Schweizer 2-33
Jean Richard
Maybe it's only rumors but it was told that Schweizer is going to resume
production of the 2-33.
So, after the new Cessna 172 1997, will we assist to the launch of the
new Schweizer 2-33 1998 ?
J. Richard
Faethor
As my flight instructor explained it to me, Schweizer is ready to
produce 2-33's at any time, but to make it profitable (or perhaps just
break even) they need a minimum order of 30 gliders.
Someone interested in new 2-33's might start looking for other
individuals with the same interest. The internet/WWW would be a heck of
a starting place. :)
Jay
John Wren
The first question you need to ask is what would it cost to build a 2-33
today. You then find out why no one is lining up to place orders.
--
John Wren
MGREENSTNE
It will be interesting to see what Schweizer will charge for a new 2-33.
Mine is nearing completion after a TOTAL overhaul and will be for sale for
$15K. I expect new ones will be at least 5 to 10 K higher. Any
definitive word on prices yet?
Jean Richard
Difficult to do an exact estimation of the cost of a new (hypothetical)
SGS-2-33, but don't expect anything below 50 000 $ (what is really
expensive for such a poor designed glider).
When Schweizer stop production, the cost was not that far from the cost of
a new Grob 103.
J. Richard
WILLIAM BERLE
In <33C5A1...@sympatico.ca> Jean Richard <j.ri...@sympatico.ca>
writes:
>Difficult to do an exact estimation of the cost of a new
(hypothetical)
>SGS-2-33, but don't expect anything below 50 000 $ (what is really
>expensive for such a poor designed glider).
The old 2-33 was and is a brilliantly designed glider. It was not
designed for performance, but for safety, longevity, certification, and
to become the standard training glider that would be a moneymaker for
the glider operations. It has surpassed all of the expectations in each
of these areas, in my humble opinion. The designers of the 2-33 knew
that they wanted to make a long lasting and easy to maintain glider,
one that would be around thirty years after it was new. When we are all
dead and buried, there will still be dusty, low performance 2-33's tied
out in the weather at many glider ports (assuming there is still a
gliderport around). This is a feat that Grob, Schleicher, LET (Blanik),
and others have not yet achieved. The 2-33 is an old Chevy pickup truck
sitting out behind the barn. It's ugly, inefficient, and uncomfortable,
but it will always be there when you need it, and it will outlive all
of us. This is a success story unmatched by any other glider, save for
the 2-33's little brother the 1-26.
>When Schweizer stop production, the cost was not that far from the
cost of
>a new Grob 103.
I cannot argue the cost of a new 2-33, because it will most certainly
be priced far above what anyone would want to pay for a LOW PERFORMANCE
glider, even one as long lasting and proven as the 2-33. There are
plenty of reasons for this, including the cost of labor, the liability
insurance, and the cost of materials. There's probably ten grand in
materials in a 2-33 nowdays, and another fifteen to twenty grand in
labor ($15.00 per hour labor for 100 man hours). Then figure in several
thousand for overhead costs, insurance, and finally maybe $5,000 profit
for the company. Nobody will want to pay $45,000 for a 2-33, but I
can't see them selling for too much less. IMHO,
Bill Berle
>
--
Bill Berle PP/ASEL/G
as-...@ix.netcom.com
Victor Bravo Enterprises
Victor Bravo Air Racing
Bert Willing
Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
> -A
>
> PS: I've never seen a 1-26 og a 2-33 in Europe.
> Does anyone use them over here at all?
No, we've got our own old'n ugly gliders (which I will enjoy this
weekend), so we don't feel that we want to import them ... :-)
Ciao
Bert
Jeffry Stetson
In article <33c9dc7c...@news.cph.dk>, asb...@hojmark.org says...
>
>as-...@ix.netcom.com(WILLIAM BERLE) wrote:
>
>> When we are all dead and buried, there will still be dusty, low
>> performance 2-33's tied out in the weather at many glider ports
>> (assuming there is still a gliderport around). This is a feat that
>> Grob, Schleicher, LET (Blanik), and others have not yet achieved.
>
>> The 2-33 is an old Chevy pickup truck sitting out behind the barn.
>> It's ugly, inefficient, and uncomfortable, but it will always be
>> there when you need it, and it will outlive all of us. This is a
>> success story unmatched by any other glider
>
>rather low-performance gliders still in use for training. The ASK-21 is
>also an excellent (new) trainer and I suspect it will be around for a
>very long time.
>
Yeah, but you can't park them outside! Also, fabric needs periodic
replacement, which is expensive if you have to hire the labor. Gel-
coat too eventually fails.
The nicest part about flying a 2-33, IMHO, is that from the front seat
you can't see very much of it!
--
Jeffry Stetson ... Comm ASEL, Pvt SES & Glider, Instrument Airplane
EAA, SSA, AOPA, IAC, MAPA
Mooney M20E "Superduper 21"
Salto H-101 "Shiva - The Cosmic Dancer"
Bill Ray
Having experienced both...
Sure you can park a 2-33 outside. The hailstone damage doesn't affect the
flying qualities much, indeed, the golfball effect may even help matters.
The ringworms in the paint aren't even noticeable from few feet. The
rotten fabric on the fuselage can be replaced every fifteen years or so,
giving ample access to the corroded tubing. IOW, these gliders really do
suffer a bit outdoors. All I have to do is look at our hangared 2-33 and
compare it to a recent collegiate 2-33 acquisition to note the difference.
JHC and I spent several days working on this 2-33 to bring it back to an
acceptable condition. JHC has spent several days since completing cosmetic
work. Much of the work resulted from being left outdoors. A couple of
items were from the wear and tear of flying.
OTOH, given a modest shelter, some sawhorses, and a fuselage deadman, you
can pop a K-7, K-13, or most glass two seaters apart/together in 10-15
minutes each way. A 2-33 takes a good 45 minutes and 1-3 more people
depending on their size.
My first club in the UK managed to park a K-2, K-7, K-13, B-4, K-6 and two
low wing tow planes (and tug car) in a very small hangar. The entire fleet
could be made ready to fly in about 45 minutes. Of course, we rigged each
flying day and rarely tied anything out over night, so it was a learned
art.
I think it's much more practical to fly a glider that handles better,
performs better, is perhaps more comfortable, and easier to rig/derig than
a 2-33. I also think it's a false convenience and economy to park any
glider outside, metal or otherwise. Everytime I stop by the Boulder, CO
airport, I'm more convinced of this.
