Worse glider ever...
Al
you ever flew/laid eyes on.
Al
Tony Verhulst
>
> After the Vega thread I was wondering what you lot think is the worse glider
> you ever flew/laid eyes on.
2-33? <flame suit on>
Tony V.
I can say that. I instruct in them.
--
Wine is a bad thing. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor, it
makes you shoot at your landlord, it makes you miss him.
Mark Twain
Alan Smith
>Tony V.
>I can say that. I instruct in them.
One presumes you mean worst glider (or is that how
you say it in American)
2-33A gets my vote - absolutely the vilest glider I
have ever flown(40+types), and it's not good looking
either-how you train people on them I will never know.
The worst gliders I ever saw were an ASW19B in Lelystad
Holland that the owner had said over the phone was
in perfect condition-I could have cried when he rolled
it out of the box- bloody awful condition - cracked
gel over every inch and corroded metal work- also had
the same experience with an ASW17 in Pennsylvania which
had been left to rot, found mouse droppings in the
wing root- told both these guys that they didn't deserve
to own these beautiful machines and left.
Jaspah
seven pieces of it. :-)
Jasper,
"Al" <asw17...@bigwings.org> wrote in message
news:u9mvei...@news.supernews.com...
Wallace Berry
<asw17...@bigwings.org> wrote:
Worst I ever flew was a Schweizer TG-2 in very poor repair and mostly
held together by duct tape. Very poor control authority on the
ailerons. Very uncomfortable seating and no adjustment for the seat
back or rudder pedals. Flew it on a ferry flight permit to a repair
station. 60 mile cross country tow behind a 172. The 172 could only tow
the TG-2 at approx. the TG-2's aerotow redline. I remember lots of
airframe shuddering anytime we got above 70 mph. No, this was not wake
turbulence from the tug as I was either in low tow or above the
towplane most of the way. I was very happy to reach 2000 agl as I
figured that from that altitude, I had a fighting chance of getting out
and deploying my chute if the wings came off. Released at 6000 agl
about 2 miles from the destination. Found that this TG-2 would spin
very well.
Second worst was any of the three Schweizer 1-36s that I have flown.
Bill Daniels
"Wallace Berry" <ber...@acesag.auburn.edu> wrote in message
> Worst I ever flew was a Schweizer TG-2 in very poor repair and mostly
> held together by duct tape. Very poor control authority on the
> ailerons. Very uncomfortable seating and no adjustment for the seat
> back or rudder pedals. Flew it on a ferry flight permit to a repair
> station. 60 mile cross country tow behind a 172. The 172 could only tow
> the TG-2 at approx. the TG-2's aerotow redline. I remember lots of
> airframe shuddering anytime we got above 70 mph. No, this was not wake
> turbulence from the tug as I was either in low tow or above the
> towplane most of the way. I was very happy to reach 2000 agl as I
> figured that from that altitude, I had a fighting chance of getting out
> and deploying my chute if the wings came off. Released at 6000 agl
> about 2 miles from the destination. Found that this TG-2 would spin
> very well.
As I recall, the Vne of the TG-2 wasn't much above 70 MPH. The duct tape is
to keep the sheet metal screws from backing out. The screws are what really
hold a TG-2 together.
The control authority was near nil on the ailerons, but it didn't matter
much since you were supposed to turn it with rudder and just use as much
aileron as you could get away with.
The real heroes were the instructors who rode in the incredibly blind back
seat. I've hear them say that you had to have a lot of faith in the
students sense of self preservation.
Bill Daniels
Steve Corlew
The worst that I've personally flown was a Cessna 172 whenever my
instructor gleefully pulled another engine out drill. Max L/D is maybe 8.
I was pretty impressed with that until last year when I first flew a
30-something:1 Puchacz. Subsequent experience in my Mini-Nimbus which
began life >40:1 causes me to think that 172s and bricks have very
similar glide characteristics. Douglas Adams put it best, although he
didn't know it at the time.
Steve
Liam Finley
Superficially looks like it should be a fun little ship, but handles
worse than a 2-33. The amazing thing about this glider is that it
came out in like 1980. How such a poorly designed excuse for a
sailplane could come out at such a late date is beyond me.
Shaber CJ
>instructor gleefully pulled another engine out drill. Max L/D is maybe 8.
That is a lot! When the instructor rolls the throttle off in my helicopter the
Max L/D is 3 and a decent rate of 2,000 to 2,000 FPM
rcarris2
together so that Schweizers would not have such an expensive time with the
certification with a new sailplane. I remember my father who was their test
pilot telling me something like that.
Mike
"Liam Finley" <fado...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d14b8f27.02032...@posting.google.com...
Tigercat F7F
>you ever flew/laid eyes on.
>
Zuni
Lennie the Lurker
> At 19:24 22 March 2002, Tony Verhulst wrote:
> >Al wrote:
> >>
> >> After the Vega thread I was wondering what you lot
> >>think is the worse glider
> >> you ever flew/laid eyes on.
> >
> >
> >2-33?
> >
> >Tony V.
> >I can say that. I instruct in them.
>
> One presumes you mean worst glider (or is that how
> you say it in American)
> 2-33A gets my vote - absolutely the vilest glider I
> have ever flown(40+types), and it's not good looking
> either-how you train people on them I will never know.
>
in a 2-33 than in any of the current crop that all look like a kidney
drying strung up by the ureter. Vega rules the ugly, heavy, difficult
to rig department.
Steve Corlew
Well, I've got the god-given good sense to only fly ships whose wings stay put. I
suppose a friend's Aeronca Champ that I occasionally fly has enough hardware
hanging out in the breeze to rival your heli's autorotation number, though.
If it weren't for the inherently poor off-field landing characteristics of tricycle
gear I'd vote for the 2-33, but I'd take even that ungainly beast over a 172 next
time I'm lined up on final for the soybean field. I have put a Schweizer in a
soybean field and will comfortably do it again. I don't ever want to put a power
plane anywhere unplanned.
Steve
John Shelton
of the wings knocked from hitting trees.
"Al" <asw17...@bigwings.org> wrote in message
news:u9mvei...@news.supernews.com...
Alan Smith
Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, I would ten
times rather be in a 2-33 than in any of the current
crop that all look like a kidney drying strung up by
the ureter. Vega rules the ugly, heavy, difficultto
rig department.
Gee do they let you fly solo with such poor eyesite?
Man you can't have rigged much if you think a Vega
is heavy and difficult.
C.Fleming
pressure, therefore more lift, and decrease the sink rate?
