$75,000 2-33

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 9:50:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Hour long training flights are overrated. Figure the time between first tow of the day and last. With ground handling/debriefing/pre briefing the next student how many club members can a glider serve in a day if they are all hour long flights?

I cited the student's perspective above.

From the perspective of a pilot who comes to the field, takes an aerotow to 1500 AGL, and comes back 4 hours later. Students who help with ground handling for most of the day, who pay for three 3000 AGL tows, really help the cash flow that pays for the fixed expenses associated with the tow plane. It keeps the annual dues low.

Most capable glider pilots in the USA have 'paid their dues' in time and treasure in a 2-33, so it is only fair that new people coming to the sport persevere though this initiation period. If they can't hack it, they don't have the moxie to be a glider pilot.

Okay. Back to my real perspective. I think the cost of remanufacturing a 2-33 all at once reflects the cost of remanufacturing it piecemeal over years (putting a dollar value on volunteer time). Maybe you can do it for less than $75K. IDK. What does K&L charge for a remanufactured 2-33?

Using a 2-33 as bait to attract new pilots has hidden costs. For a variety of reasons, I think it cuts down on the number people that become capable and dedicated glider pilots. It is hard enough progressing in a weekends only club.

Clubs that fly 2-33 often charge a token fee for air time. I'd rather pay for glider rental time and long flight than for lots of tows and short flights. I was happy to pay $1 a minute to do some post-PPL training in a DG1000, and so were a lot of other students. It is a very seductive plane. It opened my eyes to what you can do in a high performance glider, and I wish that I had flown in a plane like that sooner rather than later.

I'm not sure Kyle and Les from K&L read this forum. I don't want to speak for them officially but when I was out there a while ago the completely gone through and restored 2-33 was in the high $40s and a B model, not yet certified, was around $58k. The B model is cool as it fixes or improves so many things - except the performance.

It's a tough deal right now in the market for 2 place, rugged trainers. Not many for sale, lots of really bad ones out there. The 2-33 fleet has aged quite a bit without a "re-set" meaning that there are a lot of bad repairs compounded on top of other bad repairs, lots of neglect and abuse. The days of multiple $7,000 "perfectly good" 2-33s available is long gone. The "club repairs" have taken their toll - I have seen and heard of some horrendous instances of bad maintenance and or repairs, including a number performed by A&P/IAs.

Son of Flubber has a point about the extra time as the few extra minutes per flight or the ability to soar in minimal lift is a difference maker. But - there are things that the 2-33 teaches uniquely/efficiently and it can be a lot more economical to learn in. I'm sure someone has done the metrics (and I know who that is) and as with anything it's a compromise - it's a complex issue as supply/demand, market availability, price points, perception, repair/maintenance capabilities, instructor skill, location of training and other variables all come together to push the decision one way or another..

It's kind of a moot point if there are little or no good 2-33s on the market or the condition of the fleet is so poor there needs to be a heavy investment into reconditioning. What other 2 seater can serve the purpose as a really cheap and durable trainer? New PW-6 is about $85k. Great trainer but in a time where the student starts/finishes, a lot of clubs seeing diminishing participation and the whole sport struggling is pricey.

As usual it's a complex issue with no easy answer.

$75k with that panel - I'm not sure what to even say about that ship - I think someone called it a "unicorn". That about sums it up. It is an indicator of something though........

Regards, Tom

I view it as a bit like a J3 Cub with an all glass panel. I like Cubs. I like 2-33s, and I even like glass panels in modern aircraft. BUT . . .
ROY

I like the J-3 comparison - sort of defeats the purpose, huh?

Regards Tom

Hours don't get you to solo, patterns and landings do.Â* Whether those be
in a 2-33, a Duo Discus, or a DG-1000, you won't solo until you can
repeatedly land the aircraft from various positions and altitudes.Â* At
least that's the way I think it should be.Â* It's not about "paying
dues", it's about developing skills.

