We need an ASW-19 rebirth for $25,000

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

What we need in soaring is a new glider built for a reasonable price. $150,000 for a new glider is just not even a consideration for most people. Let's face it, you can get a low mileage Ferrari for half that price!

The PW-5 was a terrible failure. The engineers made the wingspan too short, without a common T-tail and failed to have the gear retract.

What we really need is something that looks like an ASW-19 bare bones that is brand new for $25,000.

It needs to have only the basics:
-15 meter wingspan
-T-tail
-Retractable landing gear
-Hinged canopy
-Airspeed
-Altimeter
-Basic VSI (no audio)
-Tube trailer
-Mag compass

With a basic tube trailer similar.

If the PW-5 can be made for around that price, so could something like this.

Just to get a basic sailplane for $25,000 that has a 35:1 to 40:1 glide ratio, pilots could once again afford this sport and it would be one less reason for pilots to not get into soaring.

[Pete]

Agreed! I would love to see this.

However it seems the used marketplace is overflowing with good gliders at reasonable prices even less than $25,000. Why aren't more pilots buying these ships?

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:49:51 AM UTC-4, Pete wrote:
> Agreed! I would love to see this.
>
> However it seems the used marketplace is overflowing with good gliders at reasonable prices even less than $25,000. Why aren't more pilots buying these ships?

What's needed is a more affordable AS-K21 and more affordable launching.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Bruce Hoult]

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 3:49:51 PM UTC+3, Pete wrote:
> Agreed! I would love to see this.
>
> However it seems the used marketplace is overflowing with good gliders at reasonable prices even less than $25,000. Why aren't more pilots buying these ships?

That indicates a declining membership.

You can never grow the sport with a limited supply of 30 year old used gliders. To have any hope of growing you need reasonably priced new machines.

The Hph 304 is the right kind of idea, but it's still $90000+.

[Sean Fidler]

Where do I send in my deposit?

I'm sorry, but your statements are ridiculous. Please, go ahead, knock yourself out and prove this model.

If you actually believe that your new business idea...

Let's call it "Magical Flying Unicorn Sailplanes" by Wilber" shall we?

...is a viable concept (dirt cheap sailplanes?), please, teach us. Start that company. Start producing 25k sailplanes and prove to the world that all current manufacturers are greedy robbers and that we are all idiots for paying their market price. I have no doubt the sailplane that you describe would sell (at 25k). But show us that you can make a profit (I wish you could see the smile on my face right now). Show us that you can stay in business for a year producing and selling dozens of these "Magic Unicorn 15m's!".

Design it
Tool it
Build the prototype
Test it
Refine it
Re-tool it
Certify it
Hire your employees - pay for their healthcare and benefits
Train them
Retain them
Lease the building
Heat the building, Cool the building
Deal with the EPA
Deal with OSHA
By the supplies
Market it,
Sell it
Support it
Warranty it
Pay all the regulatory fees and taxes, etc., etc., etc.

ALL FOR 25k A POP! :-) Good luck!

This would change the game (like...magic!). I honestly do hope you can succeed. But, sadly, its just not going to happen, even for 100k, especially in the USA, and even you know it.

Last I checked, a 14-foot sailboat (think Sunfish) was almost $20,000 USD.

You can thank your previous President (sorry, community organizer) and his 10 Trillion in new US Federal debt (an increase of 100% in 8 years). Now, interest rates (near zero for eight years now) are starting to normalize. That sailboat above (worth 10k eight years ago) will be up to 25k in 5 years. Even a 13.5m Silent is 120k.

I look forward to you showing us that I am wrong.

[Andrew Ainslie]

I struggle to see what Obama has to do with the cost of manufacturing German sailplanes, Sean!

[Tango Whisky]

That topic comes up every 8 years or so, mostly driven by people how have no idea where the cost for airplanes comes from.

You have the materials cost, which you can limit by staying away from carbon fiber.
You have to amortise setup cost (development, tooling, certification). You can reduce this by taking over an old design, as ASW19 or LS4.
You need to pay the labor. That's about 150 hours for a streamlined production. It does not vary with the performance of the glider, but it does vary with the surcae.
You need to pay overhead.
You need to make profit.

There is no way that this would sum up anyway near $25.000.

And then you would have to sell it, and compete against tons of pre-owned gliders which are in the $25k-40k range, can be flown tomorrow, are at about 10-20% of their lifetime potential and are in the 35-40:1 range.