I've also found that instructors tend to not teach soaring very well in
2-33s as there are no rear seat instruments, they're seldom equiped with TE
or audio, and they're not very good at scratching away due to high sink and
limited penetration.
I'd give up the limited practicality for effectiveness any day.
Frank Whiteley
Todd Pattist <pat...@NOSPAMworldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<33c732e8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >> The 2-33 is an old Chevy pickup truck sitting out behind the barn.
>
> >One could argue that the Bergfalke and Ka-7 are exactly that: very old,
> >rather low-performance gliders still in use for training.
>
> Our club used to fly the 2-33 and the Ka-7. Having no
> money, we had no hangar. The 2-33's sat outside through all
> weather and I flew 8-12 flights a day in them, right through
> the winter. The Ka-7 was a treat to fly. Unfortunately, it
> sat disassembled in a cavernous trailer, and could only come
> out when we had a big crew, a nice day and plenty of time on
> our hands. Having used them both for training, I've got to
> say there's no real comparison on the practicality issue.
>
>
> ---
>
> Todd Pattist Ventus C - WH
> Fly safely, fly often.
> (remove "NOSPAM" from my e-mail address to contact me)
> ---
>
>
Steve Peltz
In article <5q4d2i$2...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
WILLIAM BERLE <as-...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>materials in a 2-33 nowdays, and another fifteen to twenty grand in
>labor ($15.00 per hour labor for 100 man hours). Then figure in several
Um, that's $1,500, not $15,000. Did you mean 1000 man hours?
WILLIAM BERLE
In <5q60e2$9q3$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> pe...@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve
Peltz) writes:
>Um, that's $1,500, not $15,000. Did you mean 1000 man hours?
OOPS! Yeah, that ain't right. Maybe several hundred man hours
considering everything through final paint, and maybe $15 to $25 per
hour for union aircraft workers, certified welders, etc. It was just a
wild guess, but the point if that the airplane won't and unfortunately
can't be cheap.
Jean Richard
WILLIAM BERLE wrote:
>
> The old 2-33 was and is a brilliantly designed glider.
> It was not
> designed for performance, but for safety, longevity, certification,
Brilliantly designed ? Have you at least ever flown something else to write
such a thing ? The SGS-2-33 would fail passing JAR-22 certification for
many safety reasons. Longevity ? AD's has been issued concerning possible
severe corrosion in the lower fuselage tubing, without any regards to the
age of the machine. Safety ? Sure, it won't spin or even stall easily and will
be forgiving in many situations. But the very low Vne, the inefficient
airbrakes, the pitch up tendancy on aerotow, combined with the almost
inexistant trim (you have to push hard on the stick all the way up during
any aerotow above 50 knots) are among things that lead to many incidents
and accidents in SGS-2-33. And in the back seat, you just need a hard
landing to visit the doctor next to the flight.
> and
> to become the standard training glider that would be a moneymaker for
> the glider operations.
A moneymaker that kept both USA and Canada far away from European
countries in soaring. Selling an outdated SGS-2-33 has always been some
kind of a war in soaring clubs, a war between old people who want to keep
the moneymakers (they don't fly them anyway), and younger people who
want more modern sailplanes.
> When we are all
> dead and buried, there will still be dusty, low performance 2-33's tied
> out in the weather at many glider ports (assuming there is still a
> gliderport around). This is a feat that Grob, Schleicher, LET (Blanik),
> and others have not yet achieved.
For each SGS-2-33 with more than 10 000 hours flying time you can find,
I will find a more than 15 000 hours ASK-13. The difference is that the
ASK-13 is a very good trainer and it flies very well, what the SGS don't.
> The 2-33 is an old Chevy pickup truck
> sitting out behind the barn.
Or a Fargo ! But a Chevy pickup doesn't fly...
> It's ugly, inefficient, and uncomfortable,
> but it will always be there when you need it, and it will outlive all
> of us. This is a success story unmatched by any other glider, save for
> the 2-33's little brother the 1-26.
There's probably more Blaník still flying than SGS-2-33. You will find
SGS-2-33 only in USA and Canada (but in Canada, many clubs are selling
them and they are going back in USA) while you can find Blaník all around
the world.
> Nobody will want to pay $45,000 for a 2-33, but I
> can't see them selling for too much less. IMHO,
Right ! Just good for commercial operations giving glider's rides to
not soaring people.
J. Richard
F. L. Whiteley
I recall reading many years ago there were ~372 man hours in a Cessna 172.
On the other hand a modern glass glider from Germany has ~1000 man hours.
I'd put the 2-33 in at ~250 in a production line. It's a very simple
construction.
We just hosted a national CAP Cadet glider encampment at Colorado Soaring
Association. I believe the count was four senior cadets and 19 junior
cadets. The four seniors were resoloed and three were able to use our
1-34. Fifteen of the junior cadets were able to solo. Three others were
very close but the wind was out of limits the last two days. Four 2-33s
were at the disposal of the encampment, CSA's, Black Forest's, Utah CAP's,
and Collegiate Soaring Association. There was more soaring activity this
year than last, so progress to solo may have been slowed slightly. We also
managed about 100 winch launches using a single drum winch.
Personally, I think a tax exempt national soaring education association
should be formed to accept 2-33's in donation to expand upon this
encampment concept to youth beyond the CAP. The CAP concept is great, but
exclusive in scope. The Collegiate Soaring Association can make gliders
available(subject to availability) to collegiate chapters showing
enthusiasm and interest. The 1-36 based in Colorado was sent to Penn State
this year. The Collegiate Soaring Associaton can contract gliders to other
interested groups. In past years as interest waned, chapters practically
gave away gliders upon dissolution, usually to settle outstanding debts.
Hopefully, this trend has changed and the gliders will be keep within the
organization. To the best of my knowledge the Collegiate Soaring
Association is the only tax-exempt organization that has the capabiliy of
owning and distributing gliders within the US. The SSA does not have an
interest in direct ownership of gliders. The National Soaring Foundation
owns glider for the benefit of member use. However, the NSF is based at
Hobbs and doesn't travel or loan the gliders. SSA members must make the
trip.
