Schweizer 1-35 Questions
mike
I would like to get some insight on the 1-35, never having flown one. I
have some time in a Pilatus B-4, and would appreciate a comparison with that
ship, or any other one. I really want to stay with a metal ship, and want to
select the best one. I love the Pilatus, but there are so few available.
Some of the info i would like:
cockpit size (especially shoulder width)
known issues/AD's
(not very concerned with flap issue, have lots of power time)
Angle of incidence modification
Removeable tail option on all ships? as an option?
Are the wings filled on all versions, or not on 1-35C model
Integrated Aielerons/Flaps on many ships? as an option?
Tilt canopy option
1-35/1-35C comparison
handling
anything else.....
thnaks in advance for any help,
best regards,
mike
-**** Posted from Supernews, Discussions Start Here(tm) ****-
http://www.supernews.com/ - Host to the World's Discussions & Usenet
Tom Rent
1. cockpit size (especially shoulder width); ..... If you are over 230# ...
likely will be too tight. Tall pilots OK.
2. known issues/AD's; ... in 1997 an aileron pushrod inspection was
required due to loose rivets found on one ship
3. Flaps; ....... Fly by the book and no sweat.
4. Angle of incidence modification; .............. No such thing
5. Removeable tail option on all ships; ........All have removeable stab
halves. Never heard of a removeable tail section.
6. Are the wings filled on all versions, or not on 1-35C model;
........the 1-35c is the only model without water ballast
7. Integrated Aielerons/Flaps on many ships? as an option?; ......... Not
on many ships. Also not shown to matter.
8. Tilt canopy option; ...........Was an order option, and was a retrofit
kit at one time. Good to have but cuts pilot weight to under 200# max.
9. 1-35/1-35C comparison; ...... (below)
1-35 has sealed rivets on fuse (microballons in paint) for a better look
and less drag.
1-35 has more and deeper flap settings
1-35 had a retractable gear
1-35 had a self retractable tow-hook
1-35 could carry up to 320# of water
Another order option for both was wing/fuse fillet and wing tip
fairings.
1-35 rated at 38:1 vs 36:1 for 1-35c
1-35c is lighter and thus can outclimb a 1-35.
There were 101 1-35s built, and most are still flying. Many still in
original owners hands. There have been only 12 documented incidents with
1-35s, none due to sailplane problems.
The sink rate at speed is clearly superior to any of the other affordable
candidates like the PW5, AC4, L33, or Junior.
A superior value for a fun, safe, attractive, easy-to-maintain saiplane.
To see a few, and learn more, go to
http://www.goldengate.net/~tmrent/soar/docs/sgs135.htm
Good Luck,
Tom Rent
SGS 1-35c
Dale & Rosemary Thompson
Tom Rent <tmr...@goldengate.net> wrote:
: ANSWERS:
: 1. cockpit size (especially shoulder width); ..... If you are over 230# ...
: likely will be too tight. Tall pilots OK.
Check the wt. and bal. documents.
: 6. Are the wings filled on all versions, or not on 1-35C model;
: ........the 1-35c is the only model without water ballast
The surface has lots of bondo/micro-balloons. And yes, the ballast is
carried in wet wings. Since they are wet, the ribs act as baffles and
sloshing is not a problem. I prefer a 15 or 20 gal. load to the max.
(approx. 30 gal.) because of better roll control.
: 8. Tilt canopy option; ...........Was an order option, and was a retrofit
: kit at one time. Good to have but cuts pilot weight to under 200# max.
A real plus when you have to get yourself out of the plane. Removing the
canopy and placing it over the side onto the ground is an accident
waiting to happen. I paid extra.....having it retrofitted after the
plane was several years old.
Other stuff...
The one I own half of has been 500K a bunch of times. The record book
showed four 1000K flights in 1-35s, the last time I looked. They are a
great, dependable,sailplane. If you want to run with the modern 15M
ships, forget it. If you want to fly for entertainment, badges, and fun,
a 1-35 can provide that.
Dale Thompson
1-35 #54
Tim W Mara
--
Tom Rent wrote in message ...
>ANSWERS:
>4. Angle of incidence modification; .............. No such thing
Not true, there was in fact a modification on earlier 135's to do just
this......
reportedly the biggest modification improvement for the 135's
>5. Removeable tail option on all ships; ........All have removeable stab
>halves. Never heard of a removeable tail section.
