Is the 2-33 still a good trainer?
Kirk Stant
What is the general opinion (from students, CFIGs, "glassholes", FBOs,
clubs, etc.) of the training qualities of the good ol' SGS 2-33A in todays
soaring environment? Now before some of you pop off into a rant about me
being a godless communist (half correct, by the way), etc. let me say that I
have a lot of time in the front and back seats of 2-33s (personal and
commercial rides; I'm not a CFIG) and have nothing against the beast as a
plane; I'm just wondering if it hasn't become somewhat dated and
counterproductive as a trainer and introductory glider these days.
Some of my biased observations:
- While relatively easy to fly, it in no way prepares new pilots for the
types of gliders they may want to move up to (glass, or higher performance
metal).
- It has some really bad flying characteristics on tow (unable to trim out
control pressures) that to me are actually dangerous (and may have
contributed to some tow accidents).
- Let's face it, it's pretty homely. In a mixed fleet of glass or newer
metal (Lark, Blanik) the 2-33 is not what the walkon future glider pilot is
drawn to. Now this can be good ("If you can handle this you get to move up
to something nice.") but with older (read: richer) students I don't think
that approach is really valid.
Good points:
- You can't break it (which also means it won't go away!).
- You can fly around with your elbow out the open back window (major
coolness points in AZ in the summer).
- It's cheap.
- You can sell it as being "retro" to the guy who drives up in a PT Cruiser.
OK, fights on!
Kirk Stant
LS6 UU
Robertmudd1u
writes:
> just thought I would kick a hornet's nest and see what happens...>
>What is the general opinion (from students, CFIGs, "glassholes", FBOs,
>clubs, etc.) of the training qualities of the good ol' SGS 2-33A in todays
>soaring environment?
Well a hornets nest is exactully what you will get. This has been discussed, at
length, several times in the last year. Check one of the archive services. The
debate quickly moves to emotional grounds and nothing is answered fully.
However if this does start a thread then i be glad to add my opinion as will
others.
Robert Mudd
Quietpilot
restored), I am compelled to step up for round one. I am also a student
glider pilot, so I will probably get my butt kicked by the pro's.
Just the same:
The 2-33 can be sold, and not at "retro" prices. See my ad in www.myglider.com.
I have had lots of interest in it, and at a record price too!
Next concept: Most 2-33's will be owned by either a club or a school offering
initial training. Try fixing a GLASS ship after a bad student landing. You
think you will have it ready to fly in a week?? Good luck! Hope you have a big
checkbook. Repairability is one of the enduring qualities of the 2-33.
2-33 or Glass, either way you will learn the basics of towing, airmanship, and
that all-important quality, judgement. Yes, you can pay $85/hr for an ASK-21,
but why? The 2-33 will do the job early on just as well. Not many students
are going to keep a glass ship up for hours on end anyway, so why waste the
money early on?
Towing characteristics.. I agree, it is a challenge.. I churned a hell of a lot
of butter in August learning to tow. Was cured of it, NOT by a glass ship, but
by boxing the wake. After that, no problem. I think the best lessons are
learned from struggling with adversity. Probably learned more about tow from
an unruly bird than a nice, docile one.
Performance.. okay it's like this. We got the 2-33 to over 10,000 on it's
inaugural flight the other day, following a 3000' gain after release. To do it
we worked anything from 100 to 400 up lift. It WAS work, but again, I learned
more from that struggle than by sitting in a nice glass ship. Isnt that what
training is all about, LEARNING and improvement? Does L/D mean all that much
in a thermal anyway, especially a weak one?
When I am ready to go from point A to point B in relative comfort, free of
worries of landing out, and want to get there fast and with minimal effort, I
will switch to glass. But as a student, I will stick with the ancient
technology, stuggle with adversity, and learn a heck of a lot more about how
deal with it, and have greater confidence in myself and my plane as a result.
DING!! End of round one. Next up??
Good soaring to all! :-)
MG San Diego
Richard B
quiet...@aol.com (Quietpilot) wrote:
>
> Towing characteristics.. I agree, it is a challenge.. I churned a
hell of a lot
> of butter in August learning to tow. Was cured of it, NOT by a glass
ship, but
> by boxing the wake. After that, no problem. I think the best
lessons are
> learned from struggling with adversity. Probably learned more about
tow from
> an unruly bird than a nice, docile one.
Having just one flight in anything except a 2-33, you will be surprised
at how easy anything else becomes. That one flight is in my own 1-26,
and it seemed to me that it was almost hands off. The tendency of the
2-33 to wander is probably not to it's detriment, but when you get
into something a little better behaved, it becomes easier.
>
> Isnt that what
> training is all about, LEARNING and improvement?
I would tend to think so, and while all of the arguments you may hear
about the 2-33 are probably founded in fact, it's forgiveness,
sluggishness, lack of L/D, slow speed, these are the things that make
you work to fly it. During my first solo, I had something kick the
left wing up about 45 degrees, and full opposite aileron wouldn't bring
it back down. My first reaction to this was to think, "let's get the
hell out of here", and I lowered the nose, which was probably the
proper thing to do anyhow. Speed came up, wing came down, and then
turn to find what it was. (Hoping for lift). Nothing there the second
time.
> Does L/D mean all that much
> in a thermal anyway, especially a weak one?
During the training stage, no. I don't know how things are done
elsewhere, but around here most training flights are the tow to 2000,
release, and the sled ride back down and do it again. Earlier, they
were tows to 3000, stalls, slips, turns, then back down. The few
thermal flights we've had were fun, but didn't really teach much about
actually flying the plane. You can fly without knowing how to thermal,
but I don't think it works the other way.
The other benefit is that it's tied down outside, where the glass ships
are put back into the cigar tubes at the end of the day.
I've learned in the 2-33, become familiar with its creaks, groans and
other noises. One flight in my own plane has shown me that I'm going
to like something a little more responsive, but it doesn't make me hate
the 2-33. For the purpose that it was designed to fill, it has done
the job, and done it well, for more than thirty years. That's pretty
hard to argue with.
Richard B.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
fado...@yahoo.com
then we'll be due for another round of "Metal vs. Glass", and perhaps we
can get back to the PW5 in early October. Hell, it beats working.
> being a godless communist (half correct, by the way), etc. let me say
that I
Are you a godfull communist, or a godless capitalist?
> - While relatively easy to fly, it in no way prepares new pilots for
the
> types of gliders they may want to move up to (glass, or higher
performance
> metal).
Most gliders go faster if you push the stick forward, slower if you pull
back. This is also more or less the case with the 2-33. What else do
they need to learn?