Chris
yes, I'm joking. ;-)
"John Shelton" <imd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:N5Pm8.6091$Tk.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
John Shelton
empenage...thus tree strikes.
"C.Fleming" <cjfl...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:a7ggem$7qp$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Steven VFR
glider you ever flew/laid eyes on.>>
LOL on the F-4D. I still have my TO-1F-4C-01 for our F-4, it specifies
procedure for a dual engine out approach and landing. Paraphrased, 10,200 ft
OVER the Approach end of the runway, Gear/Flaps as needed, one 360 and
land.(glide ratio of a brick) Witha BIG CAUTION, "Only recommended if escape
from the aircraft is not possible" Gotta love those ejection seats!
Steve (who may have sworn at some planes, hated others when they puked on me,
but still....weirdly, always loved em all)
John Shelton
"Steven VFR" <stev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020322204205...@mb-ba.aol.com...
Liam Finley
> The 1-36 was the result of piecing several already certified sailplanes
> together so that Schweizers would not have such an expensive time with the
> certification with a new sailplane. I remember my father who was their test
> pilot telling me something like that.
>
In other words it's the Frankenstein of sailplanes.
John Shelton
books? Frankenstein was the doctor that looked like Gene Wilder.
"Liam Finley" <fado...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d14b8f27.02032...@posting.google.com...
Jim W
Windshields totally opaque. Instruments non-existant.
I actually went for a ride in it...winched up by something almost out of
sight at the far end of the field. My flight engineer (we were a Pan Am crew
on layover) declared it unairworthy and refused to ride in it. I figured if
it had flown as many years and flights as it apparently had, it probably was
good for at least a couple more.
The charge was so cheap and the ride so unique, I eventually took 3 of them.
Incidentally, central Indian thermals are well marked...by buzzards.
Papa3
one at Jakkur aerodrome in Bangalore sometime in the late 80's or early
90's. Decided to ground the fleet throughout the country after that (or so
I was told by the local instructor ). There are literally dozens of T-21s
and an Indian-manufactured knock-offs lying around at airfields in India.
"Jim W" <NIXj...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%URm8.2088$JFw2.3...@news2.randori.com...
Lennie the Lurker
> At 22:36 22 March 2002, Lennie The Lurker wrote:
> Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, I would ten
> times rather be in a 2-33 than in any of the current
> crop that all look like a kidney drying strung up by
> the ureter. Vega rules the ugly, heavy, difficultto
> rig department.
>
> Gee do they let you fly solo with such poor eyesite?
Don't knock it, man. My all time favorite for powered ships is the
Aeronca C-3.
>
> Man you can't have rigged much if you think a Vega
> is heavy and difficult.
Nope, mostly 2-33, 1-26, 1-34. Russia a couple of times, HP's.
Watched from a distance while the owner of a DG struggled to put his
back in the box. (Berating my plane in front of me is most unwise
when there's nobody else around.) But we have more problems putting
the Vega together than we do with the 2-33. The Vega should do well
tho, it's so ugly the earth repels it.
Lennie the Lurker
Is there anything with the name Schweizer on it that meets your
"exacting and ""refined""" tastes? Didn't think so.
soarski
> At 19:24 22 March 2002, Tony Verhulst wrote:
> >Al wrote:
> >>
> >> After the Vega thread I was wondering what you lot
> >>think is the worse glider
> >> you ever flew/laid eyes on.
> >
> >
> >2-33?
> >
> >Tony V.
> >I can say that. I instruct in them.
>
> One presumes you mean worst glider (or is that how
> you say it in American)
> 2-33A gets my vote - absolutely the vilest glider I
> have ever flown(40+types), and it's not good looking
> either-how you train people on them I will never know.
>
>
First ....Al , I think is an Englishman! Possibly he doesn't know,
what he meant to say, maybe he is just hasty on the keyboard........We
have gone through this before. Why not again:..My thoughts: If you
owned a 2-33 for 25 years, and made money with it, and where
successfully teaching in it, you loved what it could do. I always had
a smile on my face switching from a joyride in a Janus to a lesson in
the 2-33!!!
NOW ...... I learned in a DOPPELRAAB in the 60s ...In this mashine the
instructor practicly stands in the back and shares the stick with the
student.
Worse,..Worst? I loved it, I soloed in it! To me, they are all
beautifull!
There are some you love and hate at the same time!.....Talk to some
Stemme owners!
Redtail The Hawk
Al
Smokin thunder hogs were amazing machines for their day thats for
sure...Hats off to you both John and Steve for flying them.
Oh and my worst glider vote goes to the flying plank with a close runner up
of the American Eaglet.. Reading Derek Piggot's account of flying one is
very entertaining.
Al
"John Shelton" <imd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:laRm8.5867$oi.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Andre Somers
> An ancient Slingsby T-21 at a military airport in downtown New Delhi,
> India. Windshields totally opaque. Instruments non-existant.
Instruments? Who needs instruments when you're with your nose in the wind?
And windshields are also unimportant, since you can fly so increadably
slow.
> The charge was so cheap and the ride so unique, I eventually took 3 of
> them.
It is a unique ride indeed. Sitting side-by-side in the open air is an
experience you're not likely to forget any time soon. That great fun, and
the history of this very old design (1944 and in service well within the
1980's!) make it a unique ship. Certainly not worth to be put into the
category "Worse glider ever...".
André
secretly in love with the T-21
Robert John
to Mike Garrod. He flies a Vega. Synchronicity?
Rob
At 07:42 23 March 2002, Al wrote:
>Classic...
>
>Smokin thunder hogs were amazing machines for their
>day thats for
>sure...Hats off to you both John and Steve for flying
>them.
>
>Oh and my worst glider vote goes to the flying plank
>with a close runner up
>of the American Eaglet.. Reading Derek Piggot's account
>of flying one is
>very entertaining.
>
>Al
>
>'John Shelton' wrote in message
Alan Smith
>Alan Smith wrote in message news:...
>> At 22:36 22 March 2002, Lennie The Lurker wrote:
>> Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, I would ten
>> times rather be in a 2-33 than in any of the current
>> crop that all look like a kidney drying strung up
>>by
>> the ureter. Vega rules the ugly, heavy, difficultto
>> rig department.
>>
>> Gee do they let you fly solo with such poor eyesite?
>
>Don't knock it, man. My all time favorite for powered
>ships is the
>Aeronca C-3.
Hope they have some treatment for your ailment, that
ain't too costly in the USA! :)
>> Man you can't have rigged much if you think a Vega
>> is heavy and difficult.
