If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:35:39 +0100, Surfer! wrote:
AS-K21 gets my vote for this job. Comfortable, sturdy, reasonable handling. Available new or used. Great support. Jim Goes xc well too, in the right hands. Our summer course instructors have taken their more advanced students on o/r flights to turn points 50-80 km away on suitable days. Both these gents are regular XC pilots too. No K-21 landouts to date. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
In article
, bildan wrote: On Sep 14, 12:44*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote: On Sep 14, 9:47*am, RN 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. For a training on a budget, it's really hard to beat a Ka-13 or Ka-7, except that they have fairly small cockpits. We sold off our Ka-7 because about half the folks who came to us for training just could not fit their legs under the panel and/or were too heavy. Still, that Ka-7 soldiers on in a commercial training operation today! |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Sep 15, 1:50*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:14*am, "Surfer!" wrote: But since the Schweizer seems to be the training ship of choice in most US clubs that shouldn't be a surprise. *It's certainly not (IMHO) an endorsement of them. I couldn't agree more! *As a "younger" glider pilot myself (29 when I started), let me make a few assertions: 1) Do you think you can get *ANY* young person interested in soaring if what they see is a 2-33? After playing any modern computer game? After watching movies like "The Fast and the Furious"? *The 2-33 looks like a dog and flies slowly. *Those of you who talk about being "happy just to be in the air" have to realize what a tiny minority you are - and that your numbers are dwindling. *People these days are often flying hundreds of miles per hour in jetliners before they're 10. They're mixing it up in 60 - 80mph traffic by the time they're 15 or 16 (and even their economy cars have power windows, power door locks, keyless remote, and a dock for their Phone/MP3-player). *They're playing with Google Maps and Google Earth - seeing the world from that vantage point is not new to them. *Being in the air is not new to them. *They don't know what they're missing; but they *are* going to have a whole lot of preconceived notions about it, and their experiences are going to bias them towards wanting something that's fast, sleek, exciting, modern, high-tech, etc. *NONE of those things apply to the 2-33. *If you want to turn a young person OFF, show then a 2-33! *They'll either stick to Flight Simulators or they'll walk over to fly powered airplanes - you know, "the exciting and fast kind of flying". *Oh, and how many young (under 40), energetic instructors are there in the USA? *Right. *So from the perspective of a young person (under 35, let's say), their introduction to soaring is a 50 or 60 year old guy standing next to a glider that's of equal age. *Yeah, really enticing! :-P *Good luck with that, folks. *At least an L-13 or L-23 looks sleeker (by comparison) and flies a whole lot better. 2) One more thing: the 2-33 is a favorite because it is cheap, and it is easy to fix/maintain (especially for FBOs/commercial operators). Notice that neither of these has ANYTHING to do with flying qualities or its value in training good pilot skills! *I started in an L-13, made the jump to a 1-36 quite easily, and then had to go drop back to a 2-33 for my license. *The 2-33 was HELL. *Sloppy controls, TITANIC throw required to get a good response, and my big legs (I'm 6'1" and 215 lbs) meant that I had to lift my leg and tuck the stick under the back of my knee to get full aileron deflection - NOT the safest way to fly! *The 2-33 is nothing like the advanced metal & glass I have flown since. *Its usefulness (if it has any) is restricted to very early primary training, since you can't use it to develop advanced skills (such as flying XC or good thermal-centering in anything representing the same manner you work thermals in a more modern/capable ship). --Noel My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy learning to fly in th 2-33. Our 2-33's fly all day every day it's flyable. We had to get a 3rd due to demand. Our '21 flies much less than that. And our '21, which we got at a favorable price, cost twice what we have in our 3 2-33's. Cost does matter in smaller club to the point of being critical to survival. Clubs depending on Blaniks are really challanged now. Who knows for how long. Do we think they all will go buy '21's. I doubt it. They already wanted 21's and couldn't afford them. UH |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
Tony V wrote:
