Why is Soaring declining

soarski wrote:

Eric Greenwell wrote in message
...

In our area, the L13 has plenty of performance to make
cross-country flights, but the thought of retrieving it from a
field discourages most people from trying.



I think I remember a team that took it apart, or even put it together
in 12 Minutes!

Mostly, people think of how difficult it's going to be to carry the
parts off the field. Even a good trailer with good fittings can't help
much in the middle of a soft plowed field.

Some places the aerotow accessible airports are close enough together
that it is practical to stay within easy reach of one of them, but the
club pilots I've known were still not keen on the idea.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote
I would not lump the L-13 and the 2-33 together in the "non-glider"
class!

You're missing the point. I'm not saying either one is a "non-glider"
but something completely different. You can teach a student to fly
gliders in general, or you can teach him to fly only the particular
glider he is flying. The latter is not a winning strategy if the
student is going to advance in the sport. It's not really common in
soaring instruction either, but some instructors are transition pilots
from power, where this practice IS common.

There is a skill set that a pilot must learn if he is to be able to
check himself out in a new aircraft. As a rule, glider pilots learn
this skill set because single seaters are common in soaring, and the
instructors realize that the skill must be taught. In power, single
seaters are a rarity and many power pilots never really learn the
skill, and need to be checked out in each individual make and model
they fly.

I have nothing against the L-23; it's a perfectly acceptable primary
trainer. However, for soaring flight I think the 1-26 (or better yet
a Ka-8) makes a far better glider.

Michael

Michael wrote:

Eric Greenwell wrote

I would not lump the L-13 and the 2-33 together in the "non-glider"
class!


You're missing the point. I'm not saying either one is a "non-glider"
but something completely different. You can teach a student to fly
gliders in general, or you can teach him to fly only the particular
glider he is flying. The latter is not a winning strategy if the
student is going to advance in the sport. It's not really common in
soaring instruction either, but some instructors are transition pilots
from power, where this practice IS common.

There is a skill set that a pilot must learn if he is to be able to
check himself out in a new aircraft.

What is this skill set? I'm not aware of anything specific along these
lines from the instructor/instruction manuals I've read. Generally, once
I'd trained a pilot to fly in a Blanik, he had most of the skills needed
to fly one of the usual single seaters.

As a rule, glider pilots learn
this skill set because single seaters are common in soaring, and the
instructors realize that the skill must be taught. In power, single
seaters are a rarity and many power pilots never really learn the
skill, and need to be checked out in each individual make and model
they fly.

I have nothing against the L-23; it's a perfectly acceptable primary
trainer. However, for soaring flight I think the 1-26 (or better yet
a Ka-8) makes a far better glider.


Apparently, I'm still missing the point: why is a 1-26 or ka-8 far
better for soaring flight? My point was that the L13 is a good glider,
capable of soaring and doing good cross country flights. It certainly is
better at cross country flying than a 1-26, and similar in ability to
the Ka-8.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

On 26 Apr 2004 21:19:48 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

I have nothing against the L-23; it's a perfectly acceptable primary
trainer. However, for soaring flight I think the 1-26 (or better yet
a Ka-8) makes a far better glider.

Add the SZD Junior to this list - I know there are only 5 in the USA,
but they are more common elsewhere..

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

Eric Greenwell wrote
There is a skill set that a pilot must learn if he is to be able to
check himself out in a new aircraft.

What is this skill set? I'm not aware of anything specific along these
lines from the instructor/instruction manuals I've read. Generally, once
I'd trained a pilot to fly in a Blanik, he had most of the skills needed
to fly one of the usual single seaters.

Think for a moment. If you're checking yourself out in a glider,
you're going to do some stalls in it, right? And they're going to be
true approach-to-landing stalls - starting with a stabilized descent
at pattern speed, with a speed reduction to mimic the flare. Gives
you plenty of time to feel what the glider is going to do.

Suppose we didn't teach stalls that way. Suppose we taught them as a
performance maneuver, where the goal was to get the nose high, get a
clean break, and minimize altitude loss at recovery. Would the
student still be prepared to figure out the landing characteristics of
the plane?

Apparently, I'm still missing the point: why is a 1-26 or ka-8 far
better for soaring flight?

Because it doesn't handle like a truck. Because it's relatively
(compared to an L-23) easy to reg and derig. Because it's a single
seater, which makes it easier for the student to cut the apron strings
and for the club to let him go, whereas the two-seater is needed to
train more presolo students.

Michael

Michael wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote

Think for a moment. If you're checking yourself out in a glider,
you're going to do some stalls in it, right? And they're going to be
true approach-to-landing stalls - starting with a stabilized descent
at pattern speed, with a speed reduction to mimic the flare. Gives
you plenty of time to feel what the glider is going to do.