>
>Nope, mostly 2-33, 1-26, 1-34. Russia a couple of
>times, HP's.
>Watched from a distance while the owner of a DG struggled
>to put his
>back in the box. (Berating my plane in front of me
>is most unwise
>when there's nobody else around.) But we have more
>problems putting
>the Vega together than we do with the 2-33. The Vega
>should do well
>tho, it's so ugly the earth repels it.
Best rigging story I heard was a bunch of Chief Flying
Instructors (reports vary on number @8-12) spending
over an hour trying to put a LAK-12 together at Bicester
once.
Todd Smith
> Instructors (reports vary on number @8-12) spending
> over an hour trying to put a LAK-12 together at Bicester
> once.
There's the problem, the time to rig any aircraft increases
with each additional person helping (after you have enough
people to lift the heavyest part). ESPECIALLY Chief Anything !
Todd
w bush
8 to 12 full cats rigging just means they had to have a pissing contest
first to see who got there hands dirty.news:a7htrq$lll9h$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
hjarrett
separation and you only land with the chute and survival gear. <GRIN>
Hank
John Shelton <imd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:laRm8.5867$oi.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
hjarrett
> "exacting and ""refined""" tastes? Didn't think so
Albert was nice. ;-)
Hank
(the only guy in our club that LIKED the 2-22)
Lennie the Lurker <lenniet...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:15a48d98.02032...@posting.google.com...
John Kitchen
I know of a syndicate that would love to know the secret.
JK.
"Todd Smith" <toad...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:toadsmith-365D8...@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
Ian Johnston
: An ancient Slingsby T-21 at a military airport in downtown New Delhi, India.
Are you sure it was a T21, and not a Rohini, which is a very similar
Indian glider?
Ian
--
Ian Johnston
: After the Vega thread I was wondering what you lot think is the worse glider
: you ever flew/laid eyes on.
The nastiest to fly was without doubt a Club Libelle. As for the worst
- I'll don my asbestos underwear and nominate the K21 for contributing
to a huge number of pilot deaths by teaching that spins are unusual
events, quickly recovered from.
Ian
Evals
that beautiful machine and I'm still in love with it. The windshield isn't
for looking through - it's for keeping the wind off your cigarettes.
--
evals
"Jim W" <NIXj...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%URm8.2088$JFw2.3...@news2.randori.com...
Al
Al
"Robert John" <REMOVE_TO_R...@palace-yard.com> wrote in message
news:a7hqk4$ksf8b$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Jean Richard
> The nastiest to fly was without doubt a Club Libelle. As for the worst
> - I'll don my asbestos underwear and nominate the K21 for contributing
> to a huge number of pilot deaths by teaching that spins are unusual
> events, quickly recovered from.
Gliders don't teach. It's the instructor job;-))
An old debate...
ASK-21 as well as mythic SGS-2-33 have an excellent safety record.
A well known East-European twin seater has a very poor safety record.
Some first generation single seaters also have a poor safety record.
Now, do you have numbers to associate spin related accidents in single
seaters to the type of trainer used by those who had accidents ?
It's always a bigger lost when both, the instructor and his pupil get killed.
There's less and less instructors in clubs. Don't waste such a resource
by killing them in unsafe trainers.
Finally, a good instructor can train any pupil to fly safely, even if training
is done in a mythic 2-33. A well trained pupil can switch from a 2-33 to
a LS-4 without any problem, and the same is true for a Libelle.
The instructor is doing the job, not the glider...
Ian Johnston
wrote:
: Ian Johnston a écrit :
: An old debate...
True.
: ASK-21 as well as mythic SGS-2-33 have an excellent safety record.
True. And the K21 is nice to fly ... but that still doesn't make it a
good trainer.
: A well known East-European twin seater has a very poor safety record.
: Now, do you have numbers to associate spin related accidents in single
: seaters to the type of trainer used by those who had accidents ?
No, but I think it's something that ought to be looked at. We could
also look at what two-seaters the instructors killed in Puchacz's had
trained in ...
: Finally, a good instructor can train any pupil to fly safely...
: The instructor is doing the job, not the glider...
Does that mean - and this is a semi-serious question - that all
gliding accidents save unpredictable structural failure and suicide
should be put down to bad instruction?
Ian
Lennie the Lurker
> > >
> >ships is the
> >Aeronca C-3.
>
> Hope they have some treatment for your ailment, that
> ain't too costly in the USA! :)
The Aeronca C-3 and the 2-33 have one thing in common. They were
designed to do a particular job, and both do it very well. At the
time that they were designed, they were exactly what was needed. It
is the beauty of their purpose that attracts me to them. Contrast
that to a Mustang or a Spit, both were designed with a totally ugly
purpose, to kill men, and can therefore forever be relegated to the
"not worth the effort" to learn any more about them.
>
ADP
the Mustang is probably the most beautiful aircraft ever built. Only men
assign personality to vehicles of the air. Their purpose is irrelevant.
For the worst glider, I nominate the Grob 103. It sucks in pitch, it sucks
in roll and I would wager that there have been more accidents and incidents
in this type than in any other glider. (Of course, being frugal, I won't
wager much.)
Allan
"Lennie the Lurker" <lenniet...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:15a48d98.02032...@posting.google.com...
Bruce Hoult
engs...@ermine.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:54:21, "Al" <asw17...@bigwings.org> wrote:
>
> : After the Vega thread I was wondering what you lot think is the worse glider
> : you ever flew/laid eyes on.
>
> The nastiest to fly was without doubt a Club Libelle.
What?? Lovely aircraft. Goes within a hair of a Std Libelle, but with
lots more room and far better brakes.
-- Bruce
Ian Johnston
: In article <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-1lYvHRgtRjru@localhost>,
: engs...@ermine.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
: > The nastiest to fly was without doubt a Club Libelle.
:
: What?? Lovely aircraft. Goes within a hair of a Std Libelle, but with
: lots more room and far better brakes.
Thank goodness we don't all agree on this sort of thing!
Ian
Tobias Sendel
it sucks
I think so, too.
I liked flying in an old AS-K 13 very much more than in the Grob. I
was trained in an ASK 13 and I had to fly in a Grob one time. It was
enough ....
Stefan
>
> Are you sure it was a T21, and not a Rohini, which is a very similar
> Indian glider?
Actually, the Rohini is a copy of the T-21.
Stefan
Ian Johnston
: > : An ancient Slingsby T-21 at a military airport in downtown New Delhi, India.
: >
: > Are you sure it was a T21, and not a Rohini, which is a very similar
: > Indian glider?