> - Let's face it, it's pretty homely. In a mixed fleet of glass or
newer
> metal (Lark, Blanik) the 2-33 is not what the walkon future glider
pilot is
> drawn to.
Actually, isn't the Blanik actually an older design than the 2-33?
Anyhow, the solution to this problem is to not have any glass or newer
metal gliders sitting around to make the 2-33 look bad. Most American
clubs have figured this out.
My pet peeve about the 2-33: how do you get full stick travel without
having your legs amputated? You have to lift your leg up and push the
stick under your knee, but then you lose the rudder.
Richard B
fado...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> My pet peeve about the 2-33: how do you get full stick travel without
> having your legs amputated? You have to lift your leg up and push the
> stick under your knee, but then you lose the rudder.
>
Richard B.
Wallace Berry
<quiet...@aol.com> wrote:
in it, and at a record price too!
>
> Next concept: Most 2-33's will be owned by either a club or a school offering
> initial training. Try fixing a GLASS ship after a bad student landing. You
> think you will have it ready to fly in a week?? Good luck! Hope you have a
> big
> checkbook. Repairability is one of the enduring qualities of the 2-33.
>
>
I've helped with the rebuilds on a couple of 2-33's and flown a lot of
hours in 2-22s and 2-33s. A landing bad enough to break something major
on a 2-33 will hurt somebody. I watched a 2-33 pancake on once hard
enough to bend the tubes around the wheel. They carried the backseater
off on a back board. As for repairs, my own experience is that most
repairs in glass are easier than metal. Depends on what part was
broken. I've seen glass ships with broken fuselages repaired and flying
in less than 48 hours. Plus, glass usually has much lower maintenance
requirements than metal. Sure you can tie that 2-33 outside, but the
fabric is going to deteriorate and the steel tubing is going to
corrode. Ever pull the fabric off the elevator on a 2-33 that has been
sitting outside for a few years? It can be scary. Same for all metal
tube birds. Look at the troubles with Pawnees over the last few years.
This battle about trainers is fought and never won year in and year
out. Here in the U.S., most clubs don't have the money to get glass
birds for trainers. That doesn't leave much of a choice. The best
compromise from a pretty limited set of choices is the Blanik, either
the L-13 or L-23. Not that they don't have their own maintainability
problems.
Now, I've got the trainer for ya'. CARMAM (CVT) M-200. Two place side
by side. Lots of room, great view, over 30:1. Supposedly stressed for
over +8 g's. Cockpit load of almost 500lbs. However, it is all rags
and sticks and it flies a bit like a truck when loaded up with two fat
butts and 'chutes. As long as the termites keep holding hands...
Should be a great ridge day at Chilhowee, TN tomorrow!
Go fly, have fun, be safe.
Wally
Al Bowers
"Kirk Stant" <st...@primenet.com> writes:
> What is the general opinion (from students, CFIGs, "glassholes", FBOs,
> clubs, etc.) of the training qualities of the good ol' SGS 2-33A in todays
> soaring environment?...
> Good points:
A significant one for a trainer is safety record. A friend recently
dug through the DOT/NTSB records from 1983 to present for a number of
sailplanes (757 sailplane accidents with 188 fatalities, of those 66
were homebuilt with 27 fatalities). The venerable 2-33 was one that
he examined. Since 1980, there have been 98 accidents in 2-33s.
There have been NO FATALITIES. I thought that was a little hard to
believe, given ham fisted students getting crossed-up on final and
stall/spin. But not one person has died in a 2-33 in the years
examined. [Footnote: for the same years, 2-22s recorded nine
accidents for szero fatalities as well.] An important point for a
sailplane you'd send a first-time solo pilot out in, IMHO.
Al Bowers
--
Al Bowers
bow...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov
Mark
Are you saying this because you regret having the 2-33 and you're now trying
to convince yourself that it wasn't a waste of money? ;-)
I have just as much fun flying with my '55 Ka-2 (L/D 24) than foxy glass
ships at my club!
Greetings and good thermals,
Mark
vaughnsimon
bite.
As far as teaching the basics of our sport, the 2-33 is just as good
today as the day it was first introduced. It is not an adequate machine for
teaching transition to high-performance ships and was never represented as
such. I watched my only child solo in a 2-33 at age 14, and can't think of
another ship that I would rather trust with that job, but I will never
forget the sour look on her face when she first saw the beast.
The question that should really be asked is the following "is using the
2-33 a good business decision?". When you are introducing a new prospect to
the sport, is the 2-33 really the first thing you want them to see? If you
were to display the club 2-33 at the local airshow, would you really expect
it to attract a drooling crowd of prospective members? The 2-33 just does
not present a good first impression, and therin lies its major shortcoming.
It's a human problem, not a problem with the flight characteristics of the
ship, but a very real consideration.
That all having been said, I also soled in a 2-33 and there will always
be a place for one in my life. In fact, I still fly one regularly.
Fly Safe!
Vaughn
Bill Daniels
when they walk.
Bill Daniels
"Kirk Stant" <st...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:8ptdbd$361$1...@nnrp2.phx.gblx.net...
> I just thought I would kick a hornet's nest and see what happens...
>
> What is the general opinion (from students, CFIGs, "glassholes", FBOs,
> clubs, etc.) of the training qualities of the good ol' SGS 2-33A in todays
> soaring environment? Now before some of you pop off into a rant about me
> being a godless communist (half correct, by the way), etc. let me say that
I
> have a lot of time in the front and back seats of 2-33s (personal and
> commercial rides; I'm not a CFIG) and have nothing against the beast as a
> plane; I'm just wondering if it hasn't become somewhat dated and
> counterproductive as a trainer and introductory glider these days.
>
> Some of my biased observations:
>
> - While relatively easy to fly, it in no way prepares new pilots for the
> types of gliders they may want to move up to (glass, or higher performance
> metal).
> - It has some really bad flying characteristics on tow (unable to trim out
> control pressures) that to me are actually dangerous (and may have
> contributed to some tow accidents).
> - Let's face it, it's pretty homely. In a mixed fleet of glass or newer
> metal (Lark, Blanik) the 2-33 is not what the walkon future glider pilot
is
John H. Campbell
out there. Not to mention rigging (Wrenches!? Struts!?), or
ground-handling (only 640#?). It has very much become the exception, not the
rule. However, for initial training and going vertically, it's as good as
any glider. Availability (600+ in USA) and price (< #20K, 'nuff said) are
totally in a class of their own.
But, to offer data as opposed to opinion, consider this: We have 2 2-33s at
our field that have been there for the past 20 years. This past year so
far, each of them has flown over 350 hrs, vs. 300 hrs for our 1989 G103.