The most recent try on this was to set up a production of LS4's in Eastern Europe (with Eastern Europe wages), when Rolladen-Schneider went belly up.
Nobody ordered.

From what I see, money is not the reason for declining numbers of pilots. Its the countless possibilities for instant-gratification-activities, some of which are significantly more expensive than flying a whole season in a club's Discus or LS4.

[Sean Fidler]

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 9:51:02 AM UTC-4, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> I struggle to see what Obama has to do with the cost of manufacturing German sailplanes, Sean!

We are discussing US built sailplanes I think...

[BobW]

> However it seems the used marketplace is overflowing with good gliders at
> reasonable prices even less than $25,000. Why aren't more pilots buying
> these ships?

Been pondering the same question ever since 1st-generation glass and I showed
up on the soaring scene at roughly the same time...

Elsewhere in the thread others have cogently commented on factors impacting
current-production costs and (non-)growth of soaring, so below is an
off-the-top-of-my-head list of possible contributors specifically to the above
question:

- human nature (the common perception that newer is always better)
- ignorance (who systemically touts older ships?)
- Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt (old = structurally dodgy; lousy performance; higher
maintenance costs; harder to fly; etc.)

As a cheap, low-use-impact, non-greenie, cost/mission-driven weirdo myself, I
suppose with the money not spent over the years required to maintain "the
latest and greatest things" in my toy collection, I could've eventually
splurged on today's latest Gee-WhizBang Mark IV self-launching international
record breaker, but no way could that have been possible throughout all of my
soaring participation.

Bob W.

[Andrew Ainslie]

Oh I get it now. You're reminding us of the halcyon Bush days when brave Americans pumped out affordable gliders..:)

[chipsoars]

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 11:13:23 AM UTC-4, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> Oh I get it now. You're reminding us of the halcyon Bush days when brave Americans pumped out affordable gliders..:)

no, it was the Reagan era.

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

Bob K is probably laughing his ass off. The HP-24 kit is, if I recall correctly, in the low 30's without trailer and instruments and is the closest to what Wilbur is dreaming at.
Make it a production ship, while ignoring the huge investment in development and tools, and I would guess it would be very tight to finish the airframe for under 45k using production labor.
UH

[Dan Marotta]

Giggle, snort...

You guys are a laugh a minute! Each one of us likes his guy and hates
the other's. Do we really need to rehash stale politics? Oops! Did my
proper use of a pronoun, and apostrophe, and correct spelling give me away?

Lock and load...

--
Dan, 5J

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 12:05:27 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Giggle, snort...
>
> You guys are a laugh a minute! Each one of us likes his guy and hates
> the other's. Do we really need to rehash stale politics? Oops! Did my
> proper use of a pronoun, and apostrophe, and correct spelling give me away?
>
> Lock and load...

Douglas Adams had it nailed 30 years ago:

http://zenbullets.com/blog/?p=1637

[Dan Marotta]

Nice bit of fantasy, if you're into that stuff. I preferred this
reading, however:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

--
Dan, 5J

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

Naysayers, naysayers!!! Are you guys really pilots? Aren't soaring pilots supposed to be optimists?

The same nonsense statements were said about the wright brothers.

A PW-5 cost $18,500 new.

Using an inflation calculator, that would be $29,487 in today's money.




I'm talking about a "barebones" glider, no frills. No blowholes, no winglets, no water ballast, no flaps, just the absolute basics. Nothing but basic instruments, no upholstery, just a seat pan.

If it happened with the PW-5, it can happen again....just this time needs to be with a 15 meter wingspan and a t tail.

[Andrew Ainslie]

Here's the funniest part of all this... try buying a glider. Long wait times. Factories can't keep up with the demand. And that's at these "excessive" prices.

That's not exactly a sign of an overpriced market. When supply is well below demand, it's unlikely that the product is overpriced.

Gliders go forever, and you can get incredible performance at a very reasonable cost by buying a 25 year old glider. Only a fool would try to compete against that.

To the OP - why not just buy an older glider? Why ask someone to build something that already exists?

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

Uncle Hank,

Roman Świtkiewicz is laughing right now reading YOUR comment!!

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

Andrew Ainslie,

If it was the same price, why buy something that's 40 years old???

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 4:02:53 PM UTC-4, wilburwri...@gmail.com wrote:
> Uncle Hank,
>
> Roman Świtkiewicz is laughing right now reading YOUR comment!!