In short, you may be in the position to donate a suitable glider to the
Collegiate Soaring Association for at least the tax benefits. It is a
501c(3) corporaton. Last year an 18-meter HP-14 was donated and returned
to an airworthy condition. A Gerlein trailer was donated and rigged for
the 1-36 that was sent to PSU. A 2-33 was donated back to the CSA as the
UCSD chapter dwindled to one member. Fortunately, a valuable assest was
saved considering the local service station made fradulent claims about the
condition of the fabric and a ridiculously low offer to purchase. The
proceeds would have disappeared into the coffers of UCSD. A CSA grant made
it possible for the inital purchase of the glider.
So...if you have a 'white elephant' sitting around, you might consider the
Collegiate Soaring Association as a potential outlet. You might also
consider your local CAP chapter.
Frank Whiteley
Colorado Soaring Association
PS: In terms of modern soaring, I don't have anything to learn in a 2-33,
nor does it have much to contribute to the pikot after 20-30 flights. I
certainly hope Schweizer won't put the 2-33 back into production, however,
if they can put the 1-34 on the street for $25-$30K, they might have a
winner in the club and commercial arena.
WILLIAM BERLE <as-...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5q6eor$2...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>...
Ian Johnston
Jean Richard (j.ri...@sympatico.ca) wrote:
: There's probably more Blaník still flying than SGS-2-33. You will find
: them and they are going back in USA) while you can find Blaník all around
: the world.
According to my "Gliders and Sailplanes of the World" production of two
seaters was
Schweizer 2-33 570 (by 1980)
Blanik 2500 (by 1977)
K13 700 (by 1978)
Bocian 620 (by 1977)
Ian
Jean Richard
F. L. Whiteley wrote:
> PS: In terms of modern soaring, I don't have anything to learn in a 2-33,
> nor does it have much to contribute to the pikot after 20-30 flights. I
> certainly hope Schweizer won't put the 2-33 back into production, however,
> if they can put the 1-34 on the street for $25-$30K, they might have a
> winner in the club and commercial arena.
I don't think they can do it for that price and anyway, it's not a
good sailplane. We had one in a club and it was just a lot of trouble.
That club sold it last year and nobody miss it.
I don't know about the safety history of that glider, but I also
don't know why we found loose rivets on ours. It was really fragile.
Definitly not for a club.
Al Holst
We are using a 2-33 here for ab initios over my most strenuous
objections. We require members who are deemed competent on the
2-33 to take further training before having a go alone in either
the Puchacz, a popular BASIC trainer in some parts of the world,
or Pilatus B4.
In one instance a young member, mid-twenties, of average or perhaps
a little above average fitness and aptitude, put in 8:30 in the
Puchacz before getting thye required endorsement. This after
qualifying as a 2-33 pilot.
The Schweizer 2-33 does not prepare pilots to fly modern
aircraft.
We store it outside with the consequent increased maintainance
costs.
The ASK13, on the other hand, is one of the best, if not the best
training aircraft in the world. A pilot who can fly an ASK13 can
fly most gliders.
Two minor faults. Spin reluctant, but it can be persuaded
to simulate a spin.
Thin on the market, hard to get.
The sport is not especially lively in North America. Could
the uninspiring 2-33 be a factor?
Regards,
Al Holst
Rideau Valley Soaring
Ontario, Canada
C'est l'esprit qui compte.
mi...@fire.org.nz
Perhaps we should make the Schweizer 2-33 or 126 the basis of a World
Class glider
Mike
In article <33c9dc7c...@news.cph.dk>,
asb...@hojmark.org (Asbjorn Hojmark) wrote:
>
> as-...@ix.netcom.com(WILLIAM BERLE) wrote:
>
> > When we are all dead and buried, there will still be dusty, low
> > performance 2-33's tied out in the weather at many glider ports
> > (assuming there is still a gliderport around). This is a feat that
> > Grob, Schleicher, LET (Blanik), and others have not yet achieved.
>
> > The 2-33 is an old Chevy pickup truck sitting out behind the barn.
> > It's ugly, inefficient, and uncomfortable, but it will always be
> > there when you need it, and it will outlive all of us. This is a
> > success story unmatched by any other glider
>
> One could argue that the Bergfalke and Ka-7 are exactly that: very old,
> rather low-performance gliders still in use for training. The ASK-21 is
> also an excellent (new) trainer and I suspect it will be around for a
> very long time.
>
> > save for the 2-33's little brother the 1-26.
>
> ... and the Ka-8
>
> -A
>
> PS: I've never seen a 1-26 og a 2-33 in Europe.
> Does anyone use them over here at all?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
F. L. Whiteley
Our club uses one quite successfully and it's equipped for high altitudes
that we don't allow our Grob to reach. That's a consideration of flying in
Colorado. I've also noted the springy tip wheels have saved the aircraft a
couple of times when a glass ship would have shed some bits in ground
looping. Our club members seem to like it quite a lot. For general club
use, the cockpit load is a bit low. Denver Soaring Council removed the
paint from their's this past winter to enable a more reasonable loading.
I agree that Schweizer probably can't put it on the market for the stated
price however, with some modern updating, it has reasonable club potential.
Unlike the 1-36, it's not pitch sensitive. It has fair performance and is
reasonably robust. Rigging and derigging are a bit of a struggle, by
comparison with most glass ships.
Was the one your club sold last year the one that sold within about two
days after being posted in r.a.s.?
Loose rivets can generally be replaced, but then delaminated gel can as
well. I've noted the Schweizer gliders do pop rivets and bend a bit when
flown outside the envelope and when unauthorized manuevars are performed,
whether the pilots care to admit to it. Where did your glider have loose
rivets? As far as I know, the 1-34 has a good safety record.
Frank Whiteley
Colorado Soaring Association
PS: Personally I don't much care for the Schweizer line, but if they tool
up, don't bother with the 2-33. Also, I've heard some want the 2-32 back
in production. No thanks to that, either. IMHO, the 1-34 was their best
effort.
Jean Richard <jean.r...@ec.gc.ca> wrote in article
<33C929...@ec.gc.ca>...
MGREENSTNE
I beg to differ strongly. We have a 1-34 in our club and it has been the
least maintenance intensive ship of our fleet. We do not have the loose
rivet problem (where on the ship anyway?). It flew better than our late
Grob 103, is not as prone to PIO's as the Grob and is not in any way shape
or form "fragile'. Try landing your beloved Grob hard and see what the
true definition of fragile really is. The 1-34 is easier to assemble, rig,
disassemble and move than the 2-33, Grob or Blanik. About the only
complaint I have of the 1-34 is it cannot ground launch worth a darn.