:
:
: Actually, the Rohini is a copy of the T-21.
It's similar in appearance, particularly at the cockpit, but there are
lots of significant differences. For example, the Rohini has top and
bottom air brakes whereas the T21 has top spoilers only. The Rohini
was designed by Ramamritham at the Indian CAA technical department but
built by various companies.
Ian
Jim Phoenix
So, Todd - I'm a Chief Inspector with a Nimbus, does that explain the
2 hours rig time? I believe you had the privilege of helping at least
once.....
>8-)
How's that ridge today?
Jim
Jim Phoenix
So, Todd - I'm a Chief Inspector with a Nimbus, does that explain the
Alan Smith
Contrast
>that to a Mustang or a Spit, both were designed with
>a totally ugly
>purpose, to kill men, and can therefore forever be
>relegated to the
>'not worth the effort' to learn any more about them.
>>
I rather thought they were designed for a beautiful
purpose - to protect democracy against the threat of
tyranny and I think your stance of 'not worth the effort
to learn about them' is disrepectful to the many brave
men who designed, maintained and flew these machines
to preservre some of the freedoms you enjoy today.
That they did it so successfully and yet are so pleasing
on the eye is a testimony to their designers. I also
believe they fly quite well - unlike a 2-33, which
just beats the Phoebus C into the category of sailplanes
I would never want to fly again.
hjarrett
away from soaring WAY to long, and looks like I may be able to rejoin the
fold soon, how about some opinions about the BEST glider and your reasons
why. If I get a chance to buy one in the next year THAT would be some
useful information! I'm talking about realistic priced machines, not the
$$$$$$$$$ planes that are fresh off the drawing board. Something a regular
guy could actually dream of having.
Hank (I still liked the 2-22 when I was learning)
Todd Smith
It's the re-finishing of the wings each time you fly that explains
the 2 hour rig time, not to mention all the PARTS that make
up your glider.
The ridge didn't really work, wind was SW. But the thermals were
good. 7200 ! It took me an hour to de-rig because I was afraid
that the wind would blow the wing over.
Todd
In article <7fcc9e6d.02032...@posting.google.com>,
Greg Arnold
the current market, take a look at the LS-3.
Greg
Former LS-3 owner
"hjarrett" <hjar...@hroads.net> wrote in message
news:Pfan8.13$s6....@sydney.visi.net...
EColeson
fado...@yahoo.com (Liam Finley) writes:
>SGS 1-36.
>
>Superficially looks like it should be a fun little ship, but handles
>worse than a 2-33.
In what way, exactly? Man, if that's your worst ever, you should count
yourself fortunate for having lived a really sheltered life.
Hands-down winner's got to be the F-104 or one of the "lifting" bodies, doesn't
it?
Cheers,
Eric
Don Johnstone
good size cockpit and excellent all round vision Kestrel
19. If you want performance and handling with slightly
more effort to rig at a very reasonable price, ASW17.
Size matters! (Shame that didn't include the length
of the cockpit)
DAJ, a 6 foot 1 in ASW17 pilot
At 07:30 24 March 2002, Stew wrote:
>'hjarrett' wrote:
>
>>The worst glider ever thread has been really great,
>>but as one who has been
>>away from soaring WAY to long, and looks like I may
>>be able to rejoin the
>>fold soon, how about some opinions about the BEST glider
>>and your reasons
>>why. If I get a chance to buy one in the next year
>>THAT would be some
>>useful information! I'm talking about realistic priced
>>machines, not the
>>$$$$$$$$$ planes that are fresh off the drawing board.
>> Something a regular
>>guy could actually dream of having.
>
>Standard Cirrus. It has a nice roomy cockpit, flies
>very well,
>as I recall (it's been a long time), and has a performance
>which was a huge improvement over the wooden ships
>I
>flew before. This was the first glider I got in that
>gave me the
>feeling of being able to search the sky and to go somewhere.
>
>Should be relatively cheap now. For something newer,
>I think
>an LS4 would be a good combination of performance and
>cost.
>
Robert Storck
wrote:
>Smokin thunder hogs were amazing machines for their day thats for
>sure...Hats off to you both John and Steve for flying them.
Hey, Uncle even paid all the expenses and my upkeep to play with them.
Not a great glider though. Still, I never figured out why the zoomies
needed all that runway. We did just fine with 1200 ft.
>
>Oh and my worst glider vote goes to the flying plank
Ok, Why?
I built and flew one as a teenager, and while it was not a great
performer, I'd put it up against any 1-26 in a glide and in a thermal
there was no contest. It was honest once you got its quirks under
control, and very safe in stall/spin.
Cheers, Bob
Robert Storck
>> Worst I ever flew was a Schweizer TG-2 in very poor repair and
mostly
>> held together by duct tape. Very poor control authority on the
>> ailerons. The 172 could only tow
>> the TG-2 at approx. the TG-2's aerotow redline. I remember lots
of
>> airframe shuddering anytime we got above 70 mph.=20
>
>As I recall, the Vne of the TG-2 wasn't much above 70 MPH. The
duct =
tape is
>to keep the sheet metal screws from backing out. The screws are
what =
really
>hold a TG-2 together.
>
>The control authority was near nil on the ailerons, but it didn't
matter
>much since you were supposed to turn it with rudder and just use as
much
>aileron as you could get away with.
=46irst, the Schweizer 2-8/TG-2 has excellent ailerons unless the
gaps
are not sealed properly. If unsealed or if the gap seals are allowed
to balloon above the upper surface, the ailerons are poor.
It is held together with Parker Kaylon sheet metal screws, mainly
since the Schweizers did not have a work force with rivet
experience.
I've flown ones that are 50 years old, and still the screws are
tight
and do not loosen.
Don't let bad maintenance condemn a good design.
It was originally designed long before air tows were common, and tow
just fine behind Cubs and the like. Vne is 72 mph, mainly due to
extreme wing twist, to promote good low speed control and stalling.
It does have a miserable rear seat visability, but was replaced by
the
more rugged TG-3a mainly due to the need to be towed with things
like
BT-13s, etc.=20
In its day, it made many long flights, including several exceeding
Gold C distance, and held the National two-place record for years.
hjarrett
she can pick an LS out of a gaggle of sailplanes when she normally can't
tell a Pitts from a Haltz. WHY do you like the LS-3?
Hank (I agree it's a beauty at a fair price, but I have never flown one)
Jarrett
Greg Arnold <Soa...@REMOVEcox.net> wrote in message
news:99dn8.32973$J54.2...@news1.west.cox.net...
hjarrett
to do it alone). The cockpit felt pretty good, but I was a student and
never got to fly it. I'm 6'2" and a little over 200# so cockpit size IS
important. Is the Kestrel 19 larger than the ASW in the cockpit? I got to
sit in a Cirrus too and the cockpit in that was great!
