HA, Personally, I think the issue is maintenance. Alu gliders are simply too hard for clubs to maintain.
A read of Allan Ash's great book 'The story of Australian Gliding' (or similar title) tells the story very well. Dozens of clubs closing when their only glider got damaged and was off-line for months because the club could not repair it. The idea of retired enthusiasts doing maintenance on gliders like the Blanik for fun is fine in principal but when these people go offline, younger people are not going to want to spend a week or more doing highly complex maintenance on a Blanik and other gliders of similar kidney. The manuals are unreadable. The ADs and ANs like phone books. You pull a part off one wing and it's put together completely differently to the same part on the other wing. Is this by the book or some mistake by an earlier inspector? In the time it takes to do a partial Form 2 on an alu glider, anyone can do 2-3 full Form 2s on glass gliders. By partial Form 2, I mean that most conscientious Form 2 inspectors would simply ground most alu gliders because they cannot really guarantee their airworthiness any more. Take the recent KRO3 rudder cracks found at Warwick. Well done the guy who found them because you have to look VERY hard to find them. Then you lie awake worrying about all the similar cracks you may have missed. Irrespective of its flying performance, the K21 is simply not in this class. A 30 year old glider with no ADs is a maintenance dream compared with the increasing nightmare of alu gliders. Modern gliding should be about gliding and not maintenance. By that standard the K21 is a very modern glider. The fact that it is one of the most lovely gliders to fly with beautiful coordination is another issue altogether. Regarding gliders like the DG1000 and Duo Discuss, these are of another level of complexity beyond the K21 and there is no way a Form 2 could be done in a day… the releases alone take a day to remove and replace. Don't knock the K21. As a training glider, it's as good as it gets. The only possible drawback is how you read the spin training statistics and this seems to divide 50/50 down the middle. In most cases, modern German single seat gliders appear to behave just like the K21. If you are fortunate enough to graduate from a K21 to a German single seater, you'll find the stall/spin performance to be along the same lines. D On 23/08/2010, Mike Borgelt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