Jean Richard
Al Holst wrote:
>
> We are using a 2-33 here for ab initios over my most strenuous
> objections.
We did it for many years, up to 1994. Since, we are using the Blaník L-13
for ab initio and the result is a lot better. For the survival of the soaring
sport in Canada, YOU MUST SELL those monsters.
> We require members who are deemed competent on the
> 2-33 to take further training before having a go alone in either
> the Puchacz, a popular BASIC trainer in some parts of the world,
> or Pilatus B4.
>
> In one instance a young member, mid-twenties, of average or perhaps
> a little above average fitness and aptitude, put in 8:30 in the
> Puchacz before getting thye required endorsement. This after
> qualifying as a 2-33 pilot.
I observed exactly the same over the years. In those sad years (the 2-33 era),
switching from the 2-33 / 1-26 duo to the Blaník meant a lot of additionnal
training and once again to switch to the Grob Twin II and the Astir Club. And
even after training, bad habits acquired on the 2-33 still persist for long.
Most pilots trained on the 2-33 say that the Grob Twin is difficult to handle
and mainly difficult to land. To my opinion, it's exactly the opposite : the
Twin is a forgiving easy to pilot sailplane. Many European Clubs use it as an
ab initio trainer. The same is true for the Astir Club single seater.
> The Schweizer 2-33 does not prepare pilots to fly modern
> aircraft.
Our experience lead to the same conclusion.
> The ASK13, on the other hand, is one of the best, if not the best
> training aircraft in the world. A pilot who can fly an ASK13 can
> fly most gliders.
The same is true for its young sister, the ASK-21. I've flown both in
France a few months ago and they are nice sailplanes. It seems that many
instructors prefer the ASK-13 to the ASK-21, even if the last one is more
modern and confortable.
> Two minor faults. Spin reluctant, but it can be persuaded
> to simulate a spin.
I didn't try to spin it but I was told that it does it very well (but sure, probably
more difficult to enter a spin in a ASK-13 than in a Blaník and worst, a
Puchacz (that one spins too easily and as so long we cannot train perfect
students, I won't recommand it as an ab initio trainer). I think some ASK-21
have tail ballast to bring the cg in the spinnable range.
>
> Thin on the market, hard to get.
There's more ASK-13 flying in the World than SGS-2-33. But while there's
a lot of 2-33 « for sale », there are very few ASK-13. Easy to guess why !
> The sport is not especially lively in North America. Could
> the uninspiring 2-33 be a factor?
Not the only one, but it helped ! Just look at the Canadian Air Cadet
program : a lot of young people are learning to fly on 2-33 every year,
but very few keep on soaring.
There is also in some Canadian clubs a so called « 2-33 culture ». Some
people like the 2-33 (even if they admit it's a poor sailplane) because it is
a « moneymaker », « une vache à lait » as we say in French. They are
cheap to buy and somewhat cheap on maintenance. But newer members who
fly them pay almost the same fees as older members who fly more sophisticated
planes. And with some riddiculous club training policies, those newcomers
are kept as long as possible on those « flying stones ». With those clubs, for
ten new members, only one or two stay with the club for more than two
years.
J. Richard
Shaber CJ
>What happened to US creativity after the SISU et al. Killed by lawyers,
>like we see with the Cessnas? Pre-war technology in new wrapping, not >to
>risk bounty-hunting lawyers sueing the manufacturers after a chrash?
And of course the members of the public that go out and talk to ten
lawyers before they hire one to represent them, has no blame. Neither
should the 12 jururs who decided a case against the deep pockets.
Lawyers do not just file suit against a manufacturer, they must represent
a client who wants to sue. Nor do lawyers decided on these outrageous
damage awards, again it is 12 members of the public. Lets stop placing
blame on those charged with keeping access to the courts open, but rather
on society as a whole who feels they need to run to court at the drop of a
hat (or airplane).
Sincerely,
Craig Shaber
DJA
Shaber CJ wrote:
I really don't want to get into a long thread about lawyers and certaily
wouldn't want to offend the majority of ethical professionals who may
frequent this group. However we all know lawyers actively solicit
business and I truly believe the legal profession has made General
Aviation unaffordable.
DJA
--
REMOVE "46" IN ADDRESS TO REPLY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If this stops 1 spam......
WARNING: Unsolicited commercial e-mail: $500 per message:
US Code, Title 47 Section 227
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
Tor Olav Steine
mi...@fire.org.nz wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should make the Schweizer 2-33 or 126 the basis of a World
> Class glider
> In article <33c9dc7c...@news.cph.dk>,
> asb...@hojmark.org (Asbjorn Hojmark) wrote:
> > as-...@ix.netcom.com(WILLIAM BERLE) wrote:
> > > The 2-33 is an old Chevy pickup truck sitting out behind the barn.
> > > It's ugly, inefficient, and uncomfortable, but it will always be
> > > there when you need it, and it will outlive all of us. This is a
> > > success story unmatched by any other glider
I am confused: Is the 2-33 a developed version of the 2-22? The one that
looks like an airship with sparrow wings? We had one 2-22 once, together
with an 1-19. They made a good entry level couple, but really, the world
must have moved on since then?
> > One could argue that the Bergfalke and Ka-7 are exactly that: very old,
> > rather low-performance gliders still in use for training. The ASK-21 is
> > also an excellent (new) trainer and I suspect it will be around for a
> > very long time.
Yes, except it is too expencive for a trainer. The ASK is a very good
ADVANCED trainer, with full acro and all. The good thing about ASK-13,
Blaniks, etc arethat they are affordable, AD good entry level trainers.
Why is nobody adressing this (enormeous) market with a space age
beginner trainer. Do we have to wait for the PW-6?
> > PS: I've never seen a 1-26 og a 2-33 in Europe.
> > Does anyone use them over here at all?
See above. I-26 I have only seen in a movie with Paul Newman.
Not very likely Europe will buy this one.
What happened to US creativity after the SISU et al. Killed by lawyers,
like we see with the Cessnas? Pre-war technology in new wrapping, not to
risk bounty-hunting lawyers sueing the manufacturers after a chrash?
I am amazed (and pleased) that someone in the US even tries to compete
with the German glider producers. It is needed!