Who has flown more than one of these to compare handling? How do they tow
compared to each other?
Hank
Don Johnstone <REMOVE_TO...@bittering.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:a7k75m$l9cg1$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Janusz Kesik
It's nominated in both categories - it's as well ugliest as worst flying
glider I flew.
--
Janusz Kesik
Aero Club of Czestochowa, Poland
jant...@interia.pl
www.soaring.enter.net.pl
www.szybowce.enter.net.pl/faq.htm <<<Czym jest latanie na szybowcach>>>
"Al" <asw17...@bigwings.org> wrote in message
news:u9mvei...@news.supernews.com...
> After the Vega thread I was wondering what you lot think is the worse
glider
> you ever flew/laid eyes on.
>
> Al
>
>
>
Papa3
"Tony Verhulst" <verh...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
news:3C9B8315...@zk3.dec.com...
> > 2-33? <flame suit on>
>
> Tony V.
> I can say that. I instruct in them.
>
> --
I always find it to be odd that people who instruct in a 2-33 say they don't
like them. Granted, squeezing into the backseat isn't exactly a joy, but I
certainly appreciate them when it counts. Just last week, I let a spring
checkride with a person who "should know better" get a little too far out of
whack. Front-seater (PPG) was trading A/S for altitude on final (and
running out of both) when my "this-could-get-interesting-meter" pegged on
high. Unfortunately, I waited about 1 second too long to slam stick to the
forward stop. Local seismologists are still trying to figure out the
anomaly on their recordings. Strikes me that any trainer that can survive a
drop from 10 feet is doing its job. Note that a club not too far down the
pike had a similar experience in a Grob 103 last year. Whereas we spent 5
minutes pullilng clods of earth out from the front skid and wheel well, the
Grob drivers spent the better part of a month in the shop fixing delaminated
bulkheads.
Having never instructed in one, I'd be interested in opinions about K-13s
from a ruggedness perspective. Same for K-21.
Bill Daniels
"Robert Storck" <bst...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:hecr9ucnuo0mgjs1i...@4ax.com...
I shouldn't have been so hard on the TG-2. You are right that good
maintenance makes a lots of difference. However, when I was flying them,
maintenance was pretty sloppy and that brought out their worst
characteristics. One of them had the fabric patched with student shirt
tails.
Bill Daniels
Alan Smith
>Mine candidate is PZL Krosno KR-03 Puchatek.
>It's nominated in both categories - it's as well ugliest
>as worst flying glider I flew.
and I thought most Americans thought the Krosno was
a step up from the 2-33 ie. Dick Johnsons report in
Soaring.
Just goes to show how bad a 2-33 really is - however
most Americans just don't accept it or realise how
bad they are, especially for training someone to go
onto fly glass.
Compare a Blanik to a 2-33 (the Blanik predates the
2-33 by a few years) and their is no comparison.
Greg Arnold
cockpit. I don't know if it is a better plane than any others of the same
vintage, but it does seem to sell for an awfully low price these days in
comparison to other gliders. For example, it is substantially cheaper than
the LS-4.
> My wife fell in love with the first LS she ever saw. I still don't know
how
> she can pick an LS out of a gaggle of sailplanes when she normally can't
> tell a Pitts from a Haltz. WHY do you like the LS-3?
> Hank (I agree it's a beauty at a fair price, but I have never flown one)
> Jarrett
>
> > Perhaps not the best glider ever, but if you are looking for a great buy
> in
> > the current market, take a look at the LS-3.
> >
> > Greg
> > Former LS-3 owner
> >
> > > The worst glider ever thread has been really great, but as one who has
Owain Walters
Newsgroup: rec.aviation.soaring
Subject: Worse glider ever...
Author: Al <asw17...@bigwings.org>
Date/Time: 19:00 22 March 2002
------------------------------------------------------------
>After the Vega thread I was wondering what you lot think is the worse glider
>you ever flew/laid eyes on.
>Al
Surely it has got to be a ASW-17. Big, ugly grand-dad glider ;-)
Owain
Staffan Ek
LS-4 as an all time personal favourite. It has the same fuselage as
the LS-3 and thus enough space for most pilots. It's really a delight
to fly. The LS-8 is even better to fly but the cockpit is smaller.
My personal favourite for he time being is my own H-301 Libelle. A
glider way before it's time when it arrived in the mid-60s. Glasfügel
not only designed a glider with superb performance, it's really a joy
to fly. It's the grandmother of all current competition gliders. It's
comfortable but... Where should I put my sandwiches and water bottle?
Staffan
"hjarrett" <hjar...@hroads.net> wrote in message news:<Pfan8.13$s6....@sydney.visi.net>...
Lennie the Lurker
> At 14:18 24 March 2002, Janusz Kesik wrote:
> >Mine candidate is PZL Krosno KR-03 Puchatek.
> >It's nominated in both categories - it's as well ugliest
> >as worst flying glider I flew.
>
> and I thought most Americans thought the Krosno was
> a step up from the 2-33 ie. Dick Johnsons report in
> Soaring.
That's one American, and his opinion, which counts just as much as
mine, outside of my house.
>
> Just goes to show how bad a 2-33 really is - however
> most Americans just don't accept it or realise how
> bad they are, especially for training someone to go
> onto fly glass.
Before anyone is going to train me to fly glass, they had better
convince me that my opinion of cheap plastic isn't correct. Then they
better have their wallets open and fork out the bucks, because I
won't. Chevrolet used to unofficially tout "Wrap your ass in
fiberglass". As one that has seen what happens when a collision
"unwraps" it, no thank you. I have a standing offer to fly a Russia,
but that offer will never be taken up.
>
> Compare a Blanik to a 2-33 (the Blanik predates the
> 2-33 by a few years) and their is no comparison.
As at the time both were designed, if the blanik was designed, the
techniques used by the two companies were different. Looking at the
way the blanik is stuck together makes me wonder where to find the
"Made in Occupied Japan" sticker on it. Such "refinement" of joining
the fuselage halves, early postwar jap toy.
John Shelton
deck in the dark stories".
"Robert Storck" <bst...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:039r9usvhkkoloqrp...@4ax.com...
Lennie the Lurker
Whether designed by Schmued, Mitchel, or Tank, it makes no difference,
they are still designed to be instruments of death. And in order,
P-51, Spit, FW-190, which should tell you that I have already wasted
more time on these than their purpose and useful life have deserved.