I'm not saying that a flight in a super ship is not a great incentive,
just that it's not necessary.Â* Anyone who refuses to train in whatever
glider is available, because it's not slick and sexy, is not, in my
opinion, going to stick around for the long haul.Â* He should spend his
money on some other "gee whiz, that looks cool" activity and not waste
our time and resources.

On 3/8/2018 8:39 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 9:50:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Hour long training flights are overrated. Figure the time between first tow of the day and last. With ground handling/debriefing/pre briefing the next student how many club members can a glider serve in a day if they are all hour long flights?
I cited the student's perspective above.

From the perspective of a pilot who comes to the field, takes an aerotow to 1500 AGL, and comes back 4 hours later. Students who help with ground handling for most of the day, who pay for three 3000 AGL tows, really help the cash flow that pays for the fixed expenses associated with the tow plane. It keeps the annual dues low.

Most capable glider pilots in the USA have 'paid their dues' in time and treasure in a 2-33, so it is only fair that new people coming to the sport persevere though this initiation period. If they can't hack it, they don't have the moxie to be a glider pilot.

Okay. Back to my real perspective. I think the cost of remanufacturing a 2-33 all at once reflects the cost of remanufacturing it piecemeal over years (putting a dollar value on volunteer time). Maybe you can do it for less than $75K. IDK. What does K&L charge for a remanufactured 2-33?

Using a 2-33 as bait to attract new pilots has hidden costs. For a variety of reasons, I think it cuts down on the number people that become capable and dedicated glider pilots. It is hard enough progressing in a weekends only club.

Clubs that fly 2-33 often charge a token fee for air time. I'd rather pay for glider rental time and long flight than for lots of tows and short flights. I was happy to pay $1 a minute to do some post-PPL training in a DG1000, and so were a lot of other students. It is a very seductive plane. It opened my eyes to what you can do in a high performance glider, and I wish that I had flown in a plane like that sooner rather than later.






--
Dan, 5J

Does anyone get upset about the carbon cub cost vs an old super cub? Why should an updated cub cost north of $200,000. Sailplane pilots are sometimes like sailors, the wind is free so why pay for the boat. And, I've seen cars, boats, and planes that have been restored and have an owner upside down re market value, so this is not a new case. Just make your choices and spend the money, and at least thank the owners for a nice ship that is still alive. C Umphlette

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 9:07:38 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Just when you thought you've seen it all. Wings and Wheels has listed a beautifully restored 2-33 for a mere $75K http://wingsandwheels.com/classifieds

I think I shall place and add on W&W for $5,000 paper airplane. Will be made of high grade cotton paper. Might as well start my new glider fund.

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 11:07:38 AM UTC-6, wrote:
Just when you thought you've seen it all. Wings and Wheels has listed a beautifully restored 2-33 for a mere $75K http://wingsandwheels.com/classifieds

When its 100 degrees in Texas and you take a auto in a 2-33 and catch a 6 knot thermal to cloud base at 7500, there is really nothing in soaring quite as sweet being in the back seat with the window open to that 65 degree air on your left arm resting on the edge of the open window. If you have not made a big climb in the back seat of a 2-33, you might not really know what soaring is all about.

Bill Snead

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 6:03:02 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
This looks to be a remanufactured 2-33. I picture this:

They added up the cost of materials, hangar rent, utilities, insurance, and kept track of hours of labor spent. The supervised unskilled labor hours they charged at minimum wage. The skilled labor hours they charged at the prevailing rate. Add 5% a year for their 'cost of money', 5% for their trouble and they get an asking price of $75K. $75K +/- is what a remanufactured 2-33 costs.

This true cost of a remanufactured 2-33 tells me that a long term commitment to 2-33s is throwing good money after bad. You can remanufacture a 2-33 piecemeal, spread out of years, or all at once. Maintaining these birds only makes sense in the long run, when and where people donate hours and hours of their time. Sure that still happens and having trained in 2-33s, I'm grateful and appreciative of their generosity, but the people who have that amount of disposable time are ageing out. Most dads and moms nowadays want to spend their 'time off' with their kids and spouses, not in a hangar covered in dust. And speaking as a recently retired person myself, I have better things to do with my time. (In my defense, I've ponied up money to buy two semi-modern trainers for my club, and I volunteer time at my club.)