Maybe you can tell me who he is.
UH

[Andrew Ainslie]

If WHAT was the same price?

There is no such product, nor will there be.

Unless you'd like, as an act of philanthropy, to take $20 million or so and sink it onto making gliders and selling them at below cost.

Or - just buy a 2nd hand 19.

[roel.b...@gmail.com]

That Douglas Adams quote is so appropriate today in The Netherlands. Thanks!

[Chris Rollings]

I will produce what you want, at that price, but I need an order for
900,000 of them and a 50% deposit.

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

Just amazing how those PW-5's were produced at affordable prices!!!

Wow!!!!

It's just a miracle isn't it?

[ND]

Yeah,

No one realizes just how much work goes into building these things. and the material isn't cheap either. i mean, fiberglass is relatively in expensive, but if you want a safety cockpit, aramid/kevlar is more expensive.
it would be extremely cool if someone started a company that built simple gliders (read no flashy interiors), that performed well, brand new for under 60,000. that i think, would be doable.

I like the GP concept, any idea what those are going for?

[JS]

"Wilbur":
Didn't that turn into a bit of a failure?
Believe the target price for the World Class glider was supposed to be $10,000.
I know that Lake Keepit Soaring Club bought two "zero time" PW5s for the price of one. They had sat over a decade in storage, perhaps that means nobody wanted them. A going out of business sale is as close as you'll get to making this dream a reality.
Essentially the PW-5 is a composite 1-26. At Keepit they are used to get new solo pilots out of the trainers - in this case Grob and ASK21 - before progressing to something with performance, retractable gear, etc. I traded a day in the Discus 2C/18 for one of the PeeWees a year or so ago, at least found humour in it.
Jim AKA Juliet Sierra

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

"Jim":

Yes, please read my above statements. It was a failure in some regards. They made over 200 of them. But it looked like a nerdy science project! If they had gone with a simple T-tail, a 15 meter wingspan, a tapered fuselage, and retractable gear, it would have probably done much better, for no extra cost.

Producing 200 gliders isn't really a failure so much though. Well done with that regard. They kept the cost low. Mission accomplished.

Just imagine if it looked more appealing. It would have had its own class....and soaring would have been made great again.

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

What we need is a passionate engineer fresh out of college who can design this. Then take deposits of $5,000 into escrow to help fund the construction.

All you have to do is start with 1.

Go ahead, flame away you naysayers!!!

[Jim St. Clair]

> It needs to have only the basics:
> -15 meter wingspan
> -T-tail
> -Retractable landing gear
> -Hinged canopy
> -Airspeed
> -Altimeter
> -Basic VSI (no audio)
> -Tube trailer
> -Mag compass

Great idea! As a new pilot I'd be first in line. This should be built somewhere where labor is cheap, like Mexico, under expert supervision.

Let's add three more low-cost requirements that will allow the glider to to grow with the pilot.
> Wing-tip design/connectors so winglets can be added.
> Structurally designed to be upgradable to FES.
> Rough-in so water system could be added later.

Question - should it be 13.5m wingspan?

[gregg...@gmail.com]

Nothing cheap and low(ish) performance is going to sell. People would rather have nothing and dream of a supership than buy a lower performance glider. Although lots of people will claim otherwise. Funny thing. Buying an old glider somehow covers the ego. Probably because what you get was once a supership. No fault of your own, that was 30 years ago.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 6:27:19 PM UTC+3, JS wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 3:31:55 AM UTC-7, wilburwri...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Just amazing how those PW-5's were produced at affordable prices!!!
> >
> > Wow!!!!
> >
> > It's just a miracle isn't it?
>
> "Wilbur":
> Didn't that turn into a bit of a failure?
> Believe the target price for the World Class glider was supposed to be $10,000.
> I know that Lake Keepit Soaring Club bought two "zero time" PW5s for the price of one. They had sat over a decade in storage, perhaps that means nobody wanted them. A going out of business sale is as close as you'll get to making this dream a reality.
> Essentially the PW-5 is a composite 1-26.

It's a lot better than that! It's a composite Ka6E.

At one point I was flying one of our club's two PW5s in contests with I think about 15 other PW5s and a similar number of K6s (and similar), doing mostly 150 - 250 km tasks in thermals. The result tables were quite well mixed, depending on the day. There were good pilots in both types, and both types were winning closely-contested days. Both gliders have pretty much identical empty weight (190 kg), best L/D (32:1), and min sink (0.65 m/s). The PW5 has 20% less wing area (10.2 m^s vs 12.4).