Each of them flies more than any other ship on the field.
--JHC
Barbara MacLean
I learned in a Blanik. Don't know what that means...it's just the way I
learned.
18
Kirk Stant
Thanks to all of you for your responses. I know this is a recurring theme,
but I was curious (and hadn't seen anything about 2-33s on RAS in over a
year..)
What I get out of all the responses is:
1. You can crash it and not get hurt.
2. I'ts hard to fly but that builds character.
3. It was good enough for my father so it's good enough for me.
4. It's cheap to fix when you break it.
5. Performance isn't important.
Here is my perspective on these points:
1. I worry about midairs, not hitting the ground. Ever try to wear a chute
in the back of a 2-33?
2. Why should a trainer be hard to fly? When you are teaching your son or
daughter to drive a car, would you pick some vehicle that is really hard to
drive and unrepresentative of other cars to teach them in? No?, then why in
a glider. The military and airlines do not make their trainers hard to fly.
In fact, they go to great lengths to make them have impeccable flying
characteristics (which includes the capability to demonstrate spins and
acro, by the way). More demanding, perhaps, but not harder (subtle but
critical difference there!).
3. What was good enough for my father is not good enough for me. If you
disagree, then that is a different argument altogether, and when you show up
in my driveway in your model T we can talk about it. Do you still want to
cross the Atlantic in a Connie? I have, and it takes a long time.
4. I'm not asking about glass vs metal, so this is irrelevant in this
context. I'm questionning old vs new aerodynamics, really. A Lark and an
ASK-21 are about the same performance, but one is glass and the other metal,
and both are more "modern" that the 2-33.
5. In one word: Bullshit. If you had two absolutely identical
gliders(same price to fly), side by side on the field, and one was a 20/1
glider and the other was a 30/1 glider, any conscious glider pilot is going
to take the higher performing plane because he can get more flying out of
it. All this "I don't need performance to learn, I'm happy with 23/1 and no
penetration" seems to me to be just a way to justify the planes we have to
fly. Of course the BIG CAVEAT is price, and that IS a valid reason: I can
afford to fly a 2-33 more than a Grob 103 so it gets used more. I have no
problem with that, but why doesn't anyone just say the stupid thing is cheap
and that's the reason they fly it!
I'm still baffled by the loyalty that pilots have for Schweizer gliders.
They usually have really odd trim systems, low performance, odd looks, and
complicated assembly procedures, but people still love them...
Now the 2-32, that's a nice ship on a stong day with a couple of giggling 14
year olds in the back seat!
Kirk
Richard B
"Kirk Stant" <st...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> I'm still baffled by the loyalty that pilots have for Schweizer
gliders.
So does that mean anything? Don't like it, don't fly it. Don't piss
and moan because some of us do.
> They usually have really odd trim systems,
Quit using it three weeks ago, find I do better when I fly the plane
rather than trimming it.
>low performance,
They've never advertised it as otherwise, maybe you can't read?
>odd looks,
I like the Aeronca C-3 too, as well as the Heath Parasol. So?
and
> complicated assembly procedures, but people still love them...
>
What's your complaint? Just don't like to look at them? Someone ask
you to help put one together? Flying in a 2-33 or 1-26 beats standing
on the ground waiting for your "preferred" ship to come back. You
haven't come up with any justification for your viewpoint other than
you don't like it. Not valid in any world.
Kirk Stant
If you would attempt to understand what I was talking about, instead of
knee-jerking, you would have seen that instead of "pissing and moaning" I am
asking for other pilots perspectives on the matter. As a matter of fact: I
fly lots of commercial rides in 2-33s and 2-32s (my favorite Shweizer, the
best plane they ever built) every weekend, have flown 2-22s, 1-23s,1-26s,
and started racing and crosscountry in 1-34s. And they ALL have stupid trim
systems, the 1-34 in particular! That's not whining, that's bad engineering.
I see a lot of inexperienced pilots who have little concept of how to trim a
plane, because they have never been able to see how a good trim system
works. You sound like a prime example. The trim is there for a reason.
You need to know how to use it, and if you don't because it's hard to use
then the design sucks. If you want to fly an antique and accept its
idiosyncracies, fine, so do I, that's part of the fun, but we are talking
about new students here. They shouldn't have to struggle with a trim that
they can't reach when strapped in, that will not trim out control forces in
pitch on tow (dangerous), and that the instructor can't reach at all! (Some
of the newer(?) 2-33s have a modified trim lever on the left side which is
an improvement, but still does not allow enough forward trim).
You are absolutely correct about flying what is available being better than
waiting for something "better", but you completely missed what I was asking
about: Pilots opinions on whether the 2-33 is a good trainer for todays
future glider pilots. And I do justify my opinions, unlike you. Try
reading my last post again. If your experience as a student in the 2-33 is
positive, say so - I havn't been a student pilot in a long time so my views
are colored by a lot of other flying experiences.
Now I'm going to the glider field to fly rides in, you guessed it, 2-33s and
2-32s! And loving every minute of it! And if I'm lucky I'll get an acro or
two in an ASK-21 or a Grob 103. And they are all a blast to fly. And
tomorrow it's my turn to fly our LS6. So you see I'm actually pretty
impartial. (and really lucky).
Kirk Stant
LS6 UU
Richard B <ra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pvtj9$n0v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Barbara MacLean
Richard B wrote:
> So does that mean anything? Don't like it, don't fly it. Don't piss
> and moan because some of us do.
>
Geez Richard. All he was asking for was some rational discussion.
18
(LS-4)
Jean Richard
Jean Richard
Richard B
Schweizers pretty well sums up his attitude. One, if he gets an
answer, it means nothing, two, his opinion means as much as mine,
nothing. People like certain things, simply because they like them. I
happen to like the 2-33, and certainly don't see anything wrong with a
plane that will allow a few mistakes and not kill me. The blanik, on
the other hand has to be only one step away from the ultimate ugly.
Nice flying plane, or so I'm told, but I'll never find out first hand,
simply because I'll never step into one. The 2-33 is prettier.
Nobody has to justify their decision, or qualify their opinions,
whether to fly a 2-33, or not join a club, or not fly competition,
or.... Whether any of these are justified to anyone else, means
exactly NOTHING. IF, or when, it reaches the point that someone thinks
I do have to justify myself, they will find that I no longer
participate in any way. I am what I am, I'm satisfied with what I
have, and I'm very intolerant of someone telling me that I should not
be. Some of the statements made by the original poster in his second
post give his attitude very plainly, his mind is made up, and no one
will change it. So is mine. Stalemate.