Now assuming you find people to donate the time to keep your 2-33 airworthy and cosmetically attractive, what do you get from a student's perspective? How much does a minute in the air cost in a 2-33 compare to a minute in the air in a semi-modern trainer like a ASK 21 or PW-6?

The 32:1 glide ratio is a tipping point. If there is lift to be found, a student can stay up for an hour (and learn to soar) in a 32:1 glider that has decent penetration. They can even fly downwind of the airport! Wow. Who knew?

In a 2-33... they had better find lift under the first cloud that they try. More often than not, they need to buy 2-3 tows to get an hour of practice in the air. On the plus side they get more practice at landing, but we all know that 'gaining altitude in lift' is the heroin that hooks us on the sport. If you want to reduce student attrition during training, put them in a ASK-21 or a PW-6.

If you're wanting a stream of students to subsidize club cash flow by buying lots and lots of tows, a 2-33 does a much better job at that than a 32:1 glider.

Back on 7/17/97, Jean Richard shared this on RAS. Perhaps the $35,000 AMOC plus restoration of L-13's to 0 hours is not so crazy, eh?


Switching from 2-33 to BlanÃ*k
A positive experience for instructors and students

Four years ago, we started doing ab initio instruction on BlanÃ*k L-13 and
put our venerable 2-33 on sale. It was a quite positive experience and nobody
in the club really miss the venerable red and white flying stone.

After four years, we observe the following points :

- average duration of instruction flight increase by 50 % due to the better
performances of the BlanÃ*k

- students progress faster to the licence due to longer flights and less time
consuming in ups and downs when it's not necessary

- towing times are slightly better since L-13 has the same weight as 2-33
but significantly less drag at towing speed and also because we can use higher
tow speed close to the best rate of climb of our tugplane (we are towing the
BlanÃ*k 8 knot faster than the 2-33, this last one becoming unsafe at speed
above 55 knots - out of trim with a pitch up tendancy)

- higher tow speed means cooler engine and faster descent and at the end,
significant saving on engine overhaul

- myth about the fragile BlanÃ*k against the rought 2-33 brought instructors to be
more demanding to students and the instruction quality improved ; hard landing
were a lot more frequent in the 2-33's days that they are now (the only hard
landing I saw for the last four years were with the Puchacz, in the hand of more
experiemented pilots, and not with students in BlanÃ*k)

- we practice hidden panel flights (no instrument at all) with students and consider
it as a very interesting part of the training ; it was not possible (legally) with the
single panel 2-33

- solo on the Grob Astir Club is requiered before licence (would you give a motor
car driver licence to somebody who just drove horse car ?) ; average students
can do it a lot faster than when we were doing training on 2-33, due to BlanÃ*k
handling closier to modern planes than 2-33

- many people apprehended much higher maintenance cost with the BlanÃ*k ; it
proved to be wrong : using BlanÃ*k for ab initio instruction didn't increase
significantly maintenance costs and those are not significantly higher than with
2-33

- due to lower landing/hour ratio, the flying hour is less expansive with the BlanÃ*k
than with the 2-33 (with aerotow operation)

- due to the same reason as above, the average flying time/day is higher with the
BlanÃ*k than with the 2-33

Now, don't ask me why nobody miss the 2-33 after the last four year experience.
And don't ask me why some neighbour clubs put their 2-22/2-33 on sale just after
us.
And the trend of the last 12 years (membership going down year after year,
without an exception) is thing of the past. Membership is finally increasing.

J. Richard

Does nobody else see the irony of the J. Richard's post from 20 years ago? There hasn't been a Blanik L-13 flying in the US for the past 7 years. But the fat, ugly, 2-33 keeps on going and producing new pilots. And didn't the operation at Jean Nevada go back to the 2-33? And have a mid-air between the Pawnee and the 2-33 from which the dodgy old girl brought both pilots back safe and sound?
ROY