The 1-26 is very different! 202 kg, 23:1, 0.88 m/s, 14.9 m^2. It would get slaughtered by both the PW5 and the Ka6 on almost any day you could imagine.

[Brad]

Bob K and his HP-24 project was mentioned previously: we already have a design, tooling and a few examples in the air. why start from ground zero? if there truly is a groundswell of support for a quod pro omnibus machine, then let's see some of wealthy members of the soaring community send some money his way.

Brad
(GK)

[gotovkotzepkoi]

This glider already exists; here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru0deQRIS8c




--
gotovkotzepkoi

[ifee...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 10:30:01 AM UTC-7, wilburwri...@gmail.com wrote:

Why don't you do it? You seem to have a rather intense belief that it's possible and worthwhile so why not take all your liquid assets, borrow money, find an engineer and get a design worked up. The publicize the company, get some VC funding, get a facility to build it in, start raking in the deposits, get the prototype built, test fly, work out the bugs, get EASA (or equivalent) certification for the design and the manufacturing facility, train some production workers and start making gliders.

You've got the idea, you believe it will be profitable so get off your ass and and do it. What's stopping you?

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

It would be really nice if the leadership came together and paired up resources to make something like this happen. We've seen American's do much greater things than anywhere on earth. We've sent men to the moon, we invented rock n roll, we connected hands across america, we are the innovators in so much stuff. But why can't we build a airplane (without an engine, or avionics) for less than $100,000?? You an buy a brand new Mustang for $25,000 and it is way more of a complex machine. Sure they've had assembly lines, but with creative minds, we could make something happen.

Paul Remde was funded through our membership to stay in business. This can happen with a drive from our membership to fund a revolutionary glider that is affordable.

That extreme price tag of gliders is something that kills the sport, and therefor needs to be addressed.

The SSA leadership needs to step up and start pairing together resources to help new gliders being built at reasonable prices. We have members who own warehouses that aren't even being used. There are mega wealthy members among us, that would donate space in a warehouse or other resources, at no cost, out of the love for this sport. We have engineers who would help mentor a project. We have it all, just need a leadership to lead a revolution.

All it takes is the desire! I'm making statements in hopes that someone out there is listening. I'm using this forum to help state the things that nobody will talk about face to face with our SSA leadership.

[Phil Chidekel]

Oh boy...

Dude, a lot of what you are saying is pretty hyperbolic. I love my Country as much as the next guy, and Neil Armstrong is my hero. But Mustangs are produced in huge volumes out of identical, machine-cut parts... of course the costs are going to be moderate. Gliders are closer to works of art. They are hand-crafted by skilled professionals and require infinitely more attention to detail than an assembly-line Ford. Read through the maintenance manuals of a few s/n's of the same type, and you will find that each of them has minute differences in dimension. Fly a few different s/n's, and you will find that each has its own quirks. Personally, I can't feel a difference between each Honda Civic I step into.....

In my opinion, the "extreme prices of gliders" have little to do with the death of our sport. Look on Wings and Wheels. It's a buyer's market! A 1-26 can be had for under $10k, and there is plenty of beautiful, early glass out there for the magical $25k you strive to beat. I agree with everyone who has commended Bob K and his HP-24... This sailplane is the reality check which you do not seem to grasp.

From my observation, what is killing our sport is lack of new, passionate pilots who have the time and money to invest in flight training. Time is difficult to address, because people are increasingly busy, and soaring consumes whole weekends with ease. Money is also difficult to address, because insurance is expensive, avgas is expensive, and dues are expensive. It requires a certain minimum amount of passion to plan a life around the demands of soaring, and unfortunately, it is really hard to find people who possess it. Few stick around to earn a license, and even fewer ever use that license to do anything more than sit in the pattern for an hour on a Sunday afternoon (before going home and watching football).

I could go off about this for ages....

In my opinion, your enthusiasm is mis-directed. Perhaps your advocacy to the SSA can be better utilized in creating a serious outreach campaign, targeting the passionate individuals who are the future of our sport. They do exist.

I don't pretend to know the answer of how to grow our sport, but I do know this: a nice Pegasus can be had for $25k. This seems to be pretty similar to the glider you desire. Additionally, there will be nobody left to fly our gliders if we don't find a way to grow soaring.