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
--
_________________________________________________________________
[======> PIK 20B glider for sale: http://home.sn.no/~tos <======]
[====> Ultrafast Vector Map Engine - http://www.flexim.com <====]
[__________________...my opinions are my own..._________________]
Walter Rogers
In response to Mark Grubb's reply readying himself for good soaring
weather "... LOCK AND LOAD ...", I have to say...
Gentlemen, lower your weapons. The game has moved out of range for the
time being.
Radiosonde observation at key sites like Desert Rock, NV have not shown
the rapid warming at lower levels and steepening lapse rates. Although
the warm core 500mb high center is now firmly established over the four
corners area, a brisk S-SSW flow of 15-30 kts is occurring over Southern
CA into the northern half of the Sierras. This pattern is not
conducive for good to outstanding soaring conditions over the Sierras,
Western NV and the Western Mojave. It's still soarable, but not
excellent.
Gradually over the next few days the drier SW flow aloft will increase
over California before a 500mb trough crosses inland over Northern CA
late Friday (7/18/97). Afternoon low level winds in the Western Deserts
and washout off the Sierras will increase until that time.
Numerical models (MRF) indicate a return to warming, and higher 500mb
heights on Sunday (7/20). Hang on to your 500-1000km declarations until
Sunday or Monday.
Raul Blacksten
Tor Olav Steine <t...@sn.no> wrote:
>I am confused: Is the 2-33 a developed version of the 2-22?
Yes
>l We had one 2-22 once, together with an 1-19.
Big Tub and Little Tub?
>> > PS: I've never seen a 1-26 og a 2-33 in Europe.
>> > Does anyone use them over here at all?
No. However, some friends of mine are preparing a 1-26 to be
based in Europe.
>
>See above. I-26 I have only seen in a movie with Paul Newman.
>Not very likely Europe will buy this one.
Out of production since 1979.
>
>What happened to US creativity after the SISU et al. Killed by lawyers,
You got it partially correct. Too small a market drove the
final nail in the coffin.
The Genesis 2 is even an American glider, produced in
Lithuania.
There are a couple of new gliders on the horizon, but still a
couple years away.
Hamlet said something about his first goal was to kill all
lawers. We could use that Dane over here.
--
***************************************************************
RAUL BLACKSTEN Wishing you green air!
Vintage Sailplane Association Archivist
ra...@earthlink.net
<http://www.earthlink.net/~raulb>
"It may not be smart or correct, but it's one of the things
which make us what we are" --Red Green, The New Red Green Show
Raul Blacksten
As someone who learned in a 2-33, I think it is a surpurb
trainer. It has no faults except that it will not spin easily.
It is also EXTREMELY forgiving of student landings which may
be a little hard. Try that in a Grob and see how long the tail
stays on.
Nevertheless, a person need not STAY with the 2-33 forever.
Moving on to a Blanik or Grob is a natural progression.
However, when I flew the twin Grob, I hated it because it flew
lousy in my opinion. I much prefer the 2-33!
Nothing says a person cannot start with a simple trainer like
the 2-33 and move up so that at solo they could be flying a
K-21 or Grob or something. In my opinion, the 2-33 is a
superior trainer!
Raul Blacksten
shab...@aol.com (Shaber CJ) wrote:
>And of course the members of the public that go out and talk to ten
>lawyers before they hire one to represent them, has no blame.
They are #2 in the blame game. However, they would not be
looking for a lawyer were lawyers not expanding liability so
dramatically that nothing we do is our fault anymore. I stub
my toe on a curb and it is the City's fault for having them
built too high, so I sue the City and the contractor for $10M.
> Neither should the 12 jururs who decided a case against the >deep pockets.
The jury system needs revamping, that is for sure.
>Lawyers do not just file suit against a manufacturer, they >must represent a client who wants to sue.
Ever hear of "Class Action Lawsuits?" Any lawyer can file any
suit anytime without a client. Curbs too high, the lawyer
files a class action lawsuit against the City for $100M.
> Lets stop placing
>blame on those charged with keeping access to the courts open, but rather
>on society as a whole who feels they need to run to court at the drop of a
>hat (or airplane).
There is enough blame to go around.
Emilis Prelgauskas
The discussion about the merits of traditional hard working glider
designs and modern sailplanes is a sub set of the discussion about the
sport in the past and today's consumer society expectations of the sport.
This is discussed in detail at
http://aus-soaring.on.net/soaring/dev_fram.htm
Emilis
Jean Richard
Raul Blacksten wrote:
>
> As someone who learned in a 2-33, I think it is a surpurb
> trainer.
That's true that some people did superb paint scheme on them :-)
> It has no faults except that it will not spin easily.
With my 62 kg, it does easily, but I wouldn't try to keep it
for more than half a turn since the noise coming from the
bottom of the tent (used as a fuselage) is scaring.
> It is also EXTREMELY forgiving of student landings which may
> be a little hard. Try that in a Grob and see how long the tail
> stays on.
But not so forgiving for the instructor back. I would prefer a
broken tail than a broken spine.
> However, when I flew the twin Grob, I hated it because it flew
> lousy in my opinion. I much prefer the 2-33!
The Grob Twin I and Twin II are a little bit heavy on the controls,
but the Twin III is a nice machine. But all three are not flying
loosy as so long there's no pilot playing with the stick.
> Nothing says a person cannot start with a simple trainer like
> the 2-33 and move up so that at solo they could be flying a
> K-21 or Grob or something.
But the G103 and ASK21 are simple trainers : fixed gear, no flaps,
easy to fly, easy to rig, forgiving and so on. And they are built
with JAR22 safety standard while the 2-33 is not. They have speed
limiting airbrakes while the 2-33 don't (and what about the
very low vne of the 2-33). And they don't bang on the tail (making
student desoriented) on launch like the 2-33.
> In my opinion, the 2-33 is a
> superior trainer!
O.K. I would admit that it is superior to the 2-22 (on which I learned
first before relearning on the L-13 and the G103).
J. Richard
Andrew Stevens
>> The ASK13, on the other hand, is one of the best, if not the best
>> training aircraft in the world. A pilot who can fly an ASK13 can
>> fly most gliders.
>> Two minor faults. Spin reluctant, but it can be persuaded
>> to simulate a spin.
>
>I didn't try to spin it but I was told that it does it very well (but sure, probably
>more difficult to enter a spin in a ASK-13 than in a Blaník and worst, a
>Puchacz (that one spins too easily and as so long we cannot train perfect
>students, I won't recommand it as an ab initio trainer).