And, yes, they fly well, in the hands of an incredibly skilled pilot.
All others, pick your casket before you fly. They are what they were
designed to be, high performance aircraft, and like all high
performance aircraft, they didn't have the low time pilot in mind when
they were designed. When Schweizer designed the 2-33, they didn't
have the whims and wheedles of the cross country racer that wants to
do aerobatics in mind either. the plane was designed to meet the
needs of the "sunday flyer", the FBO on a limited budget, and the
flight schools watching their purse strings. I happen to like the
2-33, I like flying it, and will state that I have never, and will
never, strap my ass in a cheap piece of plastic that is supposed to be
an airplane. All the argueing and Schweizer slamming you can do will
never change that, nor the fact that warplanes were designed for an
ugly purpose. And I still say that a C-3 beats a spit, 10:1.
Vorsanger1
Cheers, Charles
Armand A. Medeiros
extensions repleat with trailer with all the best instrumentation. At least,
this is based on costs I was told some time ago which was the LS-8 cost
$60,000 not including the trailer etc...
Armand
"hjarrett" <hjar...@hroads.net> wrote in message
news:Pfan8.13$s6....@sydney.visi.net...
Tim
of many little, well.... nm. It's just ugly. In the area of metal, I think
that the Blanik is uglier than the Krosno.
"Janusz Kesik" <jant...@interia.pl> wrote in message
news:a7kmvq$pgq$1...@news.tpi.pl...
Robert Storck
<imd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I just get goosebumps when I hear those harrowing anchor cranker "pitching
>deck in the dark stories".
>
>"Robert Storck" <bst...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
>, "Al" <asw17...@bigwings.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Smokin thunder hogs were amazing machines for their day thats for
>> >sure...Hats off to you both John and Steve for flying them.
>>
>> Hey, Uncle even paid all the expenses and my upkeep to play with them.
>> Not a great glider though. Still, I never figured out why the zoomies
>> needed all that runway. We did just fine with 1200 ft.
I'll always thank my hundreds of landings off the winch at Torrey
Pines and the judgment gained through gliding for giving me an edge in
shipboard ops.
And there never were any trees on approach!
Al
Al
Grand dad glider guider
"Owain Walters" <REMOVE_TO_R...@servitehouses.org.uk> wrote in
message news:a7l3ib$llk1o$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Liam Finley
> Is there anything with the name Schweizer on it that meets your
> "exacting and ""refined""" tastes? Didn't think so.
The 1-34 is okay for a metal ship. I have a certain fondness for the A
and B models of the 1-26, and I have never spoken ill of the 2-22 in
which I learned to fly.
The 1-36 and 2-33 are unforgiveable monstrosities though.
Alan Smith
> I happen to like the 2-33, I like flying it, and will
>state that I have never, and will >never, strap my ass
>in a cheap piece of plastic that is supposed to be
an airplane. All the argueing and Schweizer slamming
you can do will never change that
Would not 'Lennie the Luddite' be a more appropriate
handle?
Owain Walters
>Gee and I was going to nominate your specific Libelle Owen lol
>Al
>Grand dad glider guider
Well, my Libelle is arguably the best looking glider in the world. Only when I am sat in it of course!
In all seriousness, I think the "Jaskolska" is probably the ugliest thing I have ever seen, but also one of the gliders I would most like to fly.
Owain
Tony Verhulst
> > > 2-33? <flame suit on>
> >
> > Tony V.
> > I can say that. I instruct in them.
>
> like them. Granted, squeezing into the backseat isn't exactly a joy, but I
I certainly agree that 2-33's are rugged. We had a solo student fly one
through a highway over pass (don't ask :-) and he walked away from it.
Admonishing a student to maintain his airspeed at 15 AGL on a very windy
day, he responded by shoving the stick full forward. We bounced off of
the skid before I had a chance to recover and had sore a back for a
week. The glider was fine. BTW, I keep my hand much closer to the stick
now when flying with a student.
Here in the U.S., the 2-33 has become controversial. some instructors
love them because they're docile and can't be spun**. Others hate them
because they're docile and can't be spun.
Tony
**They can be spun but you have to work at it.
Tony Verhulst
>
> For the cost of the LS-8 alone, you can have a 304CZ with 17.43 meter
> extensions repleat with trailer with all the best instrumentation. At least,
> this is based on costs I was told some time ago which was the LS-8 cost
> $60,000 not including the trailer etc...
I like the 304CZ - there's one on my field. You are correct with the
above but the question that pops to my mind is "what when you sell?". I
suspect that you'll get a lot more money on the LS8.
Tony V.
LS6-b
Wallace Berry
Ek <staff...@hem-pc.bip.net> wrote:
>
> My personal favourite for he time being is my own H-301 Libelle. A
> glider way before it's time when it arrived in the mid-60s. Glasfügel
> not only designed a glider with superb performance, it's really a joy
> to fly. It's the grandmother of all current competition gliders. It's
> comfortable but... Where should I put my sandwiches and water bottle?
>
> Staffan
>
Yep, I love my 301 too. In fact, it's my second 301 Libelle. However,
having flown a lot of other ships, I'd have to say that I prefer the
handling of many others over the Libelle. To my taste, the Mosquito and
LS-4 are the nicest to fly. I'd love to try a Glasflugel or CZ 304.
Al
Lennie aint interested.
Alan you have got to know your market ;-)
Al
"Alan Smith" <REMOVE_TO_RE...@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:a7mn4r$mkle1$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Alan Smith
>If it wasnt made by steam hammer back in the 30's or
>uses 30's technology
>Lennie aint interested.
>
>Alan you have got to know your market ;-)
>
I geuss that's why Schweizer stopped producing gliders
eh? Not that many Lennnies left anymore?
Robertmudd1u
lenniet...@lycos.com (Lennie the Lurker) writes:
>P-51, Spit, FW-190,……... And, yes, they fly well, in the hands of an
incredibly skilled pilot.>>
As I recall from my reading, USAAF pilots transitioning to the P-51 generally
had about 200hrs. or less total time. During the Battle of Britain pilots were
sent to Spitfire squadrons with much less time, in late '44 and '45 I'll wager
pilots in Germany were experiencing the same thing. 200hrs is low time in
almost anyone's book, what made it possible and even safe was the quality of
training. On average it was very good and in aircraft that were good training
machines. This made it possible to have less than "incredibly skilled pilots"
fly these fighters safely, effectivness in combat is another thing altogether.
