worst glider for instructors

Certainly the protection and care of the instructor's spine has been neglected in N. America and the 2-22 and 2-33 are examples. People who go on instructing in these types for many years are heroes. Cramped rear cockpit, unsprung wheel right underneath you, poor visibility, gratuitous ventilation and no trim; after 20 years of back abuse I quit in structing in these types and when asked, fly the Puchaz, Grob 103 or my own RHJ-8 side by side, comfortable reclining seating with excellent visibility and performance better than either. Pilots at all levels seem to enjoy it.

Why did side by side go the way of the dodo? Cost? the asymmetry problem? Fat trailers? The need to relieve ones bladder in private on long or high flights?

Happy instructing

John Firth

Even with the wink at the end of your message I think this need to be addressed properly.

The trim system in the 2-33 is inadequate for several reasons. Early models have it located on the floor forward of the control stick. On later models it is more logically located on the left sidewall. Neither location is accessible to the CFI in the rear seat. This is bad not just for training but also for rides. The actuation of the floor-mounted version is unusual and easy to get wrong by students.

When you are properly belted in the front seat you can not reach the trim on the floor, and many cannot reach the side mounted version. The side system can be retrofitted but it is very expensive.

The spring system only works one way, nose up, nose down relies on aerodynamic forces. At any airplane tow speed used there is the need for constant forward pressure on the stick least the glider rapidly climb up out of position. This makes learning to fly airplane tow doubly difficult.

With the average size North American male in the front seat and a similar sized CFI in back the nose up trim is not powerful enough to relieve stick forces in slow flight.

Like Mr. Firth I seldom instruct in 2-33s anymore. Nor do I drive cars without synchronized manual transmissions. Both vehicles seem to be from the same era.

Robert Mudd

All true.

The final thing that really irritates me about the 2-33 is that it followed the 2-32 in the design series (The 2-32 is not a bad sailplane.) which suggests that the 2-33 is a bad glider by intent - designed with malice and forethought.

Perhaps the idea was that if you punish students enough with a sort of flying medevel torture chamber they will learn something.

Bill Daniels

The problem is that no matter how loud your audio input, the servo can't roll the trim forward enough to take out all of the stick pressure on tow.

Tony V.

'> That's a good question! I've also mulled over the lack of V-tail designs

Is Schreder classified as a major manufacturer? (more a supplier of kits surely?) Schempp Hirth Std Austia, Shk, Cirrus prototype, Bregeut Fauvette, Siren Edelweiss, birmingham Guild/Yorkshire SailplanesBG135/YS55, Schleicher Ka1, Ka3, Antonov A-11, A-13, A-15,

(and

M200, Caudron 800, T-21, Capstan, Silene,

one offs Akafleig berlin B-13, DARMSTADT D-41, D-43, Globetrotter,

probably loads more as well that I haven't listed.

I also believe Akafleig darmstadt established with the D-41 that it was no less draggy having side by side (although staggered) than a tandem configuration.

Please add a SZD-14 X 'Jaskolka M' to this list.

The K4 was designed as a cheap and simple trainer, the Slingsby equivalent was the T31.

The K2 from which the K7 was developed was intended as a high performance two-seater for the same market as the Slingsby Eagle, both were competing in the 1954 worlds (at Camphill) in the two-seater class.

I have never sat in either the K4 or the T31, Camphill used to have both and I heard that they preferred the K4.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).

I did most of my pre-solo training in a K4 and a T31. The K4 isn't much of a glider, but it's head and shoulders above a T31.

Except on a nice day when the T31 has the canopy off.

There are obvious drawbacks in these 2 alternatives to the 'standard' design.

In a side-by-side glider, you have a poor visibility in the direction opposite to your seat. If there is another pilot in the other seat, you can rely on his eyes, otherwise ...

V-tails induce a coupling between the maximum travel of rudder pedals and back/forward stick, when one of them is at its maximum excursion, the other one is blocked at neutral position, unless there is some limiting stop(s) before the mixer that allows each command to deflect the moving surface only up to the half of its maximum possible angle, when the other command is in neutral

I recall that I much preferred the side-by side Pratt Read to tandem alternatives.

It is true that the visibility to the right from the left seat was not great but then, the view from the back seat of a tandem isn't that great either. The advantages in communication with your passenger in a side-by side outweighed any other disadvantage.

A well done side-by-side cockpit shouldn't give away any performance to a tandem. Keep an eye on the Stemme S2.

Bill Daniels

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but there doesn't seem to be a major

There was an early Shempp-Hirth with a V-tail