The K-13 goes into a spin quite nicely but if you have
heavy pilots tends to "slide out" pretty quickly
making training recover rather difficult/artificial.
> I think some ASK-21
>have tail ballast to bring the cg in the spinnable range.
The K-21 is a wondrous training ship (bomb proof construction,
comfy, student-friendly handling, good viz., mega-robust
undercarriage, good enough performance to do non-comedy
x-country even in the UK, semi-aerobatic, high VNE...)
but you do need something more spinnable to complement it for
training.
Even with with C of G right back on the aft limit the K.21 is
at least as reluctant to spin as a '13. When I flew one
ffor aerobatics I still got zero-ed on my spin...
sort of o.k. entry but it simply flew right out after 1/2 turn or so.
Even with the stick hard back.
Anton Verhulst
>See above. I-26 I have only seen in a movie with Paul Newman.
>Not very likely Europe will buy this one.
The glider in that movie was a 1-23, not a 1-26. The film was shot at the
now defunct Northeastern Gliderport in Salem NH. The gliderport closed
in 1993 to make room for a golf course. Sigh!
Tony V.
Robert Danewid
Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
> PS: I've never seen a 1-26 og a 2-33 in Europe.
> Does anyone use them over here at all?
I believe that the 2-22 is the older sister to the 2-33. And there
was/is a 2-22 in Europe, in Sweden.
Actually we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the first ab initio
course in dual command just these days. This course was staged at the
=C5lleberg Gliding School by the Swedish Aeroclub. The syllabus for this
course is used even today in Swedish training and is based on the Air
Force syllabus, of course in a modernized form. The glider used was a
2-22 and an 1-19. At this time we were looking for a good two seater for
baic training. The Aeroclub bought a 2-22 (and the 1-19 in kitform) and
a Slingsby T-21. The only two seater in use in Sweden at that time was
the Kranich.
The course was a great success, but no more 2-22 were bought. About 7 or
8 T21 were imported to Sweden. I have been told that one of the reasons
for not buying more 2-22 and/or T21 was that the dollar and sterling was
to expensive.
In the mid fifties it was decided by Lennart St=E5hlfors, CFIG of the
Aeroclub for more than 30 years and nowadays still the editor of the
Swedish gliding magazine, to use the Bergfalke as mono type for
training. Up until the mid eighties the only type approved for training
in Sweden was the Bergfalke. The clubs could buy Bergfalkes with
subsidaries from the Air Force. The Bergfalke II/55 and IV are based on
specifications by Mr St=E5hlfors (who received the FAI LIlienthal medal i=
n
the sixties).
Back to the 2-22. It was later sold to Norway. The Gliding Museum at
=C5lleberg has been looking for an airworthy 2-22 and found one in Canada=
=2E
Every year the Swedish Vintage Glider Association held their annual
meeting at =C5lleberg in August (this year 16-17th) and it is planned to
have the 2-22 soar over Swedish soil again at this meeting.
So, in summary, the answer to Asbjorns question is, that in August there
will be at least one airworhty 2-22 in Europe.
Robert Danewid
James Tsillas
As a recent graduate of the "2-33 academy" the one thing that I like
about this glider is that it allowed me to solo earlier than I would
have if I had started in the Blanik. Getting to that solo flight was
very important to me and gave me alot of motivation and reason to stick
with it. The transition to the Blanik L23 did require about 8 additional
dual flights but part of that was transitioning to a new airport and
instructor. Yes, the 2-33 is ugly, inefficient and noisy (alot less
noisy when flown solo) but it is also very strong, forgiving and safe
and instructors seem to be a bit more inclined to solo a student in them
than in other planes. The 2-33 also taught me to be very conservative
about things like pattern altitude, distance from the airport with
regard to wind, staying in position during tow. I carried this over to
the Blanik and perhaps it kept me out of trouble in some situations. The
Blanik taught me more about coordination, speed control, turning stalls
and ground control. The 2-33 is also alot cheaper than the Blanik which
is important, especially if you fly at a commerical operation. As far as
the 2-33s discouraging new students: if someone wants to fly gliders
because they look nice then I think they will probably lose interest
once they figure out there's work involved. The 2-33 may even promote
the sport since many people who take rides in them are amazed at how
easy it is to control ("just like driving a car"). If they had tried to
control a Grob 103 or even a Blanik they may get discouraged as it
wobbles around uncoordinated. I think that initial ride is very
important to give people the feeling that "they can do it too". The one
thing I hate about the 2-33 is that the back seat is so bad that it is
almost impossible to get an instructor who is in a good mood back there
:-) especially during the winter (one instructor I had would prefer I
didn't practice right hand slips because he would freeze due to the
drafts in the back seat).
-Jim.
--
____***___
\..*...*./
\.*..../
\*...* * Jim Tsillas - Senior Software Engineer *
\**/ * Cascade Communications Corp. *
\/ * 5 Carlisle Road, Westford MA 01886 *
CASCADE
Tor Olav Steine
Robert Danewid wrote:
> Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
> > PS: I've never seen a 1-26 og a 2-33 in Europe.
> > Does anyone use them over here at all?
> I believe that the 2-22 is the older sister to the 2-33. And there
> was/is a 2-22 in Europe, in Sweden.
Yes, I personally sold one to Mr. Høymyhr i Norway, and it was later in
the 70s sold to Sweden, after it was blown around in nasty weather. It
is in Sweden now, Robert!
> Back to the 2-22. It was later sold to Norway.
When? We had one in the 60's, and sold it to Sweden in the 70's. See
above.
One 1-19 is still being built in the basement of dentist Mr. Lundstrøm.
my one of club mates.
Another friend, now Inspector General of the Norwegian Airforce, had an
interesting experience with it, once his seatbelt loosened during
aerotow in strong termals. Open cockpit, you know...
> So, in summary, the answer to Asbjorns question is, that in August there
> will be at least one airworhty 2-22 in Europe.
...and an 1-19 to join it once the dentist gets his act together.
Tor Olav Steine
Marc Ramsey
Anton Verhulst <verh...@kestrel.zk3.dec.com> wrote in article
<5qg43i$2...@zk2nws.zko.dec.com>...
