Future Club Training Gliders

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

On Sep 17, 9:24*am, Brad wrote:
On Sep 17, 12:18*am, tienshanman tienshanman.



wrote:
RN;740605 Wrote:

The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
will need.

We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.

Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost ..

John

As someone who not long ago finished glider training I can add this: I
looked long and hard for an operation that did not use Schweizers.
Reason: they are ugly & uncomfortable and just did not fit my idea what
soaring is all about. Finally I found a place with a G103 and *was
happy. If you want to attract people, especially young people you'd
better get some hot looking trainers, oh, and preferably some hot
looking women. Otherwise you're dead in the water.....and continue
projecting the imagine of soaring as an activity for those one step away
from a retirement home.

--
tienshanman

actually, those pilots "one step away from a retirement home" usually
fly the newest hottest gliders. cruel irony? perhaps.............all
those poor hot chicks out there have to reconsider their options eh?

Brad

Nope you already missed them, they are hanging out with the cool hot
paraglider guys.

Darryl

That's true. One of the very many reasons paragliding has sucked the life blood out of hang gliding and soaring in sailplanes.....

Originally Posted by Surfer![_2_]

"tienshanman" wrote in message
...

snip
As someone who not long ago finished glider training

Finished glider training? I've got my Silver C and still do training from
time to time. You never, ever finish learning in this game.

Of course, that goes without saying....By "finished" I obviously meant "basic" training. I humbly apologize to the old wise men of the sport for implying that one can ever finish....

On Sep 17, 10:45*am, bildan wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:13*pm, RL wrote:





Our club does a high volume of training and we see the same thing in
terms of Schweizer trained pilots. There is typically a steep remedial
training curve to build the finesse required to fly something as
docile a Grob 103. Our instructors immediately recognize the
Schweitzer induced habits that have to be unlearned.

When this discussion occurs the cost issue always comes up. But
really, what similar sport do you know that trains with antique
equipment. Golf, skiing, boating, and even regular attendance at
sports events are not inexpensive… and neither is soaring. If people/
clubs really want to fly in decent equipment they become creative and
find a way. *My guess is that the perceived low cost of operating
Schewizer equipment probably results in more people leaving the sport
than the assumed high cost of operating good equipment.

Bob

On Sep 15, 11:13*am, Kevin Christner
wrote:

I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
Schweizer trained and everyone else. *Place these two types in an
ASK-21. *Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
and speed properly. *The other students seem to do much better. *The
Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. *Being trained in
a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
back.

Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.

KJC

On Sep 15, 7:34*am, Tony wrote:

The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
the L-13.

Is this statement based on actual issues with 2-33 wings or just the
fact that "it is metal, it will fatigue eventually"?

I see no mention in any of the Schweizer Service Bulletins about
issues with 2-22 or 2-33 wing structure and have never heard of any
problems either.

I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
Schweizers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I watched a pilot total a G103. *He bounced on the first contact with
the runway but not so the situation was unrecoverable. *I was close
enough I could see his face as he mentally shifted to landing the 2-33
he was trained in. He wanted down and stopped RIGHT NOW so he tried to
push a non-existent skid into the runway to stop the Grob. *The Grob
responded with its characteristic nose-to-tail PIO bounce and broke
up.

I'd bet if you carefully analyzed every Grob 103 tail boom breaking
accident, in the majority of the cases, you'd find a recently trained
2-33 pilot was at the controls. *When I look at a logbook and see
initial training in a 2-33, I know it's going to take some through
remedial training for a Grob transition.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where did this guy ever get this dumb idea"???? His problem was not
"training in a 2-33", it was poor, improper training, or bad habit
after training!!!!

This "jam the skid into the ground" deal with the 2-33 is an IMPROPER
LANDING TECHNIQUE......should not be taught, should not be
tolerated........

A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)

Landing a 2-33, on touch down, the nose should be slightly high, the
tailwheel low, almost toughing the ground, and the touch down on the
main wheel..........the ground roll should be with the nose up, skid
off the ground, rolling on the main wheel, using wheel brake if
required, until the glider is so slow that the nose comes down by
itself.......stick should be way back at this point.......glider
should be nearly stopped before the skid touches the ground.

I see many pilots do what I call "landing in a pile".....they touch
down, and immediately let the stick go forward........jamming the nose
wheel (or skid) onto the ground..........some even push the stick
forward!!! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!............

With a nose dragger glider, the nose wheel is NOT a "landing gear", it
is merely for ground handling and slow taxi....SAME for the skid on a
nose dragger glider.........it is not a "landing" skid, it is just to
support the glider when stationary or during the very beginning of the
take off roll, and the very end of the landing roll. Same for the
nose wheel on a tri gear airplane...........

Bad habits come easily.......in our repair shop, we have had a rash of
airplane repairs where the tricycle gear airplane was landed nose
wheel first.......(or bounced into a nose first landing) resulting in
flatened front wheel, bent landing gear, bent firewall, and sometimes
prop strike and engine rebuild.........I see "wheel barrow " landings
at our field all the time......BAD TECHNIQUE!!!!!