Winter needs to end on the East Coast. I get cranky when snow blankets the glider trailers.

Respectfully,

Phil Chidekel

[Bruce Hoult]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 10:43:09 PM UTC+3, gotovkotzepkoi wrote:
> This glider already exists; here it is:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru0deQRIS8c

High-deflection flaps, 14m wingspan, 20:1 L/D, 0.6 m/s sink. It could well be faster x-country than a 1-26. Not going to match a PW5 though.

Stuff weight shift control for a joke though.

[Andy Blackburn]

Sean and Wilbur arguing is priceless... :-D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FR_76LZVNw

9B

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:38:10 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Where do I send in my deposit?
>
> I'm sorry, but your statements are ridiculous. Please, go ahead, knock yourself out and prove this model.
>
> If you actually believe that your new business idea...
>
> Let's call it "Magical Flying Unicorn Sailplanes" by Wilber" shall we?
>

[tnd]

"Great idea! As a new pilot I'd be first in line. This should be built somewhere where labor is cheap, like Mexico, under expert supervision."

You'll have to fly them in over the wall...


--

------------------------------
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those
of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of their
organisation.

[JS]

hahahahahaaaaaaa!
Jim (a real person, not "f*cking wilbur")

[Sean Fidler]

Oh, Andy. Are you still sore with me because I called your boyfriend's rules ugly?

[Andy Blackburn]

#popcorn

;-)

[gotovkotzepkoi]

wilburwri...@gmail.com;940545 Wrote:
> What we need in soaring is a new glider built for a reasonable price.
> $150,000 for a new glider is just not even a consideration for most
> people. Let's face it, you can get a low mileage Ferrari for half that
> price!
>
> The PW-5 was a terrible failure. The engineers made the wingspan too
> short, without a common T-tail and failed to have the gear retract.
>
> What we really need is something that looks like an ASW-19 bare bones
> that is brand new for $25,000.

>
> It needs to have only the basics:
> -15 meter wingspan
> -T-tail
> -Retractable landing gear
> -Hinged canopy
> -Airspeed
> -Altimeter
> -Basic VSI (no audio)
> -Tube trailer
> -Mag compass
>

> With a basic tube trailer similar.
>
> If the PW-5 can be made for around that price, so could something like
> this.
>
> Just to get a basic sailplane for $25,000 that has a 35:1 to 40:1 glide
> ratio, pilots could once again afford this sport and it would be one
> less reason for pilots to not get into soaring.

Cheap launch is more important than somebody selling a new sailplane for
$25k. Until winch launch becomes wide spread, as it is in Germany, you
can kiss this sport goodbye. It will never totally die out but it will
atrophy to near nothing. That's a fact. Aero tows are simply too
expensive.




--
gotovkotzepkoi

[Paul T]

At 02:43 16 March 2017, gotovkotzepkoi wrote:
>
>wilburwri...@gmail.com;940545 Wrote:
>> What we need in soaring is a new glider built for a reasonable
price.
>> $150,000 for a new glider is just not even a consideration for
mos

>> people. Let's face it, you can get a low mileage Ferrari for half
tha

>> price!
>>
>> The PW-5 was a terrible failure. The engineers made the
wingspan to

>> short, without a common T-tail and failed to have the gear
retract.
>>
>> What we really need is something that looks like an ASW-19
bare bone

>> that is brand new for $25,000.
>>
>> It needs to have only the basics:
>> -15 meter wingspan
>> -T-tail
>> -Retractable landing gear
>> -Hinged canopy
>> -Airspeed
>> -Altimeter
>> -Basic VSI (no audio)
>> -Tube trailer
>> -Mag compass
>>
>> With a basic tube trailer similar.
>>
>> If the PW-5 can be made for around that price, so could
something lik

>> this.
>>
>> Just to get a basic sailplane for $25,000 that has a 35:1 to
40:1 glid

>> ratio, pilots could once again afford this sport and it would be
on

>> less reason for pilots to not get into soaring.
>
>Cheap launch is more important than somebody selling a new
sailplane fo

>$25k. Until winch launch becomes wide spread, as it is in
Germany, yo

>can kiss this sport goodbye. It will never totally die out but it wil

>atrophy to near nothing. That's a fact. Aero tows are simply to

>expensive
>
>
>
>
>--
>gotovkotzepkoi

They have winch launching in Europe -there is still a decline in
numbers. Interestingly in the UK there as been a strong move for a
lot of clubs to use the 100/115hp Eurofox for towing -halving the
cost of a tow and being more environmentally acceptable -even
clubs that where solely winch based before now have a Eurofox.