And, the "pilot" was Steve McQueen (who really did have a glider rating,
I believe), not Paul Newman. Having learned to fly at NELA, I concur
on the last point. Sigh!
Shaber CJ
<Ever hear of "Class Action Lawsuits?" Any lawyer can file any
<suit anytime without a client. Curbs too high, the lawyer
<files a class action lawsuit against the City for $100M.
Absolutly untrue. Ever heard of Class representatives. A suit may not be
filed without a client (plaintiff).
Cheers
Craig Shaber
Hartley Falbaum
mgree...@aol.com (MGREENSTNE) wrote:
Our club, Mid Georgia Soaring Assn, has a 1-34 which, in the hands of
a very competent pilot, won the 1988 Sports Class Nationals. It flies
today in bright red color, and requires very little maintenence time.
It is flown by solo students trained on a Blanik L-13 without
difficulty. It's only weak points are a fairly narrow cockpit, though
not quite like a Libelle, and a tendency to bend the fuselage if
landed hard, tail first. (we have not yet had this problem). It does
suffer a bit when trying to penetrate a stiff wind.
Hartley Falbaum, CFIG
ASW20-B "KF"
Hartley Falbaum
DELET...@comlab.ox.ac.uk (Andrew Stevens) wrote:
A good trainer should clearly show the student his/her mistakes
without punishing them. The 2-33 and a competent instructor can do
this very nicely. A properly trained student can transition to a more
demanding sailplane without problems, albeit with a bit more training.
Every aircraft has lessons to teach the perceptive student. Legions of
excellent pilots have learned in the 2-33. I will agree that the back
seat is uncomfortable but in Georgia we are grateful for the breeze in
the back!
Hartley Falbaum, CFIG
2-33 "graduate"
ASW-20B "KF"
Tony Lauck
The "pilot" was Steve McQueen, but the pilot was Roy McMaster.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Lauck, P.O. Box 59, Warren, VT 05674
tla...@madriver.com http://www.ultranet.com/~tlauck/
PGP Key fingerprint = D1 47 AF C0 4E B8 D2 9A 25 0B 41 69 9D 33 B4 5E
Rex Root
>
>The "pilot" was Steve McQueen, but the pilot was Roy McMaster.
>
-rex
Marc Ramsey
Rex Root <r...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in article
<5qlke6$b...@scan.eng.umd.edu>...
> >
> >The "pilot" was Steve McQueen, but the pilot was Roy McMaster.
> >
> I tuned in on this thread late. What movie are you all refering to?
"The Thomas Crowne Affair"
_____________________________
Marc Ramsey, ma...@ranlog.com
http://www.ranlog.com/ramsey/
Ian Spence
Jean Richard wrote:
>
> F. L. Whiteley wrote:
>
> > PS: In terms of modern soaring, I don't have anything to learn in a 2-33,
> > nor does it have much to contribute to the pikot after 20-30 flights. I
> > certainly hope Schweizer won't put the 2-33 back into production, however,
> > if they can put the 1-34 on the street for $25-$30K, they might have a
> > winner in the club and commercial arena.
>
> I don't think they can do it for that price and anyway, it's not a
> good sailplane. We had one in a club and it was just a lot of trouble.
> That club sold it last year and nobody miss it.
>
> I don't know about the safety history of that glider, but I also
> don't know why we found loose rivets on ours. It was really fragile.
> Definitly not for a club.
I hate to have to disagree with my compatriot
Jean Richard but in my opinion the 1-34 is a
fine glider for beginners and an excellent
club ship.
My first glider was a 1-34 (purchased in 1974
when I had only 20 hours solo time). It was a
wonderful aircraft and I put over 500 hours
on the ship in four years (including flying
all three diamonds in the 1-34).
The glider handles well, is very forgiving for
beginners, and is virtually impervious to the
elements--mine was tied down outside and as a
result I was often flying within 10 minutes
after arriving at the club.
When I moved onto fibreglass my old club, the
London Soaring Society, acquired my 1-34. It
has been happily serving them well for almost
two decades.
Regarding construction and durability, mine
was certainly first-class. Perhaps the one
that Jean mentions had been poorly maintained
or abused ...
I, and countless others, have enjoyed many
memorable flights in this wonderful aircraft.
Thanks to the Schweizer brothers, Jim Short,
and all the other great folks at Schweizer's
who brought us the 1-34. And thank you C-FCOM !!
Ian Spence, WW
Schleicher ASW-24
--
Ian Spence, Department of Psychology spe...@psych.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto http://psych.utoronto.ca/~spence/
Toronto, Ontario (416) 978-7623 (Voice)
Canada M5S 3G3 (416) 978-4811 (FAX)
Steve Peltz
In article <01bc8e48$80ef7ee0$34f292d0@greeley>,
Bill Ray <acci...@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>I've also found that instructors tend to not teach soaring very well in
>2-33s as there are no rear seat instruments, they're seldom equiped with TE
>or audio, and they're not very good at scratching away due to high sink and
>limited penetration.
While I'll instruct in thermalling techniques when conditions are right,
most of the time we're too busy working on basic control, tow, maneuvers,
landings, etc. I don't find that the lack of instrumentation in the back
seat is a particular hindrance.
Steve Peltz
In article <33CB0D...@ec.gc.ca>,
Jean Richard <jean.r...@ec.gc.ca> wrote:
>But not so forgiving for the instructor back. I would prefer a
>broken tail than a broken spine.
So don't let your students land hard! Ok, the back seat is a bit cramped,
especially for a tall instructor. However, I've only had a few students
manage to land hard enough for me to notice, and I wasn't injured.
>with JAR22 safety standard while the 2-33 is not. They have speed
>limiting airbrakes while the 2-33 don't (and what about the
>very low vne of the 2-33). And they don't bang on the tail (making
>student desoriented) on launch like the 2-33.
How many people have been killed or injured in a 2-33 for reasons that
would have been prevented if it satisfied JAR22 standards?
Having or not having speed-limiting dive brakes is something you'll need
to learn - I don't think there's anything magic about learning first with
one or the other. Having a limited amount of spoilers forces the student
to plan ahead.
What about the "very low" Vne? It's faster than I need to fly, especially
while giving instruction. Having a nice low stall speed makes wind correction
exercises and demonstrations of turning illusions much more effective.
Proper tow-pilot technique prevents the tail from slamming into the ground.
However, even when it does, it presents an instructional opportunity.
