At 11:07 AM 22/08/2010, you wrote:
Spot on. There is little point in training tomorrows pilots in yesterdays
gliders, unless all they want to do is fly yesterdays gliders. It is also
not a good advertisement for the sport, to give someone their first
experience of gliding in ancient equipment when modern gliders (or even
those that just look modern) are available and often visible on the same
airfield.
In my own club the arrival of our first ASK21 simply resulted in members and
passengers voting with their feet. IS28 utilisation has reduced
dramatically, and the 21 is out flying every day. Our 2nd ASK21 is coming
on line as we speak, and one more IS28 is available for sale.
Here's an interesting comparison of the IS28B2 and the ASK21
Data taken from Martin Simon's book Sailplanes 1965 - 2000
IS28B2
ASK21
Empty
mass 375Kg
360Kg
Max
mass 590
600
Wing
area 18.24m^2
17.95
Aspect
ratio 15.88
16.1
Span 17.01m
17.00m
Wing loading 32.3
kg/m^2
33.4
The ASK21 isn't a fiberglass ASK13, it is a fiberglass IS28B2 ! The
IS28B2 wing sections are the same as those on an ASW15 and the wing
is thinner at the root than the ASK21 wing. The K21 root section is
the same as the Std Cirrus.
The Tocumwal operation had an IS28B2 a few years back. They had
repainted it white all over, re-upholstered the cockpits and it
looked pretty good. The customers were pretty happy to fly in it.
Both gliders are however not representative of modern sailplanes
though the ASK21 tries to fake it. Nice glider, robust, well
engineered, relatively expensive for what it is and you get PW5 or
Schneider Boomerang performance.
The IS28 fatigue life has been investigated. I gather there is no
immediate problem. Anyone know more about this?
The Pilatus B4 has a safe life of 40,000 hours I once read. Again not
a modern glider.
There is simply no excuse for the KR 03 and from a conversation with
a glider maintainer last night it has significant problems.
I wouldn't fly in a Blanik or KR03, nor in a K7, K13, Kookaburra etc. nowadays.
---------------
The ultralight argument is interesting. It probably isn't
co-incidence that the Ultralight guys got recognition in 1983 and the
peak GFA membership was in 1984-85. This tells me that many people
who were flying gliders merely wanted to FLY as against SOAR. As
ultralights are so much more convenient to operate I can see why they
went to ultralights.
However a pool of 10,000 trained sport aviation pilots should be
regarded as an opportunity because some of them will get bored with
simply flying around the paddock or going over to the next airfield
for coffee. The GFA will need to get over itself though in its
operating philosophy or these people will take one look and never be
seen again. The gliders on offer had better be modern, high
performance and preferably self launching too. At least self
retrieving. This wasn't the case at Renmark so we haven't run that experiment.
-------------------
Mark Newton should have gone to another flying school in the swamp.
There are few problems which if tackled in just the right way cannot
be made more expensive and difficult to solve.
-----------------
Gary Stevenson may have statist fantasies about funding but if the
people of Australia are only prepared to pay a certain amount then
that's exactly as much government work as gliding ought to be doing.
Feel free to donate money if you want more
supervision/meddling/oppression but please make sure it applies only to you.
Mike
Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978
phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784
email: [email protected]
website: www.borgeltinstruments.com
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