What makes up a good trainer? General qualities should include comfortable,
draft free seating for both student and instructor. Well balanced controls, the
forces should be within reason and one control should not take a
disproportionat ammount of force to activate than another. The controls should
be movable through the entire range without meeting bodily obstructions. The
pitch trim should be effective over a wide portion of the speed range and the
entire c.g. envelope. Visability for the instructor should be unobstructed
because he/she is the responsible for the safe outcome of the instructiuonal
flights and so needs to be able to see other traffic.
Safety too is very important tho one can make the argument that if the training
craft flies well it is less likely to be involved in a incident, but crashes
will happen and so the event must be accounted for in robust construction. Ease
of entry and exit in a hurry should therefore also be factored in.
High design standards are important to keep the aircraft in top condition.
Students flying it should not have to cope with deficiencies and poor handling
because of cheap cost cutting design factors that quickly wear out.
I think most of us would agree that the above points are important. Sad to say
but the 2-33 fails on almost every count. Yes, it was designed for a purpose,
to train pilots, as Richard keeps reminding us but in the same time period
other training gliders were designed that met every or almost every one of the
above criteria. The Schweizers just decided to go their own way. I am sure they
had, for them, valid reasons, but that does not mean that the end result, the
2-33, was a good trainer. By any reasonable standard for a good trainer, modern
or contemporary to the design period, the 2-33 does not measure up.
When the 2-33 came on the market it was the only U.S. designed training glider
available new. Schweizers had the market to themselves. They could have raised
the design standards a bit and still have sold the same number of gliders or
perhaps more because of better quality. Of course it would have cost a bit more
but less than you might think. For instance bought in quantity sealed ball
bearings are quite cheap and have a longer and slop free life than the steel
bushings Schweizer used. Check the control slop in a 2-33 against an ASK-13,
the ASK-13 has far less. This, in the long, run translates into less
maintenance and therefore lower operating costs. More than one aircraft
operator has learned that it is not the initial cost that hurts, it is the
maintenance cost in the 5th. year and on that really hurts and far over shadows
the small pain of a higher initial price.
Claiming the 2-33 is a good trainer just because the advocate learned to fly in
one is not justification enough to bestow on it that lofty title.
Claiming the 2-33 is a good trainer while loudly proclaiming ones lack of
experience in other trainers is shallow and foolish at best.
Endless rants based on ones own prejudice rather than on direct experience
regulates the ranter to the realm of the less respected and listened to. But
then, that seems to be where ranters are most comfortable.
I know fully well that this subject of the 2-33 has been beat to death before.
I debated long and hard on speaking up this time. However as long as someone
post exaggerations about the 2-33 I feel a duty to try to inject a bit of
reality to the discussion. Old timers to the newsgroup know the history of the
debate but newcomers may not and so I will continue to present an opposing view
if only for their benefit.
A rough count of votes on this thread shows that the 2-33 is the winner of the
"Worst Glider" award.
Robert Mudd
Raphael Warshaw
Anyone planning to design a new one should read it and take the advise it
contains to heart. Any chance this is what you're up to, Robert?
Raphael Warshaw
1LK
"Robertmudd1u" <robert...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020325111758...@mb-cs.aol.com...
Robertmudd1u
writes:
>Any chance this is what you're up to, Robert?
>
I wish it were so but no, I am afraid not. Helping design a new trainer is high
on my list of fun projects. I think the market is ripe for a good, lower cost
trainer.
Robert Mudd
Tobias Sendel
What's about these polish trainers? A combination ( ... -6,
double-seated & ...-5 single seated), both in GfK cost about $ 100,000
(or was it 100,000 DM (german marks) e.g. 50,000 $) . I think this is
very interesting.
Robert Ehrlich
>
> The worst glider ever thread has been really great, but as one who has been
> away from soaring WAY to long, and looks like I may be able to rejoin the
> fold soon, how about some opinions about the BEST glider and your reasons
> why. If I get a chance to buy one in the next year THAT would be some
> useful information! I'm talking about realistic priced machines, not the
> $$$$$$$$$ planes that are fresh off the drawing board. Something a regular
> guy could actually dream of having.
> Hank (I still liked the 2-22 when I was learning)
I vote for the LAK-12, despite the fact this is the glider in which I have
the lowest time (~ 1:30), except the SGS 2-33 (a few minutes) which anyay
is not a candidate.
Robert Ehrlich
>
> They only took an hour to rig a Lak?
> I know of a syndicate that would love to know the secret.
> JK.
> "Todd Smith" <toad...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:toadsmith-365D8...@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
> > > Best rigging story I heard was a bunch of Chief Flying
> > > Instructors (reports vary on number @8-12) spending
> > > over an hour trying to put a LAK-12 together at Bicester
> > > once.
> >
> > There's the problem, the time to rig any aircraft increases
> > with each additional person helping (after you have enough
> > people to lift the heavyest part). ESPECIALLY Chief Anything !
> >
> > Todd
I helped rigging the LAK-12 of a friend some years ago, it didn't
take so much time, and he can do it alone. Proper rigging tools
help. He has a one man rigging device.
Robert Ehrlich
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:54:21, "Al" <asw17...@bigwings.org> wrote:
>
> : After the Vega thread I was wondering what you lot think is the worse glider
> : you ever flew/laid eyes on.
>
> - I'll don my asbestos underwear and nominate the K21 for contributing
> to a huge number of pilot deaths by teaching that spins are unusual
> events, quickly recovered from.
>
> Ian
I think most fatal stall/spins accidents are not due to the pilots
believing that spins are unusual events, quickly recovered from,
but rather to the fact that spin occured to low to be recovered. The
true prevention is in learning how to avoid and/or early recognize spins
rather than repeating exercises of recovery after many turns of a fully
developped spin. And for learning this the K21 is as well suited as
any other trainer.
Ian Johnston
wrote:
: I think most fatal stall/spins accidents are not due to the pilots
: believing that spins are unusual events, quickly recovered from,
: but rather to the fact that spin occured to low to be recovered. The
: true prevention is in learning how to avoid and/or early recognize spins
: rather than repeating exercises of recovery after many turns of a fully
: developped spin. And for learning this the K21 is as well suited as
: any other trainer.
I agree, to a point. However, I think it's essential that from their
earliest flights trainees are used to the ideas that spins can happen
very quickly and at any time. And while the K21 is capable of flying
slowly and dropping a wing if suitably provoked, the impression I
suspect many pilots trained in them get is that spins are unusual
things which require that you stick on extra weights at the tail / fly
that other glider which is only used for spins / are just about to go
solo (delete as applicable). The rsults is that however often they
have been told that spinds can happen they don't, in their heart of
hearts, believe it.