Airplanes, gliders, nose dragger, tri gear, tail dragger, all should
be landed nose up, tail down. Landing loads taken by the main gear,
and pitch control maintained throughout the ground roll.......

So don't blame the 2-33......

Cookie

On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "
wrote:

A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)

Really? The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
Grob"!). I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
pads!

Some older gliders (and not all nose draggers) require a flown on
landing - tail low, but on the main wheel - due to the tail wheel not
being stressed for landing forces. Examples are the 2-33 and Blanik
(note, one is a nose dragger, one a tail dragger). This is similar in
concept to a wheel landing in a taildragger airplane - or a somewhat
flat normal landing in a tricycle-geared airplane. The trick is that
once you have established the pitch attitude for touchdown, you can't
continue to increase the angle of attack to slow down or you will
touch the weak tail wheel/skid too early, so some judgement and skill
is required.

The later generation of trainers, whether nose draggers (k-21, g-103)
or tail draggers (DG-500/1000, Duo) are designed to land main and tail
at the same time - minimum energy landings - the equivalent of a 3-
point landing in a taildragger airplane. This is also the way almost
all current single seat gliders are designed to be landed, for obvious
reasons - gliders are now heavier and land faster, and need to be
landed at the slowest possible speed in an off-field landing.

That is one of the reasons the 2-33 is a poor trainer for today's
glider pilots (assuming they intend to move on to something more
interesting than a 1-26). If all training is done in a 2-33 (or
Blanik, to be fair), then a careful checkout in a modern glider is
essential to properly prepare the transitioning pilot for the landing
characteristics of most modern gliders.

Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
(assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...

Kirk

On Sep 18, 11:50*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "

wrote:
A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)

Really? *The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
Grob"!). *I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
pads!

Some older gliders (and not all nose draggers) require a flown on
landing - tail low, but on the main wheel - due to the tail wheel not
being stressed for landing forces. *Examples are the 2-33 and Blanik
(note, one is a nose dragger, one a tail dragger). *This is similar in
concept to a wheel landing in a taildragger airplane - or a somewhat
flat normal landing in a tricycle-geared airplane. *The trick is that
once you have established the pitch attitude for touchdown, you can't
continue to increase the angle of attack to slow down or you will
touch the weak tail wheel/skid too early, so some judgement and skill
is required.

The later generation of trainers, whether nose draggers (k-21, g-103)
or tail draggers (DG-500/1000, Duo) are designed to land main and tail
at the same time - minimum energy landings - the equivalent of a 3-
point landing in a taildragger airplane. *This is also the way almost
all current single seat gliders are designed to be landed, for obvious
reasons - gliders are now heavier and land faster, and need to be
landed at the slowest possible speed in an off-field landing.

That is one of the reasons the 2-33 is a poor trainer for today's
glider pilots (assuming they intend to move on to something more
interesting than a 1-26). *If all training is done in a 2-33 (or
Blanik, to be fair), then a careful checkout in a modern glider is
essential to properly prepare the transitioning pilot for the landing
characteristics of most modern gliders.

Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
(assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...

Kirk

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..

On Sep 18, 11:50*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "

wrote:
A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)

Really? *The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
Grob"!). *I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
pads!


Kirk

Please explain further........how is the correct landing procedure for
a 2-33 going to result in a high energy landing in a Grob?

IMHO....the correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (low energy, slow
speed, nose high, tail low, etc) will result in a similar low energy
landing in a Grob..........this would be a short runway landing, with
little or no need for brakes......

Cookie

On Sep 18, 11:50*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "

wrote:
A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)

Really? *The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
Grob"!). *I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
pads!

Some older gliders (and not all nose draggers) require a flown on
landing - tail low, but on the main wheel - due to the tail wheel not
being stressed for landing forces. *Examples are the 2-33 and Blanik
(note, one is a nose dragger, one a tail dragger). *This is similar in
concept to a wheel landing in a taildragger airplane - or a somewhat
flat normal landing in a tricycle-geared airplane. *The trick is that
once you have established the pitch attitude for touchdown, you can't
continue to increase the angle of attack to slow down or you will
touch the weak tail wheel/skid too early, so some judgement and skill
is required.

The later generation of trainers, whether nose draggers (k-21, g-103)

Suggested reading: Derek Piggot "Beginning Gliding" Chapter 4


Cookie
or tail draggers (DG-500/1000, Duo) are designed to land main and tail
at the same time - minimum energy landings - the equivalent of a 3-
point landing in a taildragger airplane. *This is also the way almost
all current single seat gliders are designed to be landed, for obvious
reasons - gliders are now heavier and land faster, and need to be
landed at the slowest possible speed in an off-field landing.