As for the general decline -I don't think their is a one stop solution
- there is a lot more competition for peoples leisure time and
generally in the west I believe over the last 10-20 years for the
average working joe 'disposal income and time for leisure' has been
on the decline. The thing is is to look at the successful growing (or
not declining as rapidly clubs) and see what they are doing.

[krasw]

Cost is not a problem of gliding. You can buy decent used glider for 10-20k and now matter how much you fly, annual aerotows do not cost thousands. All these costs are comparable and in line with other middle-aged men hobbies such as owning motorcycle, classic car or boat.

Problem of gliding is that it is horrible time-consuming and difficult.

[Ian]

On 14/03/2017 14:09, wilburwri...@gmail.com wrote:

> What we need in soaring is a new glider built for a reasonable price.

> $150,000 for a new glider is just not even a consideration for most

> people. Let's face it, you can get a low mileage Ferrari for half

> that price!

Lots of people have explained why this is not going to happen. But maybe
I can suggest an alternative.

Set up a company that makes simple affordable, practical closed
trailers, rigging aids, tow out aids, radios, flarm kit, loggers and
instruments. Parachutes too while you are about it. It is essential that
as much as possible should be standardised, with "entry level" feature
set and mass produced.

Then set your self up selling "refurb kits" for all the 2nd hand gliders
that are quietly rotting away in storage, with rusty and/or home made
trailers, radios etc that no longer meet today's standards, parachutes
that are time ex and lacking flarm, GPS and loggers etc.

While you are about it, set up a factory with cheap labour to refinish
those gliders in 2 part polyurethane.

Your new ships will still require all of the above. Irrespective whether
you start with a new magically cheap airframe, or a proven 2nd hand one,
you still need all of the above.

[gregg...@gmail.com]

Wonder if the 2/3 of new gliders being self launchers is going to take resources away from club launching assets? If the majority of club members own self launchers will the club go extinct?

[Bruce Hoult]

It would be interesting to know the true cost of winch launch.

During my absence in Europe, my club in NZ has sold the pawnee and bought a new winch. They're currently charging exactly the same (NZ$45, about 30 EUR/USD) for a winch launch as it previously cost for a 1500 ft tow.

The aerotow prices were adjusted over decades of experience to fairly accurately account for all fixed and variable costs, periodic engine overhauls, replacing the fabric etc and make the towing operation a self-contained break-even cost centre within the club.

I'm *hoping* that charging the same for the winch will result in the US$120k or so of member loans to buy the winch being paid off in three or five years, leaving an asset with many decades of life and low running costs, and that launch prices will then be reduced. A lot. I don't know how much. It's only a bit more than six months since the winch went into real production use.

[Martin Gregorie]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 03:50:02 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> It would be interesting to know the true cost of winch launch.
>

Last year we charged GBP 11 for a winch launch. IIRC which launches have
a small tug subsidy included in that charge.

We do a lot of winching: our winches are used every flying day provided
bad weather doesn't cause cancellation. That is 5 days/week in winter and
7 days/week in summer.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[ND]

There is a tremendous amount of cost and labor involved in refinishing a glider. more than most realize. if you haven't done one start to finish, you don't know... doing a total refinish on old gliders is a good idea, but the cost of the refinish makes that concept difficult if the air-frame isn't worth much anyway. perfect example: it's not profitable to buy a standard cirrus for 14k, pump 5-7K worth of materials into it (not to mention labor, which is also several thousand.) and then sell it for 22k (the going rate for a pristine one.) it's a losing proposition. these gliders are anywhere from 30 to almost 50 years old. it can be profitable if you do it yourself, as a sole proprietor, but as soon as you have to pay people, the profit margin gets chipped away, and most (if not all) goes to the employees.

there's lots of economies-of-scale stuff that goes into building cheap cars. Phil nailed it mostly. i think someone really visionary with an automotive or aerospace composite manufacturing background, and alot of capital could do something impressive. but again, the demand to support moderate production isn't there. it goes back to the cirrus example. these gliders have long life cycles.
i don't think price, and supply and demand of gliders is the issue, i think it's supply and demand of pilots. unfortunately it's a pretty unique game we play. it consumes time, and money, and gets you strange looks at the office when you don't know whose playing in the superbowl, but you know who won the last WGC, and where the next one is.