Richard B
"Kirk Stant" <st...@primenet.com> wrote:
> They shouldn't have to struggle with a trim that
> they can't reach when strapped in, that will not trim out control
forces in
> pitch on tow (dangerous), and that the instructor can't reach at
all! (Some
> of the newer(?) 2-33s have a modified trim lever on the left side
which is
> an improvement, but still does not allow enough forward trim).
And my point is that a pilot should be able to fly the tow, and any
other manouver no matter where the trim is set. If it's work to learn,
then let it be work. Like, "fly the airplane", don't play with the
trim.
>
> You are absolutely correct about flying what is available being
better than
> waiting for something "better", but you completely missed what I was
asking
> about: Pilots opinions on whether the 2-33 is a good trainer for
todays
> future glider pilots
Basic trainer, yes. Just exactly what it was designed to be, not an
intermediate step between the basics and the unforgiving. I learned
the tow in a 2-33, and was surprised when I got into my own 1-26 how
easy the tow became. I said this before, and again, it is not to the
detriment of the 2-33. It trained me well, along with a most competent
instructor. It tolerates uncoordinated turns well, and is not easy to
coordinate properly. THis is bad? Not to my mind, it is teaching, not
doing for you. It has forgiven some mistakes that were pretty bad, and
I'm still here to try again. The plane has done exactly what it was
designed to do. No more, no less.
Robertmudd1u
Robert Mudd
Richard B
robert...@aol.comnojunk (Robertmudd1u) wrote:
> Yes, and a lot better than the Schweizer 2-33
>
First, any mention of cross country loses, totally.
Second, any mention of racing is dead. Period.
Third, add on small, weak thermals, and no inclination to stretch out.
Then add on that my intentions are only to fly locally in a 1-26,
probably nothing else.
OK? Now tell me where I'd be better off with a trainer much more
expensive than a 2-33.
Any attempt to extend this to your own personal goals and taste loses
automatically.
The word "competition" automatically puts your score in the minus
numbers.
GO!
Parkito
>You are absolutely correct about flying what is available being better than
>waiting for something "better", but you completely missed what I was asking
>about: Pilots opinions on whether the 2-33 is a good trainer for todays
>future glider pilots.
Kirk:
My own perspective to add to the discussion. I started lessons in a 2-33 in
1995. The commercial operator had a nice looking version (but with the
difficult trim, it was always a thrill to duck down below the panel after
getting off tow and resetting the trim, and at 5'4" it was a stretch). The
next year, after soloing, I joined the local soaring club operating at the
same airfield.
The club had a 2-33 as well, but in much sadder shape. It didn't matter to me,
as I wanted to learn to fly for over thirty years. On the positive side, the
club ship has the side mounted trim.
I learned a lot in the 2-33, how to detect thermals and fly the plane by the
seat of the pants rather than just by instruments, such as the vario and ASI (a
credit to my instructor). I also learned a lot about how to stay up on
marginal days, to be efficient and smooth. My instructor and I rarely had good
soaring days for my thermalling flights. However, I got very good at what I
called treading water, not gaining altitude, but not losing it either. I also
got comfortable with flying close to the ridge, something I find quite valuable
for cross country.
The old club ship, for all of its sad looks, still had this wonderful habit of
talking to you when you were at the right thermalling speed, it almost seems
musical in a sense. It was a lot of fun to be up in the air in it. To boot,
some people have had some nice success in motoring around the valley in the
2-33.
Now, Jean Richard likes to point out a number of the deficiencies of the 2-33,
and he is pretty much correct on just about all the points. He and I have had
that discussion before. But, I disagree with him, and others, that the 2-33
can't prepare you for higher performance.
Now, you probably can't go from a 2-33 and into a 40+/1 flapped glass ship, but
you aren't restricted from everything else either. In my case, at the end of
my second summer, I "graduated" to the club 1-34, which was quite a sweet step
up. So much more responsive and nice legs. A lot more quiet and less
"ventilated" as well. Earlier this year, I have hopefully earned my Silver and
Gold badges in the 1-34.
The year after I got into the 1-34, I worked into the club's Grob 103. A bit
more work to learn harmonized rudder inputs for me, but not a difficult
transition by any means. In fact, I thought that learning to land the 1-34 was
more challenging than the Grob.
Now, in my sixth summer (fall), I have just made another transition. Thursday,
I flew my first flapped >40/1 flapped sailplane, in a 304CZ. How did it go?
Hey, I'm here writing this aren't I?
What happened to the club 2-33? Well, in the winter of '98-99, I supervised a
club work crew that restored it from the frame up. We have a couple of
fantastic "seniors" that love these projects with incredible skills, and they
did a fantastic job. As the official supervisor, they asked me what color
paint and fabric type we should use. I should mention that one of these
gentleman, John Mildon, gave me my first glider ride ever in May of 1995, the
year before I started lessons. John also learned to flight in this same
sailplane 30 years earlier, and later on was a CFIG giving instruction in this
same sailplane. It has quite a history, and I would hate to see it go.
So Barb turned down the 2-33 for training in a Blanik, and now she is in a
LS-4. While I took the traditional route, and I'm flying a 304CZ. Hmm, maybe
one shouldn't be so quick to turn away from a 2-33? ;-)
Next year, I hope to start competition flying, once I learn to fly a little
faster. Then I plan to go south to Arizona and give Barb a little exercise. I
know how she likes to push the boys . <grin>
I guess I should also try to anticipate Richard, as I have mentioned
fiberglass, two German gliders by name, badges and racing. To each his own.
Chill out and get the gist of the conversation. And for the record, the 1-26
is still on my list to fly. I hear that they are a lot of fun.
Oh yeah, and the answer to the question Kirk asked is, yes, I think the 2-33 is
still a reasonable trainer, it may not be he best out there, but it does the
job.
Parke Byron
Jean Richard
>
> Yes, and a lot better than the Schweizer 2-33
I would say the ASK13 is the best non-glass trainer ever built.
I think the Ka-7 is also a good trainer, but not so good
as the ASK13.
Jean
Robertmudd1u
>Ok. Qualify that remark, in the context that applies to me......
>Then add on that my intentions are only to fly locally in a 1-26,
>probably nothing else.
>Any attempt to extend this to your own personal goals and taste loses
>automatically.
Richard, your comments totally block out any meaningful discussion. You say I
should not extend this discussion to my personal goals: however you only want a
discussion within the framework of your personal goals. Sorry I'll not debate
on those grounds. It is a big world out there Richard, a lot of things exist
that you have no knowledge of, the relative merits of the different training
gliders is one of them.