Suppose we didn't teach stalls that way. Suppose we taught them as a
performance maneuver, where the goal was to get the nose high, get a
clean break, and minimize altitude loss at recovery. Would the
student still be prepared to figure out the landing characteristics of
the plane?

If we taught them this way, we would be doing the student a disservice,
even if they never flew any other glider. It's widely understood that
you have to teach turning stalls, as these are the most likely way a
pilot will encounter a spin or spiral dive.


Apparently, I'm still missing the point: why is a 1-26 or ka-8 far
better for soaring flight?


Because it doesn't handle like a truck.

Maybe it's a matter of preference. I think it it's a nice handling
glider, not truck like at all, though it is heavier than a 15 meter
glider. It SOARS just fine, and I'm not tired from flying it after a few
hours, as long as I can sit in the front seat.

Because it's relatively
(compared to an L-23) easy to reg and derig. Because it's a single
seater, which makes it easier for the student to cut the apron strings
and for the club to let him go, whereas the two-seater is needed to
train more presolo students.

These are good reasons to have a glider that is easier to retrieve from
a field, but aren't related to the soaring or cross-country ability of
the glider. Also, The L13 can be safely tied down outside, unlike the
Ka-8, which is important for some clubs. Our members generally preferred
to fly the already assembled L13, rather than rigging the Ka-6E we had
for year. A hangar to keep the Ka-6 in would have likely reversed this
choice.

In our area, it is practical to do nice cross-country flights and still
stay within reach of an airport. Aerotows retrieves were not expensive,
but still the members were reluctant. What made a difference was taking
them cross-country in the L13, so they could see how it is actually done.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

At 14:42 27 April 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Michael wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote

Think for a moment. If you're checking yourself out
in a glider,
you're going to do some stalls in it, right? And
they're going to be
true approach-to-landing stalls - starting with a
stabilized descent
at pattern speed, with a speed reduction to mimic
the flare. Gives
you plenty of time to feel what the glider is going
to do.

Suppose we didn't teach stalls that way. Suppose
we taught them as a
performance maneuver, where the goal was to get the
nose high, get a
clean break, and minimize altitude loss at recovery.
Would the
student still be prepared to figure out the landing
characteristics of
the plane?

If we taught them this way, we would be doing the student
a disservice,
even if they never flew any other glider. It's widely
understood that
you have to teach turning stalls, as these are the
most likely way a
pilot will encounter a spin or spiral dive.


They must be taught BOTH ways!



Apparently, I'm still missing the point: why is a 1-26
or ka-8 far better for soaring flight?

These are good reasons to have a glider that is easier
to retrieve from
a field, but aren't related to the soaring or cross-country
ability of
the glider.

As a general rule, it makes sense to consider the practicality
of de-rigging in a plowed field, because one day you
will have to do it. I've learned the hard way that
X/C flying is more than just flying X/C. Modern, easy
to load and unload trailers make X/C flight much less
painless than the old trailers of twenty years ago.
Two hours of rigging and de-rigging is much more discouraging
than twenty to thirty minutes on either end of a flight.
An excellent trailer might just be be most important
factor in encouraging frequent X/C flying.

"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
...
On 26 Apr 2004 21:19:48 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

I have nothing against the L-23; it's a perfectly acceptable primary
trainer. However, for soaring flight I think the 1-26 (or better yet
a Ka-8) makes a far better glider.

Add the SZD Junior to this list - I know there are only 5 in the USA,
but they are more common elsewhere..

8 at the moment.

Frank Whiteley

Nyal Williams wrote:

As a general rule, it makes sense to consider the practicality
of de-rigging in a plowed field, because one day you
will have to do it. I've learned the hard way that
X/C flying is more than just flying X/C. Modern, easy
to load and unload trailers make X/C flight much less
painless than the old trailers of twenty years ago.
Two hours of rigging and de-rigging is much more discouraging
than twenty to thirty minutes on either end of a flight.
An excellent trailer might just be be most important
factor in encouraging frequent X/C flying.

And an eager driver looking for some adventure!

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote
If we taught them this way, we would be doing the student a disservice,
even if they never flew any other glider. It's widely understood that
you have to teach turning stalls, as these are the most likely way a
pilot will encounter a spin or spiral dive.

Maybe not as widely understood as you believe.

All I can tell you is this - spend some time as a power instructor
finishing up the training of students who started with typical power
instructors, or do some BFR's for power pilots, and you will quickly
realize what I'm talking about. Many if not most power pilots have
not a clue about why we do stalls or how to do them in any other
manner than the one I've described.

The average quality of glider instruction is DRAMATICALLY better than
the average quality of power instruction. I suspect that no small
part of this has to do with the prevalence of single seaters.

Michael