Steve Peltz
In article <JTSILLA.97...@atlas.ccs.neu.edu>,
James Tsillas <jts...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>thing I hate about the 2-33 is that the back seat is so bad that it is
>almost impossible to get an instructor who is in a good mood back there
>:-) especially during the winter (one instructor I had would prefer I
>didn't practice right hand slips because he would freeze due to the
>drafts in the back seat).
I'd rather sit in the back seat than be outside on the ground! When its cold,
I bundle up. No big deal. Yeah, it's a bit drafty. The thing I really hate
is when it is raining, all the water that has collected on the canopy comes
up and over and sloooosh right in my lap during the first few seconds of the
launch. We've added some weather-stripping, which helps, but a lot still gets
in. BTW, I'm almost always in a good mood. Ask any of my students.
Steve Peltz
In article <33cb3573...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
Andrew Stevens <DELET...@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>The K-13 goes into a spin quite nicely but if you have
>heavy pilots tends to "slide out" pretty quickly
>making training recover rather difficult/artificial.
Isn't that what most people mean when they say something is "hard to
spin"? I mean, I can always get something INTO a spin, but when it breaks
the spin all by itself after 1/4 turn, that's when I say "this thing doesn't
spin very well". And my experience with 3 (or 4?) different 2-33's is that
they don't spin very well (unlike a 1-26, which spins very nicely indeed).
Steve Peltz
In article <5qbmhp$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Al Holst <cd...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> In one instance a young member, mid-twenties, of average or perhaps
> a little above average fitness and aptitude, put in 8:30 in the
> Puchacz before getting thye required endorsement. This after
> qualifying as a 2-33 pilot.
Perhaps your training in the 2-33 is inadequate?
> The Schweizer 2-33 does not prepare pilots to fly modern
> aircraft.
Why not? Are they a lot harder to fly? Should students be learning on
a difficult-to-fly glider? Do you recommend that students train on a
glider that has retractable gear, water ballast, negative flaps, a GPS
and final-glide computer?
> We store it outside with the consequent increased maintainance
> costs.
Okay, but I'm not sure why that's the fault of the 2-33! Are you complaining
because you don't have room to hangar it, and you aren't willing to disassemble
it each day?
> The ASK13, on the other hand, is one of the best, if not the best
> training aircraft in the world. A pilot who can fly an ASK13 can
> fly most gliders.
Can they fly a 2-33? I'm confused. Is the 2-33 supposedly HARDER or EASIER
to fly, or what specific characteristics make someone trained on a 2-33
incompetent to fly other gliders? If a 2-33 is "too easy", how much longer
does it take for someone to get their pilot's license in, say, an ASK13?
> The sport is not especially lively in North America. Could
> the uninspiring 2-33 be a factor?
I'd rather fly a 2-33 than not have enough money to buy any gliders. I'd
say the problems with popularity have to do with the fact that the people
who have the time to do it don't have the money, and vice versa. Getting
rid of an easily available, relatively inexpensive trainer is not the way
to get more people to fly.
I've never had someone I've brought out to the field say "oh, my, that
thing's ugly, I guess I don't want to go up in it". Granted, I much prefer
giving a guest ride in the Krosno - I can range further, the view is
better, the seat is more comfortable, and it looks nicer.
Andreas Maurer
On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 20:13:11 -0600, mi...@fire.org.nz wrote:
>Perhaps we should make the Schweizer 2-33 or 126 the basis of a World
>Class glider
I'd strongly suggest the SG-38 consequently.
Bye
Andreas
dl...@eng.ascend.com
In article <5qpkv6$9f9$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
back
> seat is a particular hindrance.
I am learning to fly a 2-33. With luck I'll solo soon. This past
Wednesday I worked a thermal from 7,800ft. to 12,500ft. It was great
having the instructor behind me to make little suggestions.
I'm originally a hang glider pilot. From this vantage point, I think
the 2-33 is a great trainer. It probably out-climbs 90% of the super
ships in our club. Just more difficult to go cross-country, but hey,
hang gliders with 12/1 glide ratios are semi-routinely going 200
miles.
That said, yesterday I took the controls in a Grob (103 I think).
Nice.
David Lane
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Andrew Stevens
On 19 Jul 1997 06:22:59 GMT, pe...@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz)
wrote:
>In article <33cb3573...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
>Andrew Stevens <DELET...@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>The K-13 goes into a spin quite nicely but if you have
>>heavy pilots tends to "slide out" pretty quickly
>>making training recover rather difficult/artificial.
>
>Isn't that what most people mean when they say something is "hard to
>spin"?
All a matter of degrees...
A K.13 *can* be spun in the "classical" manner unless the crew
are *really* heavy (e.g. flat turn, well over-ruddered, stop the wing
dropping with aileron, nip the stick back.... there's the
auto-rotation...)
For most ships/crew you can then keep it in with
stick on the backstop and pro-spin rudder
so the tudent has time to see "the picture" and
note the symptoms.
> I mean, I can always get something INTO a spin, but when it breaks
>the spin all by itself after 1/4 turn, that's when I say "this thing doesn't
>spin very well".
A K.21 at anything over absolute min. cockpit load
simply develops a modest wing-drop, drops its nose
and flys out cheerfully. To get even a bit of auto-rotation takes
serious contortions requiring enough precision that
you'd need to practice to "stay current" and even then
success may be patchy.
E.g. fly a pull-up to unload to 0.x G, building up
a good yaw rate timed just right to peak at very low airspeed/load
at which point you load up hard. Even then it almost certainly won't
stay auto-rotating for more than a moment or too making it
useless for demonstrating.
Andrew
SCOTT MACKNIGHT
I'm a new pilot, having soloed and received all my instruction in a
2-33. I took my checkride a few days ago with no problem. I agree with
some of the pros, and some of the cons in this rather long thread. Some
points I don't consider myself qualified to comment on due to my limited
experience. What I would like to add is that last week, I took a flight
with an instructor in a 2-32, which has significantly higher performance
than the 2-33. The instructor let me take the controls through the
whole flight, commenting that he would only take over if he felt the
need. The flight lasted an hour, and included thermalling in very rough
air, slow flight, stalls and landing. I felt very comfortable with the
ship after about 30 seconds, and could see no problems at all with
transition. Maybe it's because the 2-32 is also a Schwiezer glider,
but the instructor felt I was very well prepared to make the transition.
Scott MacKnight