Your limited experience in different gliders gives your opinion on their merits
little weight. You spout silly defenses about the 2-33 but have nothing to
compare it to but take umbrage when someone says there is a better way. I think
that if you look over the posts I have made on this subject you will find my
opinion the subject.
Robert Mudd
Bill Daniels
have been listed here. One has to acknowledge that many excellent pilots
have been trained in it.
One serious point that needs to be made is how the ubiquitous 2-33 may
relate to the chronic shortage of flight instructors. I find the back seat
not just uncomfortable but painful. As the years go by, I find myself
avoiding flight instruction duties simply because of the discomfort. I know
many other CFIG's feel the same. The 2-33 is just no fun to fly from the
back seat unless you are an eager 150Lb 20 something.
If we want to attract CFIG's to serve at clubs and FBO's we need a trainer
that is comfortable for the CFIG. Remember, they spend the whole day in the
trainers.
Richard B
par...@aol.com (Parkito) wrote:
> I guess I should also try to anticipate Richard, as I have mentioned
> fiberglass, two German gliders by name, badges and racing. To each
his own.
Yes Parke, to each his own. And from the first, this is what I've
always said. I don't care what anyone else flys, or how they fly, or
when they fly. Just don't ask me to do the same, or try to tell me
that if I don't, I will soon be among the non-flyers. That's
called "projection" and it doesn't work here any better than it fails
everywhere else. IF someone asks me to try something, and I decline,
the next time they ask is gonna do nothing but piss me off.
> Chill out and get the gist of the conversation. And for the record,
the 1-26
> is still on my list to fly. I hear that they are a lot of fun.
I like it. But then, there's only one person that I've gotta "keep
happy", me.
As far as the 2-33, it, along with an excellent instructor, have taught
me well. That's pretty hard to argue with.
Richard B
robert...@aol.comnojunk (Robertmudd1u) wrote:
>
> Richard, your comments totally block out any meaningful discussion.
You say I
> should not extend this discussion to my personal goals: however you
only want a
> discussion within the framework of your personal goals.
No Robert. In your generalized statement, you infer that the others
would be better IN EVERY CASE, but when I substitute my personal taste
and goals for yours, you have no answers. When the framework is
removed from your own specialized interest, and placed into mine, you
have no answers, I expected none. My "blocking" has nothing to do with
glider types or soaring in general. It merely removes your personal
opinion from the discussion. It nails it down to "how would the ask xx
be better for me", and you have no answer, because there is none.
There is no such thing as a blanket statement that is true.
Fred Steadman
telling a friend some things I thought I might do to get ready
beforehand.
He said, "Fred, you are going to find that, compared to the other guys,
you will be so abysmal that it won't matter if you fly the race with
your tail still tied down".
He wasn't far off, but the good news is, while flying in contests, we
learn and improve quickly.
Probably the best way to become fast enough to fly in contests is to go
fly in contests.
--
Fred Steadman
Irving, Texas
Parkito wrote:
>
> Next year, I hope to start competition flying, once I learn to fly a little
> faster. Then I plan to go south to Arizona and give Barb a little exercise. I
> know how she likes to push the boys . <grin>
>
>
> Parke Byron
Barbara MacLean
what presents itselt.
I love you, come fly with us!
18
Parkito wrote:
> Next year, I hope to start competition flying, once I learn to fly a little
> faster. Then I plan to go south to Arizona and give Barb a little exercise. I
> know how she likes to push the boys . <grin>
>
> I guess I should also try to anticipate Richard, as I have mentioned
> fiberglass, two German gliders by name, badges and racing. To each his own.
> Chill out and get the gist of the conversation. And for the record, the 1-26
> is still on my list to fly. I hear that they are a lot of fun.
>
Parkito
>Hey baby...compete and the speed will come. Don't worry about the order.
>Just do
>what presents itselt.
>
>I love you, come fly with us!
>
>18
But it just seems to go against the grain of everything I have been taught.
You know, real men wait.
Parke
Parkito
>He said, "Fred, you are going to find that, compared to the other guys,
>you will be so abysmal that it won't matter if you fly the race with
>your tail still tied down".
>
>He wasn't far off, but the good news is, while flying in contests, we
>learn and improve quickly.
I think I am already there. Yesterday, I had my third flight in the 304, which
was also my third flight in a sailplane with a retractable wheel, and for the
second time, I left the wheel down the entire flight. Still, it was a nice 124
mile jaunt with felt like a stroll in the park, and my face wasn't even red
afterwards. :)
So, if you guys will just wait up for a little bit (or until the start gate
opens)...
Cheers
Parke
Parkito
>One serious point that needs to be made is how the ubiquitous 2-33 may
>relate to the chronic shortage of flight instructors. I find the back seat
>not just uncomfortable but painful. As the years go by, I find myself
>avoiding flight instruction duties simply because of the discomfort. I know
>many other CFIG's feel the same. The 2-33 is just no fun to fly from the
>back seat unless you are an eager 150Lb 20 something.
>
>If we want to attract CFIG's to serve at clubs and FBO's we need a trainer
>that is comfortable for the CFIG. Remember, they spend the whole day in the
>trainers.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
I am a 150 lb, 40 something, and all of 5'4". The back seat of the 2-33
really isn't comfortable for me, either.
It also very interesting when I have someone six foot or taller in the front
seat. And why do these guys always have such wide shoulders? I end up sitting
on two thick cushions which does wonders for your flying "by the seat of your
pants" senses. I am also limited to seeing one instrument at a time from the
back, but I think that is probably standard.
It really makes me wonder how my instructor was able to take those naps back
there during my thermal training flights.
One other thing. Kirk got slammed by Richard because Richard didn't understand
the implication of the word baffled, Kirk used regarding people's loyalty to
Schweizer products.
I personally find the word baffling entertaining. But a word of warning Kirk,
if you keep using entertaining words like that, the next thing you know, people
will start calling you articulate, and you don't even want to know what that
means.
If this goes completely over your head, that's okay, it's really more of an
inside joke.
Cheers,
Parke
Robertmudd1u
>There is no such thing as a blanket statement that is true.
>Richard B.
Including the above.
Robert Mudd
Christian Husvik
Richard B <ra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8q1gbm$df5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20000916225343...@nso-cr.aol.com>,
> robert...@aol.comnojunk (Robertmudd1u) wrote:
> > Yes, and a lot better than the Schweizer 2-33
> >
> Ok. Qualify that remark, in the context that applies to me.
>
> First, any mention of cross country loses, totally.
>
> Second, any mention of racing is dead. Period.
Of course; the ASK-13 is a wood and fabric primary trainer.