So when that nice single seater suddenly lurches under them and the
horizon goes all cockeyed, there is an extra moment's mental effort to
work out what's going on - and low spins don't give that extra
moment's grace.
I like the K21 to fly, generally speaking. It's not the most reponsive
of things but it's comfortable and easy to fly. However, I am
fundamentally unhappy with training people to fly spinnable single
seaters in an effectively unspinnable two seater. One of my earliest
lessons in a club Bocian was to be shown what I might expect to happen
if I flew too slowly and/or miscoordinated my turns. It was a hell of
a useful lesson.
So my nomination for Worst Glider is still the K21 - but not for any
faults. Almost the reverse: its many excellent qualities have seduced
too much of the gliding movement into ignoring its lack of sin. And
that, I fear, is killing my fellow pilots at a wholly unacceptable
rate.
Ian
Ian Johnston
: how about some opinions about the BEST glider and your reasons
: why.
The Ka-8b, because it is an utter delight to fly.
Ian (anyone in the UK got a cheap one you'd like to sell me?)
Michael
> what's a C-3?
An Aeronca C-3, affectionately christened the "Flying Bathtub," is a
prewar rag-and-tube low-and-slow airplane that was designed in the
Depression era US to enable people to fly as cheaply as possible
consistent with surviving the experience most of the time. It is
ancient technology, featuring a kingpost as well as flying and landing
wires. Very few are left.
Michael
Lennie the Lurker
Nope. But such things as Airbus losing the vertical due to failure of
fiberglass, stress cracks in almost every fiberglass car body, and the
inability to forsee these things have much to do with it. I'm also
not infatuated with the terminal ugliness that ALL glass planes have
as their primary characteristic. My 1-26 is tied down outside all
summer, would you dare do that with a crap glass ship? The sun would
rot it away, mercifully, in only a couple of years, not to mention
what a hailstorm would do to it. The negatives of fiberglass far
outweigh the positives from any practical standpoint. I don't think I
want to trust a material that has "catastrophic" as it's only failure
mode.
Tony Verhulst
> outweigh the positives from any practical standpoint.
I know you're trolling but, just how many non-glass ships do you see at
contests these days?
Tony V.
Alan Smith
>Alan Smith wrote in message news:...
>> At 01:18 25 March 2002, Lennie The Lurker wrote:
>> > I happen to like the 2-33, I like flying it, and
>>>will
>> >state that I have never, and will >never, strap my
>>>>ass
>> >in a cheap piece of plastic that is supposed to be
>> an airplane. All the argueing and Schweizer slamming
>> you can do will never change that
>>
>> Would not 'Lennie the Luddite' be a more appropriate
>> handle?
>
>Nope. But such things as Airbus losing the vertical
>due to failure of
>fiberglass, stress cracks in almost every fiberglass
>car body, and the
>inability to forsee these things have much to do with
>it. I'm also
>not infatuated with the terminal ugliness that ALL
>glass planes have
>as their primary characteristic. My 1-26 is tied down
>outside all
>summer, would you dare do that with a crap glass ship?
> The sun would
>rot it away, mercifully, in only a couple of years,
>not to mention
>fiberglass far
>outweigh the positives from any practical standpoint.
>want to trust a material that has 'catastrophic' as
>it's only failure
>mode.
Who's knocking metal Lennie? Of the 8 ships I have
owned 3 have been metal - but it still remains a fact
that of the 40 + sailplane types I have flown the 2-33
comes bottom, and it is not a ship I personally would
want to fly. You can crete a good ship out of any material
- the 2-33 is not a good ship! I'm sorry if you think
it is, but your deluding yourself.
Robertmudd1u
> But such things as Airbus losing the vertical due to failure of
>fiberglass, stress cracks in almost every fiberglass car body, and the
>inability to forsee these things have much to do with it.
Did we stop flying metal jetliners because of two fully fatal crashes of the
DeHaviland Comet airliner? That was due to unforeseen metal fatigue.
Fiberglas car bodies are not the same a glider fuselages, materials and
construction methods are just not the same. Should I stop flying metal gliders
because after one or two flexes of a metal soda can it cracks?
Get real Richard. If you can't argue better than that, well....
Robert Mudd
Lennie the Lurker
> If it wasnt made by steam hammer back in the 30's or uses 30's technology
> Lennie aint interested.
>
when it meant something. Replaced only by "crapsmanship". Face up to
it, Al. The guy that sticks the premolded fuselage halves together
and sands out the bumps isn't a craftsman, he's a grunt. He's as much
a craftsman as the chinese that sanded out the filler on my surface
grinder to hide the voids in the castings.
But, as I'm going to spend the summer bumping the hail dents out of my
plane, just how many hail dents could your plastic thingy survive?
And how much would it cost you to remove them? Would you dare allow
it to sit outside, on an open trailer, uninsured, all winter? Hmmmm?
Or are you afraid that mother nature would turn your plastic back into
the junk it was before they mixed it? Hmmmm? Doesn't matter, from
the day they mixed the resin, it started to deteriorate. Nothing can
stop it.
Lennie the Lurker
> In article <15a48d98.02032...@posting.google.com>,
> lenniet...@lycos.com (Lennie the Lurker) writes:
>
NOT DESIGNED TO BE. OR, try explaining why the ETA can't match the
U-2 for speed and altitude. Damn! I'm sure glad I don't have to put
up with a whiner like you in the back seat.
ADP
know any better at the time.) We learned a lot from them, however, and
every Airliner designed and built since then has profited from these
crashes. (The fatigue cracks started at a window corner and there were no
stringers to stop the crack propagation. Now, metal Airliner skin is
designed like rip-stop nylon. Cracks, should they start, can no longer
propagate far enough to do damage.)
The Airbus tail failed due to bad design. Any composit structural engineer
can tell you that you do not depend on dissimilar materials to fasten
objects subject to high loads in every direction. (Except perhaps those who
work for Airbus.) The absurdity of blaming the pilots for "inappropriate
rudder corrections" is a CYA cop-out.) When is the last time a tail came
off of an aluminum airplane? The Airbus, in all of it's incarnations, is a
piece of crap Airliner. It has had more accidents attributable to its
design philosophy (particularly the flight management system) in its few
years of existance, than any aircraft design since the Wright brothers first
flew.
Having said all that, glass is the way to go.
Allan
"Robertmudd1u" <robert...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020325171746...@mb-fz.aol.com...