. Whew,
gonna be a long ride to N.M. and back.

Hope to see you in Cordele.

Wally:

Could we lay up some moulds and make a trailer like your Libelle has?
Actually a ride to Moriarty could be a worthwhile trip anyway. I hear they
have some fairly good soaring there sometimes!

Cheers!
-
Hartley Falbaum


"Wallace Berry" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"HL Falbaum" wrote:

The whole point is being missed!

A 2 place ship with handling flaws, but which can demonstrate the
necessary
points and is affordable, is far superior to a better ship that is
unaffordable!

Buy it--save up--sell it later!

--
Hartley Falbaum



Good point Hartley. Our membership is at a point right now that we have
need of both another 2 seater and another single place. We can only
afford one bird right now, so we pretty much decided to go with whatever
good deal popped up. An LS-4 is at the top of our list for a single
seater, although we've been looking at baby Grob's and Juniors. We have
procrastinated and missed a good Cirrus 75 (fixed stabilizer) with the
enhanced dive brakes that would have been a good club ship. We also
missed out on pretty good Twin Astir (am I allowed to use the words
"good" and "Twin Astir" in the same sentence"?). We have so many pilots
at 6 feet and over 200 lbs that cockpit size is a major constraint.

Charlie Finn is going out to look at the SF-34 tomorrow. If it is as
represented, we are going to buy it. However, it don't got no treller.
Wanna loan us the MGSA ASK-21 trailer? Actually, we have a trailer, but
it's originally for a 2-33 so it's not set up for a glass ship. The guys
at Moriarty said they would set it up for us if we bring it out. Whew,
gonna be a long ride to N.M. and back.

Hope to see you in Cordele.

wrote:

"The useful load is better as most 103's in this
country have less useful load by virtue of their age and damage
history."


Billy,

How does one calibrate a ship's useful load by virtue of its age and DH?
As far as DH goes, George Applebay used to maintain a properly repaired
ship is stronger than original, albeit a mite heavier.

I'd be interested in your comments ---

Thanks,

Bob Johnson

Bob

It's the heavier that counts to reduce the allowable load limit

albeit a mite heavier.

Charles Yeates wrote:


Bob

It's the heavier that counts to reduce the allowable load limit

albeit a mite heavier.




Thanks, Charles I agree -- what's the calculation?

Bob