> Third, add on small, weak thermals, and no inclination to
> stretch out.
Which is exactly the conditions where the ASK-13 is at home.
> Then add on that my intentions are only to fly locally in a
> 1- 26, probably nothing else.
>
> OK? Now tell me where I'd be better off with a trainer much
> more expensive than a 2-33.
_Is_ the ASK-13 much more expensive than the 2-33?
Well, anyway, the ASK-13 is to Europe what the 2-33 is to America, I
suspect. It's the glider we all started to fly with, and it is considered
by many to be the very best primary trainer ever build.
The wood and fabric construction makes it easily maintainable. When flying
it, symptoms of flying it wrong are quite clear, distinct and unmistakeable
(stall, uncoordinated turns etc.), yet leaves the student with plenty of
time to correct it. It doesn't fall out of the sky, just because you used
too little rudder and had a bit too little speed.
It has very good visibility from the back seat, increasing safety for you as
a student, and it is reasonably comfortable for the intructor, thus keeping
him happy, so you don't have to feed him/her as many bananas, chockalate
bars etc. during the day, and you won't have to treat him or her to as many
cups of coffee, tea or whatever afterwards. And this might be where you're
better off with the ASK-13 than the 2-33.
On the other hand, you must not ever even _think_ about leaving it outside,
it needs a nice dry hangar to sleep in. And it's German, not American. As
far as I have understood, _that_ pretty much disqualifies it from your
viewpoint.
Given that they are both in the same condition, the price difference
shouldn't be too high, though...
Christian 8-)
Jean Richard
> _Is_ the ASK-13 much more expensive than the 2-33?
Slightly more due to higher demand.
>
> Well, anyway, the ASK-13 is to Europe what the 2-33 is to America, I
> suspect.
Not exactly. Almost all instructors are happy with the ASK-13, which
is far from being the case with the 2-33 (some club administrators
and commercial operators love it because it's a money maker, but it's
not the case for the majority of the instructors).
When a club in Europe want to sell its ASK-13, it is to move to glass
trainers (less maintenance). In America, when a club want to sell its
2-33, it is generally to move to Blaník or... ASK-13.
Even if it was built up to early eighties, the 2-33 is one generation
behind the Ka-7 and two behind the ASK-13.
Then, are you trying to say that America is three generations late ;-)))
Finally, the ASK-13 was worldwide sold (including America) where the
2-33 was only sold in USA (and a few of them in Canada). Don't think
of importing them in Europe since they are well below JAR standard
which would make them impossible to certify.
> The wood and fabric construction makes it easily maintainable. When flying
> it, symptoms of flying it wrong are quite clear, distinct and unmistakeable
> (stall, uncoordinated turns etc.), yet leaves the student with plenty of
> time to correct it.
The 2-33 let the student make any kind of mistake. It is very forgivable.
But it hides those mistakes and it is for that reason that many instructors
are saying that it doesn't prepare for modern gliders. You will say that
the source of the problem begins with the instructor. That's right ! But
that doesn't change the result : too many pilots not properly trained by
badly trained instructors and a glider that hides the problem...
> It has very good visibility from the back seat, increasing safety for you as
> a student, and it is reasonably comfortable for the intructor.
One interesting thing with the 2-33 is that the pupil's head is within
reach of instructor's hands. Sometimes, physical contact works where talking
doesn't ;-)))
> On the other hand, you must not ever even _think_ about leaving it outside,
> it needs a nice dry hangar to sleep in.
In America, we are used to have gliders and aeroplanes sleeping outside.
It's not a good idea. It's a safety hazard. Every year, many gliders
or planes are dammaged or destroyed by storms (from hail to heavy winds).
Rain water trapped in the controls surface is not uncommon. The risk of
having hidden dammages (and potential safety hazard) is far higher with
gliders sleeping outside.
Jean
Judah Milgram
Jean Richard <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>2-33 was only sold in USA (and a few of them in Canada). Don't think
>of importing them in Europe since they are well below JAR standard
>which would make them impossible to certify.
Jean - (my fellow American!)
I recall once seeing a photo of a 2-33 in Swiss colors flying over
snow-capped mountains that I took to be the Swiss Alps. And I did see a
couple of Schweizers tied down at the airport in Narvik. So it does
appear possible to bring these ships over to Europe. Probably the
reciprocal certification was taken care of long before JAR appeared
on the scene. (Remind us why it can't meet JAR-22?)
By the way, the one time I ever took a European pilot for a ride in
a 2-33 (German, experienced) he was all grins, thought it was klunky
but fun, compared it to wafting around in a Bergfalke.
J.
--
Judah Milgram milgram at eng umd edu
Rickenbacker
<8q06to$i7s$1...@nnrp2.phx.gblx.net>:
>strapped in, that will not trim out control forces in pitch on tow
>(dangerous), and that the instructor can't reach at all!
This is actually the same in the Bergfalke, which is still very much in use
as a trainer here in Europe. The trim is on the right side, just behind the
front seat "shoulder" and doesn't do much to trim out the nose up moment
during tow, so you have to jam the stick against the panel unless you
weight 100kg or more (I'm not even close :). I had the good fortune to
learn in an ASK-21, though, so now I just find little quirks like that
charming, but I'm not envious of the new students who start with that.
Rickenbacker
Jean Richard
> Jean - (my fellow American!)
Better to specify North American
> I recall once seeing a photo of a 2-33 in Swiss colors flying over
> snow-capped mountains
Doesn't Schweizer mean Swiss in German ?
> So it does
> appear possible to bring these ships over to Europe. Probably the
> reciprocal certification was taken care of long before JAR appeared
> on the scene.
The same in Canada : certification came before JAR. But now, JAR is there
and things have changed.
> (Remind us why it can't meet JAR-22?)
For many reasons like :
- airbrakes efficiency - cannot exceed Vne from a dive of 30°
with airbrakes
- it cannot be trimmed within the allowed tow speed range (at maximum
allowed tow speed, there's an important pitch up moment
- all controls should be accessible from both seat - there's no trim
handle in the back seat
- emergency evacuation from the back seat is not acceptable
- flight manual must use at least SI metric units
- etc
Even a Blaník L13 would need some corrective to meet JAR-22 standard.
> By the way, the one time I ever took a European pilot for a ride in
> a 2-33 (German, experienced) he was all grins, thought it was klunky
> but fun, compared it to wafting around in a Bergfalke.
I got some fun too with 2-22 (yes, I've flown that thing)/2-33. But having
occasional fun and training pilots are often different. As trainers, the
Schweizer don't miss me.
Jean
Robert Ehrlich
>
> Yes !