Again.....Not true, earlier 135's had a fixed (non-removable) T-Tail
>6. Are the wings filled on all versions, or not on 1-35C model;
>........the 1-35c is the only model without water ballast
again, the question I think referred to Filler ON the wings.....this was
done at the factory to improve wing profiles, several owners did additional
filling and profiling (I know, I removed 26 pounds of body filler from one
135 in the re-finishing process!
>7. Integrated Aielerons/Flaps on many ships? as an option?; ......... Not
>on many ships. Also not shown to matter.
>8. Tilt canopy option; ...........Was an order option, and was a retrofit
>kit at one time. Good to have but cuts pilot weight to under 200# max.
>9. 1-35/1-35C comparison; ...... (below)
I won't completely disagree on this but in speaking with Schweizer a few
years ago I asked about a "Kit". Schweizer told me that they NEVER offered a
"KIT" but did sell PARTS to make a hinged canopy for several thousand $$!
tim
Visit Our Web Site:http://www.glider.com/wings
Walt Konecny
Tim W Mara wrote in message
<705vun$76p8$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>I won't completely disagree on this but in speaking with Schweizer a few
>years ago I asked about a "Kit". Schweizer told me that they NEVER offered
a
>"KIT" but did sell PARTS to make a hinged canopy for several thousand $$!
>
>tim
>Visit Our Web Site:http://www.glider.com/wings
>
When I called Schweizer in 1983 to find out about parts for a hinged canopy,
they wanted to sell me a kit (hinged forward) for $1875.00 and told me that
a qualified A&P could do the field installation in approx 40 hours.
Obviously, I passed on such a deal. I have seen a 1-35 where a simple
mechanical (no strut) system was made from a Mosquito hinging system. It
worked very well.
Walt Konecny
Bob Thrasher
mike wrote in message <9084512...@wren.supernews.com>...
>
>I would like to get some insight on the 1-35, never having flown one>
seatback and rudder pedals are adjustable.
>known issues/AD's
No ADs on the 1-35 or 1-35A. There is a towhook AD on the 1-35C. (The 1-35
and 1-35A use a retractable hook.) There are several service bulletins, most
notably the aileron pushrod inspection which requires removal and inspection
of the aileron pushrods, an easy job.
>(not very concerned with flap issue, have lots of power time)
The flaps are wonderful for short-field, low-energy precision landings.
>Angle of incidence modification
My 1-35 has this option. I can't comment on performance enhancement. The
option changed the wing incidence angle from 5 degrees to 2 degrees.
>Removeable tail option on all ships? as an option?
My 1-35 was the test bed that Schweizer used for the demountable tail
according to the logbook. The demountable tail would seem to make trailering
easier. Mounting the tail halves is a breeze. Slide them on, engage a pin
and install a safety pin. Elevator hookup is automatic.
>Are the wings filled on all versions, or not on 1-35C model
Don't know. Mine are filled.
>Integrated Aielerons/Flaps on many ships? as an option?
My 1-35 has this option. Johnson flight testing of the 1-35 in the mid-70s
suggested that the flap/aileron integration was not effective for
performance enhancement.
>Tilt canopy option
I wish I had this option. The canopy is long, heavy and awkward to handle.
Setting the canopy off of the glider while sitting in the cockpit after
landing is difficult. Replacing the canopy is expensive and time-consuming.
I just replaced my canopy; the old one was backed over by a car. I've been
looking for the canopy hinge mechanism for several years now with no luck. I
have the factory drawings and plan to fabricate the parts this winter.
>1-35/1-35C comparison
Performance wise, I've done some impromptu comparison glides and climbs with
a 1-35C. All-up weight was about the same for both gliders. The 1-35 did a
little better than the 1-35C in glide and climb, but not much.
>handling
>anything else
Don't expect a 1-35 to run with 15M glass gliders. It is a very good, fun
cross-country glider. On an average Uvalde day, I can fly mine 200 to 250
miles in 4 to 5 hours. Roll rate with a full load of water isn't great. The
1-35 is (mostly) all metal and can be repaired by any competent
mechanic/repair shop, of which, there are many of. (Elevators and rudder are
fabric covered.) It's hell-bent for strong (typical Schweizer). Factory
support is excellent; many parts are readily available.
Regards,
Bob Thrasher
SGS 1-35, s/n 25, 2M