That is one of the reasons the 2-33 is a poor trainer for today's
glider pilots (assuming they intend to move on to something more
interesting than a 1-26). *If all training is done in a 2-33 (or
Blanik, to be fair), then a careful checkout in a modern glider is
essential to properly prepare the transitioning pilot for the landing
characteristics of most modern gliders.

Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
(assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...

Kirk

On Sep 18, 8:53*pm, ray conlon wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:50*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:





On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "

wrote:
A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)

Really? *The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
Grob"!). *I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
pads!

Some older gliders (and not all nose draggers) require a flown on
landing - tail low, but on the main wheel - due to the tail wheel not
being stressed for landing forces. *Examples are the 2-33 and Blanik
(note, one is a nose dragger, one a tail dragger). *This is similar in
concept to a wheel landing in a taildragger airplane - or a somewhat
flat normal landing in a tricycle-geared airplane. *The trick is that
once you have established the pitch attitude for touchdown, you can't
continue to increase the angle of attack to slow down or you will
touch the weak tail wheel/skid too early, so some judgement and skill
is required.

The later generation of trainers, whether nose draggers (k-21, g-103)
or tail draggers (DG-500/1000, Duo) are designed to land main and tail
at the same time - minimum energy landings - the equivalent of a 3-
point landing in a taildragger airplane. *This is also the way almost
all current single seat gliders are designed to be landed, for obvious
reasons - gliders are now heavier and land faster, and need to be
landed at the slowest possible speed in an off-field landing.

That is one of the reasons the 2-33 is a poor trainer for today's
glider pilots (assuming they intend to move on to something more
interesting than a 1-26). *If all training is done in a 2-33 (or
Blanik, to be fair), then a careful checkout in a modern glider is
essential to properly prepare the transitioning pilot for the landing
characteristics of most modern gliders.

Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
(assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...

Kirk

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..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True, but the BASIC concept is the same...........

Tell me of any nose dragger where the method is to jam the stick
forward right at touch down as the guy did in the 2-33 / Grob story
above.........


Cookie

..

Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
(assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...

Kirk

Ok....I'll start.........on a tail dragger glider.... landing "ever
so slightly" tail first touch down is a good thing..........if the
approach is stable, and the sink rate is reasonable at touch
down..........by touching the tail first, the main gear will come to
the ground next, lowering the angle of attack on the wing, making it
not likely for the glider to "bounce".

Landing slightly tail first will also indicate that the glider is in
the "low energy" state.....i.e. as slow as practical..(not as slow as
possible, just as slow as practical)

Landing slightly tail first should not put any undue stress on the
airframe, tailwheel/skid etc, because the "weight" at the tail is very
light..........the CG is far forward of the tail...........the glider
will soon settle (softly) on the main gear, where the majority of the
weight is taken by the robust structure / shock absorber etc
there.....

Note............this technique does not mean ....get close to the
ground and jerk the stick back......this would cause the tail to slam
into the ground with consideral impact......not good.

Landing tail high in a taildragger glider is not a good
thing........It indicates excess speed.......since the CG is behind
the main gear, there is a tendancy of the tail to drop after main
touch down, increasing the angle of attack, and possibly resulting in
a "bounce".

Yes, a "wheel type" landing can be done successfully in a taildragger
glider, but in requires a slight stick forward pressure after touch
down to prevent bouncing, (by lowering the angle of attack.....) and
excessive speed, onger ground roll etc.

Landing tail first in a nose dragger glider is not a good
thing.................

Landing tail first in a nose dragger will result in the main gear next
touching down, but since the CG is in FRONT of this wheel, the
tendancy is for the glider to continue to pitch forward (nose down)
and contact the skid /nosewheel immediately..........as I mentioned
earlier, the nose wheel or skid is not a "landing gear"......


IMHO......a nose dragger glider should be landed with "low
energy" (slow airspeed), but not so slow that the tail touches first
(too slow)......The nose skid/ wheel should be held off the ground
during the ground taxi, as long as elevator authority allows......when
the nose finally drops, the ground speed is very slow........

Same technique works for 2-33, 1-26, ASK-21, Grob 103......


This is far different from a "wheel type landing" and far different
form "flying the glider on"




Cookie

On Sep 18, 7:52*pm, "
wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:50*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:

On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "

wrote:
A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)

Really? *The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
Grob"!). *I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
pads!

Kirk

Please explain further........how is the correct landing procedure for
a 2-33 going to result in a high energy landing in a Grob?

IMHO....the correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (low energy, slow
speed, nose high, tail low, etc) will result in a similar low energy
landing in a Grob..........this would be a short runway landing, with
little or no need for brakes......

Cookie

That is exactly correct.

However, regardless of instructor efforts to prevent it, students will
learn on their own a 2-33 stops really well with the skid on the
runway and the more weight on the skid, the faster it stops. Trying
to teach a student not to use this very useful trick is fruitless.

This primary learning will transfer to a Grob and other gliders where
it puts the new pilot at risk of a damaging accident. When a new
pilot really, really needs to stop, it's going to be hard for him not
to push the nose down.