Does this question make any sense outside France? For people
not knowing it, the Bijave is a glider made of wood/fabric/metal
tubes that was built in France by Wassmer, as a 2 seat version
of their one seater Javelot or Super Javelot, familiarly called
Superjave, hence the name. Some of them are still flying. Permormance
should be something between the 2-33 and the ASK-13, probably closer
to the ASK-13. Most clubs, including mine, got rid of them and replaced
them by modern gliders (ASK-21 for my club). Although, as it has been
stated before in this discussion, performance is not needed for training
students, it may be needed for other reasons. Unlike what seems to me
the typical US lesson, from reading this newsgroup, i.e. tow, glide
down and landing, a typical lesson in France involves usally some thermaling
and its duration is about 1 hour. One motivation for that is that
the ability to stay aloft is one of the thing needed for the French license,
since at least one solo flight with a duration of 1 hour or more is needed.
Another reason is that the tow represents in France a higher part of the
total cost of the flight, so minimizing the cost implies staying aloft
longer for one tow. Another reason is that when the club's single seaters
are all glass ships, training in Bijaves is not a good training for these
ships. And concerning maintenance, more and more people have acquired the
skills for glass, and those able to maintain wood/fabric gliders are
slowly disapearing.
Bert Willing
of annoying :-)
--
---------------------
Bert Willing
Calif A21S
Come fly at La Motte du Caire in Southern France:
http://la-motte.decollage.org
Robert Ehrlich <Robert....@inria.fr> a écrit dans le message :
39C755EB...@inria.fr...
Jean Richard
> Does this question make any sense outside France?
Exactly the question I was wanting for. Because the original posting
question was « Is the 2-33 still a good trainer ? » which doesn't really
make any sense outside of USA, except giving to ROTW the opportunity
to tease those USAsians and to those USAsians the opportunity to give
to ROTW a nice demonstration of their patriotism.
> For people
> not knowing it, the Bijave is a glider made of wood/fabric/metal
> tubes that was built in France by Wassmer,
(...)
> Most clubs, including mine, got rid of them and replaced
> them by modern gliders (ASK-21 for my club). Although, as it has been
> stated before in this discussion, performance is not needed for training
> students, it may be needed for other reasons. Unlike what seems to me
> the typical US lesson, from reading this newsgroup, i.e. tow, glide
> down and landing, a typical lesson in France involves usally some thermaling
> and its duration is about 1 hour. One motivation for that is that
> the ability to stay aloft is one of the thing needed for the French license,
> since at least one solo flight with a duration of 1 hour or more is needed.
> Another reason is that the tow represents in France a higher part of the
> total cost of the flight, so minimizing the cost implies staying aloft
> longer for one tow. Another reason is that when the club's single seaters
> are all glass ships, training in Bijaves is not a good training for these
> ships. And concerning maintenance, more and more people have acquired the
> skills for glass, and those able to maintain wood/fabric gliders are
> slowly disapearing.
Good analysis Robert !
In our club, moving from Schweizer to Blaník for ab initio training bring
more soaring lessons in that training (the Blaník is far away from being
an excellent trainer - old metal technology with billions of small moving
parts and a lot of maintenance, but it's a good step upwards when moving
from the Schweizer). Average training flight duration went from 15 minutes
to more than 30 (including those short flights at the beginning - 1 hour
flight is too long for the first few lessons) - or those near solo to
practise exclusively PTL and landing). And even if not required by official
authorities, almost all our pupils have at least one 1 hour flight before
getting their licence (club requirements are far higher than Transports
Canada's ones which are riddiculously low).
Jean
Judah Milgram
Jean Richard <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> Better to specify North American
Sorry, I got confused by "In America, we are used to ..." :)
> Doesn't Schweizer mean Swiss in German ?
Yes, but regarding the photo, it's just a coincidence.
Interesting that most of the JAR shortcomings you list are the same things
that pilots complain about. Maybe that says the regs are realistic. You're
right, the trim system is especially troublesome. I'm surprised no one
has come up with an STC'd fix for this. Maybe there's an opportunity here.
In that ship, 30 deg at Vne (98 mph) comes out to around 4000 fpm rate of
descent (20 m/s, in very round terms). It wouldn't surprise me if it
actually met that. I'm not going to try it! But then throw in the 1:7
approach angle and yes you need more brakes.
Incidently, I don't think JAR-22 doesn't require SI units in the flight
manual, only that the units be the same as the cockpit indicators. Better
look this up to make sure.
Jean Richard
> Interesting that most of the JAR shortcomings you list are the same things
> that pilots complain about. Maybe that says the regs are realistic.
Yes, they are ! I didn't see in the chapter 522 anything that was unrealistic.
Probably JAR authorities got nice input about gliders.
> Incidently, I don't think JAR-22 doesn't require SI units in the flight
> manual, only that the units be the same as the cockpit indicators. Better
> look this up to make sure.
I found it in the Canadian version of the Chapter 522. In Canada, instruments
are not metric (altimetre in feet and speed in knots), but it is required to
have the manual with both, SI units and Imperial units used on the
instruments.
Jean
Judah Milgram
Jean Richard <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>... I didn't see in the chapter 522 anything that was unrealistic.
>Probably JAR authorities got nice input about gliders.
What's Chapter 522? Canadian airworthiness regs? Where can they be had?
Kathy and Rob Hawley
Not too much to add, except that I do know that at least one (and I
think it was 2) 2-33 made it to Europe and was registerd and flying
Briefly. The current C-GTGB was first registered in the USA, then
exported to Switzerland where it spent about a year flying, after that
it was purchased by the Canadian Air Cadets for use in Germany until the
Canadian Forces left Germany in the early 90's (TGB is now in Canada).
I flew TGB a lot in Germany and when we did bring it to a local German
club we did attract a big crowd of very curious people :)
Jean Richard wrote:
>
> Christian Husvik a écrit :
>
> > _Is_ the ASK-13 much more expensive than the 2-33?
>
> Slightly more due to higher demand.
>
> >
> > Well, anyway, the ASK-13 is to Europe what the 2-33 is to America, I
> > suspect.
>
> Not exactly. Almost all instructors are happy with the ASK-13, which
> is far from being the case with the 2-33 (some club administrators
> and commercial operators love it because it's a money maker, but it's
> not the case for the majority of the instructors).
>
> When a club in Europe want to sell its ASK-13, it is to move to glass
> trainers (less maintenance). In America, when a club want to sell its
> 2-33, it is generally to move to Blaník or... ASK-13.
>
> Even if it was built up to early eighties, the 2-33 is one generation
> behind the Ka-7 and two behind the ASK-13.