What else is wrong with the 2-33? An incomplete list would include - not enough leg room in either seat. *I hate turning with * *the stick *under* my knee. - lethargic roll rate. - Poor visibility from the rear seat - teaching someone to * *soar in a gaggle is scary. - ineffective trim - unless the front seater is heavy, you're * *still applying significant forward stick pressure on tow even * *with full forward trim. - ineffective spoilers (but it does slip GREAT!). - generally poor ergonomics. - doesn't spin well. I would add that instructors with big feet (me) have nowhere to put them except on the rudder pedals. I know students must hate that. Have you noticed how students seem to drag the right wing far more than the left on landing? It's because they can't get any left aileron with the spoilers open whether they lift their leg or not - the spoiler handle is in the way. What's good about the 2-33: - it's cheap - anybody can repair it - it's built like a tank. If a student is going to crash, I want * *him to be in a 2-33. - doesn't spin well (yeah, I know). I wonder if you've priced aircraft welding, sheet metal repair or fabric work lately. Any significant damage to a 2-33 will cost far more to repair that the glider will be worth afterward. Old geezers like me who know how to weld 4130 thinwall tubes and own a pair of pinking shears are getting really hard to find. If those streamlined aluminum wing struts suffers damage, you're probably out of luck. Nobody makes them anymore. I'm not confident the "tank" reputation holds either. It's not hard to imagine a broken tube penetrating the cockpit - and the pilot within. If that tube cuts a leg artery the student is in serious trouble. I know of one such fatality when the skid kicked up a stick which penetrated the fabric and the students leg. Given the increasing girth of pilots these days it doesn't happen often but if you load a 2-33 to the rear CG limit, it will spin - with alarming suddenness. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:
My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy learning to fly in th 2-33. UH - 1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the other expensive glass ships in this thread. 2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it attractive to younger members! Either you have great instruction, or a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future, or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along those lines. They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the 2-33, and decide it was a good idea. I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and continue to fly with the club. --Noel |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On 9/15/2010 12:12 PM, Kevin Christner wrote:
Bob, I'm glad you realized that 2-point approaches are the best way avoid land out damage. Unfortunately, it appears a large portion of US pilots disagree with you! Regrettably, I wouldn't seriously try to argue this particular point because my working suspicion is your contention is accurate. I've encountered 'a not-insignificant percentage' of experienced XC pilots - including some actively involved in racing - I've never seen practice a low-energy landing, and some who've (gasp) actively pooh-poohed the desirability of having the skill. Admittedly, the bulk of my experience has been on the eastern side of the intermountain west (where large fields are often easily found), but the pooh-pooh attitude has always astounded/worried me. I appreciate your argument regarding primacy, but for most I'm not sure it works like that. Regardless of how much time you have to think about an off-field landing, they are still 'stressful' enough that reversion to bad habits is highly likely to occur. I agree that most folks' initial OFL 'will be' high-stress (in the actual sweaty-palmed sense), but have for years within my club put forth the reasoning that it doesn't need to be in an 'actual risk to you/the plane' sense. (Ref.: http://soarboulder.org/stories/kissing-tips-1) (...verbose, written in the '90's for my club's newsletter, personally out-of-date, cited simply as supporting evidence...) I also agree that initial OFL's are the place where all the mistakes will be 'practiced' (e.g. too-close-in downwinds, too high speeds, less-than-good field selections in the face of better nearby options, etc.). My club (sensibly, IMHO) actively encourages pilot-skill-set expansion via XC instruction and a (22 consecutive years and counting) XC camp in benign landout country. But the fact remains, Joe Pilot is the one who ultimately does most of the (non-instructor-aided) skill-set-expansion, and 'bull sessions' are a huge part of the experience. (Ref.: http://soarboulder.org/newsletters See September's edition) Another point would be bad things very rarely happen with the first bad decision. Too much energy at touchdown is often a result of a pattern flown to quickly. I can't count the number of times I've gone up with someone who flew their pattern 5-8kts over best L/D speed in benign conditions. When you ask why its because "its safer." This may be "safe" but it I doubt it's "safer" at the time and it certainly won't be "safer" when you are going into a 400ft field and a pattern speed 4 or 5 knots below L/D is called for. The benign conditions