Grob Twin Astir

All you say is correct.

The only problem is the diabolical rear seat shape cause by
making room
for=
the wheel to retract.

My club flew a pair of original 1978 Twin Astirs as the basic
trainers for
=
about a dozen years (mid 90s to late 00s). They were great in
almost every
=
way and a huge step up from the Blanik's we had before them.
But the
DG1000=
18s we've replaced the Grobs result in sooo much less money
going to the
i=
nstructors' chiropractors.


I wish our club could afford to buy and insure a couple of DG-
1000/18's, or Duo Discus, or even K-21's, but we don't have the
money at present. Maybe after some more years.. We own our own
airport where we have runway and hangar repair/replacement
issues to deal with also. Money has to very carefully allocated.
We were tenants for 47 years, being forced to move from one
airport to another at the whim of the owners, so having our own
permanent home now is a blessing, but it also has it's own issues.

When I instruct in the back seat of a Twin, I just use one of those
curved lumbar support cushions myself. One of our club members
has back issues, and has carved himself a foam cushion that suits
his needs for longer flights. I am 6'2" / 205 Lbs, and I am OK in
the back seat, even on flights of 3-4 hours duration. We are buying
a Trainer version with the fixed, sprung gear to use for primary
training. We are hoping that the sprung gear helps absorb the
shocks of some of the primary students "less than smooth"
landings.

To Frank's point about repair weight gains, I know... I worked for
Klaus H at S-H between college and going into the USAF a long, long
time ago. The fact (in the USA) is that virtually all Twin II's which
do come up for sale are "single seaters with a large baggage
compartment". Some have gained over 100(!!!) Lbs in repair
weight due to multiple accidents. Our answer has been to go to the
Twin I which has a much higher seat load to start with, and can
tolerate a repair weight gain much more readily...

RO

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 9:00:07 AM UTC-4, Michael Opitz wrote:
All you say is correct.

The only problem is the diabolical rear seat shape cause by
making room
for=
the wheel to retract.

My club flew a pair of original 1978 Twin Astirs as the basic
trainers for
=
about a dozen years (mid 90s to late 00s). They were great in
almost every
=
way and a huge step up from the Blanik's we had before them.
But the
DG1000=
18s we've replaced the Grobs result in sooo much less money
going to the
i=
nstructors' chiropractors.


I wish our club could afford to buy and insure a couple of DG-
1000/18's, or Duo Discus, or even K-21's, but we don't have the
money at present. Maybe after some more years.. We own our own
airport where we have runway and hangar repair/replacement
issues to deal with also. Money has to very carefully allocated.
We were tenants for 47 years, being forced to move from one
airport to another at the whim of the owners, so having our own
permanent home now is a blessing, but it also has it's own issues.

When I instruct in the back seat of a Twin, I just use one of those
curved lumbar support cushions myself. One of our club members
has back issues, and has carved himself a foam cushion that suits
his needs for longer flights. I am 6'2" / 205 Lbs, and I am OK in
the back seat, even on flights of 3-4 hours duration. We are buying
a Trainer version with the fixed, sprung gear to use for primary
training. We are hoping that the sprung gear helps absorb the
shocks of some of the primary students "less than smooth"
landings.

To Frank's point about repair weight gains, I know... I worked for
Klaus H at S-H between college and going into the USAF a long, long
time ago. The fact (in the USA) is that virtually all Twin II's which
do come up for sale are "single seaters with a large baggage
compartment". Some have gained over 100(!!!) Lbs in repair
weight due to multiple accidents. Our answer has been to go to the
Twin I which has a much higher seat load to start with, and can
tolerate a repair weight gain much more readily...

RO

I suspect that much of what RO calls "repair weight" is actually lazy refinishing weight. I know of a couple Grobs that got a sanding to rough up the gelcoat, a bunch of filler to bury the cracks, then finish coats.
A properly done repair doesn't add much weight, the added weight is only that of the doubling plies or internal backing added before the scarf and laminating gets done.
UH

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 2:00:07 AM UTC+13, Michael Opitz wrote:
But the DG1000 18s we've replaced the Grobs result in sooo
much less money going to the instructors' chiropractors.


I wish our club could afford to buy and insure a couple of DG-
1000/18's, or Duo Discus, or even K-21's, but we don't have the
money at present. Maybe after some more years.. We own our own
airport where we have runway and hangar repair/replacement
issues to deal with also. Money has to very carefully allocated.
We were tenants for 47 years, being forced to move from one
airport to another at the whim of the owners, so having our own
permanent home now is a blessing, but it also has it's own issues.

Understand that. My club just moved six months ago from being renters on an airport for 50+ years to a single-purpose gliding site. That's meant some big upfront expenses for a new winch ($140k) and new hangar, adjusting the fleet a little (PW5 isn't very winch friendly, Pawnee won't get enough utilization to be worth keeping), and lesser ongoing expenses as we can afford them for putting in clubhouse, bunkhouse, caravan/tent park and facilities, water and electricity. Ongoing though, the expenses should be a lot lower than the airport land rental plus landing fees plus tower fees which together came to something like $40 a flight before spending a cent on the tow or glider. Plus, uncontrolled airspace to at least 9500 everywhere nearby instead of altitude restrictions of 2500, 3500, or 5500 ft everywhere within 15 km of the old field.