>
> Then, are you trying to say that America is three generations late ;-)))
>
> Finally, the ASK-13 was worldwide sold (including America) where the
> 2-33 was only sold in USA (and a few of them in Canada). Don't think
> of importing them in Europe since they are well below JAR standard
> which would make them impossible to certify.
>
Kathy and Rob Hawley
I think that 2 were exported to Switzerland. The Canadian Air Cadets in
Germany purchased one from Switzerland in the early 80's that had Swiss
registration (it is now C-GTGB and fly's in Southern Ontario).
Judah Milgram wrote:
>
> In article <39C642...@sympatico.ca>,
> Jean Richard <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Jean - (my fellow American!)
>
> I recall once seeing a photo of a 2-33 in Swiss colors flying over
> snow-capped mountains that I took to be the Swiss Alps. And I did see a
> couple of Schweizers tied down at the airport in Narvik. So it does
> appear possible to bring these ships over to Europe. Probably the
> reciprocal certification was taken care of long before JAR appeared
> on the scene. (Remind us why it can't meet JAR-22?)
>
> By the way, the one time I ever took a European pilot for a ride in
> a 2-33 (German, experienced) he was all grins, thought it was klunky
> but fun, compared it to wafting around in a Bergfalke.
>
Jean Richard
> What's Chapter 522? Canadian airworthiness regs? Where can they be had?
Airworthiness for gliders.
I found it at Transports Canada web site at :
Some extra browsing to find it through this URL.
Jean
F.L. Whiteley
"Christian Husvik" <chu...@online.no> wrote in message
news:8q5bbq$eabfe$1...@ID-49907.news.cis.dfn.de...
> Hei!
>
> Well, anyway, the ASK-13 is to Europe what the 2-33 is to America, I
> by many to be the very best primary trainer ever build.
>
Christian Husvik
F.L. Whiteley <gre...@greeleynet.com> wrote in message
news:GjJy5.339$W3.189...@news.frii.net...
>
> "Christian Husvik" <chu...@online.no> wrote in message
> news:8q5bbq$eabfe$1...@ID-49907.news.cis.dfn.de...
> >
> > Well, anyway, the ASK-13 is to Europe what the 2-33 is to America, I
> > suspect. [...]
>
> No, the 2-33 is more like a Ka-4! The ASK-13 is quite nice.
Actually, not merely quite nice, but very nice in my opinion. (But I
thought the 2-33 was at least similar to the Ka-7!).
I have never flown the 2-33, but if what "they" say is true (no trim, hides
errors from the student and so on), it must be quite useless as a trainer,
and quite dangerous too. And it doesn't look like you can see very much
from the backseat either.
But still, the 2-33 seems to play the same _role_ in USA as the ASK-13 does
in Europe. That is, "everone" here has flown or learned to fly whith the
ASK-13, wheras "every" American seems to have been taught the basics of
gliding in a 2-33.
So, what's the conclution, is the ASK-13 still a good trainer? Or should we
get rid of them as fast as possible and buy Duo Discuses, DG-1000s and
ASK-21s?
Christian 8-)
Jean Richard
>
> Actually, not merely quite nice, but very nice in my opinion. (But I
> thought the 2-33 was at least similar to the Ka-7!).
No. The Ka-7 has better performance than 2-33.
> I have never flown the 2-33, but if what "they" say is true (no trim, hides
> errors from the student and so on), it must be quite useless as a trainer,
> and quite dangerous too.
Not dangerous, but not really a good trainer if you want to fly something
more modern. A very rigourous instructor can overcome the 2-33 weakeness,
but otherwize...
> And it doesn't look like you can see very much
> from the backseat either.
The bottom of the wing, like in a Cessna 150 (which is among the worst
aeroplane for the visibility, but the most used trainer in USA).
> So, what's the conclution, is the ASK-13 still a good trainer? Or should we
> get rid of them as fast as possible and buy Duo Discuses, DG-1000s and
> ASK-21s?
It depends if you consider money involved in the move. No money, no move...
Jean
Rickenbacker
<8qfrf1$fhvfj$1...@ID-49907.news.cis.dfn.de>:
>does in Europe. That is, "everone" here has flown or learned to fly
>whith the ASK-13, wheras "every" American seems to have been taught the
>basics of gliding in a 2-33.
I thought the Bergfalke was the plane everyone learned to fly in here in
Europe, well used to be maybe. I learned in an ASK-21 and started to fly
Bergfalke III later :).
--
Rickenbacker
Ernie
feel like going through a mutation process when I make it out of he back
seat of the 2-33 again...
Ernie
"Son, never ask a man if he is a glider pilot. If he is, he'll let you know.
If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Bill Daniels wrote in message ...
>The best pilot for the 2-33 back seat is someone that drags their knuckles
>when they walk.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
>"Kirk Stant" <st...@primenet.com> wrote in message
>news:8ptdbd$361$1...@nnrp2.phx.gblx.net...
>> I just thought I would kick a hornet's nest and see what happens...
>>
>> What is the general opinion (from students, CFIGs, "glassholes", FBOs,
>> clubs, etc.) of the training qualities of the good ol' SGS 2-33A in
todays
>> soaring environment? Now before some of you pop off into a rant about me
>> being a godless communist (half correct, by the way), etc. let me say
that
>I
>> have a lot of time in the front and back seats of 2-33s (personal and
>> commercial rides; I'm not a CFIG) and have nothing against the beast as a
>> plane; I'm just wondering if it hasn't become somewhat dated and
>> counterproductive as a trainer and introductory glider these days.
>>
>> Some of my biased observations:
>>
>> - While relatively easy to fly, it in no way prepares new pilots for the
>> types of gliders they may want to move up to (glass, or higher
performance
>> metal).
>> - It has some really bad flying characteristics on tow (unable to trim
out
>> control pressures) that to me are actually dangerous (and may have
>> contributed to some tow accidents).
>> - Let's face it, it's pretty homely. In a mixed fleet of glass or newer
>> metal (Lark, Blanik) the 2-33 is not what the walkon future glider pilot
>is
>> drawn to. Now this can be good ("If you can handle this you get to move
>up
>> to something nice.") but with older (read: richer) students I don't think
>> that approach is really valid.
>>
>> Good points:
>>
>> - You can't break it (which also means it won't go away!).
>> - You can fly around with your elbow out the open back window (major
>> coolness points in AZ in the summer).
>> - It's cheap.
>> - You can sell it as being "retro" to the guy who drives up in a PT
>Cruiser.
>>
>> OK, fights on!
>>
>> Kirk Stant
>> LS6 UU
>>
>>
>