would have been a perfect time to practice a minimum energy pattern - but then again, they've never heard of that. I've no doubt we're on the same page, here. Where we might differ is that I don't see 'mandated instruction' as curing the underlying problem, which (I believe) is with Joe Pilot's basic attitude and approach to his or her soaring world. My own approach is to gently try and help them expand their world-view so they'll understand that any world view is (always) incomplete, *and* want to expand their own...whether via dual instruction, or self-practice or any other sensible method that works for them. That said, I suspect that some people ARE entirely entrenched in their (less-than-good-for-them/their-ship) thinking...but my approach is to act as if no one is, meaning my personal radar routinely looks for opportunities to help others 'see the light' even if they've previously proven blind. And, if we accept primacy does not occur to "nerves of steel" attempting his first off field landing, I'd still preferred he has lots of practice on low energy approaches followed by minimum energy landings. Ultimately this is not an argument about 2-33's vs. K-21s, but rather an argument about the pitiful state of glider training in the US. I guess I'm not so convinced the problem can be laid at the door of 'poor training'. I'm inclined to suppose ultimate responsibility lies within the pilot population itself. Not that I'm saying dual instruction isn't fundamentally important...because it unarguably is *vitally* so...just that I don't see any proposed 'better instructional approach' as likely to have significant/measurable effects on the landout-crunch-world. Consider the dismal - and enduring down the decades - record of inadvertent stall-spins in the pattern; a reasonable argument can be made that 'better instruction' has had exactly zero effect on the normalized annual death rate (whether we're talking glider or power worlds). In the glider-OFL-world, we could be up against human nature... But even if we are, I believe it shouldn't diminish our attempts to educate wannabe XC pilots in the 'best practices' of OFLs. Why? Because *some* WILL 'get it!' If dual instruction can play a part (and I agree its competent availability varies widely in the U.S. club scene), then those pilots who can avail themselves of it are indeed luckier than those who cannot. Options are good. Regards, Bob W. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Sep 15, 6:49*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote: My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy learning to fly in th 2-33. UH - 1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the other expensive glass ships in this thread. 2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it attractive to younger members! *Either you have great instruction, or a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future, or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along those lines. *They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the 2-33, and decide it was a good idea. I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and continue to fly with the club. --Noel Is it really that hard to believe the 2-33 didn't scare everyone away? Come one, why don't we stop this silly nonsense about how the 2-33 is the reason why soaring isn't growing. For goodness sakes. Then there's the "have to be retrained" boloney after learning to fly in a 2-33. It serves the purpose it was designed to do very well. Basic training. I don't recall a single prospective member of our club that came calling because they saw a "cool looking ship" at the field, or backed away after seeing the 2-33. All of our students are always clamoring for instruction time in our trainers. They could care less about the glass ships that are rigging/derigging/departing/arriving when training flights are operating. They're not stupid. They all know the 2-33 is not the end of the line. It's only the beginning. If you'd take the time to talk to new students or even prospective ones, they'll tell you what their expectations and their intentions are. I garantee you they understand the concept of basic training and progression. By the way, our club has a "stepping-stone" approach to better performing ships, but we can only afford so much. 2 2-33s, 1 2-22, 2 1-26s, 1 1-34, 1 L23. Not all of our ships are on the flightline due to instructor shortages (that's another discussion). Our students are always eyeing the single-place ships and a couple of them already purchased their own ships. Although they're keeping them in the barn until they're ready to fly them. That's because they're intelligent people and not lured around by a carrot dangling on a stick. If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and nothing more. I wonder how many students are more likely to follow through and become a licensed pilot or even an owner? One attracted by something shiny? Or one that is driven by the desire to fly? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Sep 15, 10:28*pm, Westbender wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:49*pm, "noel.wade" wrote: On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote: My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy learning to fly in th 2-33. UH - 1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the other expensive glass ships in this thread. 2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it attractive to younger members! *Either you have great instruction, or a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future, or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along those lines. *They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the 2-33, and decide it was a good idea. I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and continue to fly with the club. --Noel Is it really that hard to believe the 2-33 didn't scare everyone away? Come one, why don't we stop this silly nonsense about how the 2-33 is the reason why soaring isn't growing. For goodness sakes. Then there's the "have to be retrained" boloney after learning to fly in a 2-33. It serves the purpose it was designed to do very well. Basic training. I don't recall a single prospective member of our club that came calling because they saw a "cool looking ship" at the field, or backed away after seeing the 2-33. All of our students are always clamoring for instruction time in our trainers. They could care less about the glass ships that are rigging/derigging/departing/arriving when training flights are operating. They're not stupid. They all know the 2-33 is not the end of the line. It's only the beginning. If you'd take the time to talk to new students or even prospective ones, they'll tell you what their expectations and their intentions are. I garantee you they understand the concept of basic training and progression. By the way, our club has a "stepping-stone" approach to better performing ships, but we can only afford so much. 2 2-33s, 1 2-22, 2 1-26s, 1 1-34, 1 L23. Not all of our ships are on the flightline due to instructor shortages (that's another discussion). Our students are always eyeing the single-place ships and a couple of them already purchased their own ships. Although they're keeping them in the barn until they're ready to fly them. That's because they're intelligent people and not lured around by a carrot dangling on a stick. If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and nothing more. I wonder how many students are more likely to follow through and become a licensed pilot or even an owner? One attracted by something shiny? Or one that is driven by the desire to fly?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If the constant increase in cost of the training fleet is the solution to the low numbers of glider pilots, why aren't we up to about 250,000 new glider pilots in the USA fling from about 1000 new clubs/ gliderports in the fleet of 75,000 new glass 2 seaters by now? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
If the constant increase in cost of the training fleet is the solution
to the low numbers of glider pilots, why aren't we up to about 250,000 new glider pilots in the USA *fling from about 1000 new clubs/ gliderports in the fleet of 75,000 new glass 2 seaters by now? That's easy. It's because we're not all rushing out to buy new Duos and DG1000s! Once we do that, all will be fixed in the soaring world. Not to mention the improved health all the small clubs (that are just getting by) will experience when they take on the huge debt necessary to make such purchases. It's a no-brainer! |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Sep 15, 10:51*pm, Westbender wrote:
If the constant increase in cost of the training fleet is the solution to the low numbers of glider pilots, why aren't we up to about 250,000 new glider pilots in the USA *fling from about 1000 new clubs/ gliderports in the fleet of 75,000 new glass 2 seaters by now? That's easy. It's because we're not all rushing out to buy new Duos and DG1000s! Once we do that, all will be fixed in the soaring world. Not to mention the improved health all the small clubs (that are just getting by) will experience when they take on the huge debt necessary to make such purchases. It's a no-brainer! In 40 years of fooling with gliders I don't ever remember anyone leving the club because we weren't charging enough in fees...and I don't ever recall seeing a Lambrogini dealer on every street corner either... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Club Class Gliders | Sam Giltner[_1_] | Soaring | 4 | December 3rd 08 03:28 AM |
Basic Training Gliders | Derek Copeland | Soaring | 35 | December 26th 05 02:19 PM |
Basic Training Gliders | Justin Craig | Soaring | 0 | December 6th 05 10:07 PM |
Basic Training Gliders | Justin Craig | Soaring | 0 | December 6th 05 10:07 PM |
Soaring club close to NYC, with high-performance gliders | City Dweller | Soaring | 9 | September 29th 05 11:55 AM |