i think in order to grow the sport one of the things that would help would be wider media exposure. also, you have to make it sexy. many pilots look seriously dorky. sorry, but we suck at being fashionable. watch a redbull airrace, those pilots are wearing cool looking "decalized" helmets, firesuits, gloves, et cet. it has sex appeal. it looks dangerous and exciting. i'm not suggesting we wear firesuits, that's stupid. but we wear floppy hats and grimy button down shirts. it's just not sexy to the casual observer. so it doesn't get a ton of attention, so it doesn't attract a lot of enthusiasm the way that nascar, dirtbike racing, or indy does.

the equipment is sufficient. it's marketing and drawing attention to our sport.
on the club side, there has to be a huge social component to build cohesion.

TL,DR;

We need more pilots, not more gliders
soaring is not sexy
clubs need to be as much social, as they are aviation.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 2:59:28 PM UTC+3, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 03:50:02 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> > It would be interesting to know the true cost of winch launch.
> >
> Last year we charged GBP 11 for a winch launch. IIRC which launches have
> a small tug subsidy included in that charge.
>
> We do a lot of winching: our winches are used every flying day provided
> bad weather doesn't cause cancellation. That is 5 days/week in winter and
> 7 days/week in summer.

That's NZ$20. I hope that's where the charge will be in five years.

In fact you can already get winch launches for $30 each (17 GBP) if you pay for 40 of them in advance (which must be used within two years).

[Martin Gregorie]

The only way I can think of to get a better cost estimate that asking
round is to total costs over a year and divide that by the number of
launches. Here's quick guess at what needs to be included:

- one set of new Spectra cables (or two if using steel)
- the cost of strops lost
- fuel used
- items consumed in routine maintenance
- any external maintenance costs
- depreciation, interest on loans, etc

I've probably missed some items, such as a share of the operating cost of
the tow vehicle used to move the winch round the airfield, but hopefully
that list is a reasonable starting point for anybody wanting to calculate
actual winch costs.

[gotovkotzepkoi]

Bruce Hoult;940673 Wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 10:43:09 PM UTC+3, gotovkotzepkoi

> wrote:-

> This glider already exists; here it is:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru0deQRIS8c-

>
> High-deflection flaps, 14m wingspan, 20:1 L/D, 0.6 m/s sink. It could
> well be faster x-country than a 1-26. Not going to match a PW5 though.
>
> Stuff weight shift control for a joke though.

Who cares? It's a lot more fun than a sailplane.




--
gotovkotzepkoi

[Vernon Brown]

At 14:24 16 March 2017, gotovkotzepkoi wrote:
>
>Bruce Hoult;940673 Wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 10:43:09 PM UTC+3, gotovkotzepko

>> wrote:-
>> This glider already exists; here it is:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru0deQRIS8c-
>>
>> High-deflection flaps, 14m wingspan, 20:1 L/D, 0.6 m/s sink. It coul

>> well be faster x-country than a 1-26. Not going to match a PW5 though.
>>
>> Stuff weight shift control for a joke though.
>
>Who cares? It's a lot more fun than a sailplane
>
>
>
>

>--
>gotovkotzepkoi
>

Winch in the US quoted as $30, so how much is an aerotow?

[Dan Marotta]

About $55 for a 2,000' tow.

Last time I did winch launch in the US it was $5 per snap. This was
with a club.

--
Dan, 5J

[Frank Whiteley]

Winch $17/non-members $22
Aerotows $11 hookup + $1.30/100, non-members +$12

[markm...@gmail.com]

ATOS VR used prices are about 17,000 Euro. For 20:1 L/D. I flew hang gliders for 30 years, and got into sailplanes in 1999, just about the time the ATOS was introduced. The increase in weight, T/O and landing speed, coupled with my aging knees and body precluded an attempt to embrace the new technology. Instead, I bought a 25 year old glider (Centrair Pegase 101A) for about the same price and flew the heck out of it. With 40:1 L/D and a 135 kt. Vne, I got over 200 hours the first year and way more kilometers of XC flight than I had ever experienced with a hang glider. Plus, I always (well nearly always) landed back at the home airfield. On a wheel.

But I still miss hang gliding. It was the most fun I ever had. Soaring is close to the same fun, but not quite.

[Soartech]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 2:11:21 PM UTC-4, gregg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Nothing cheap and low(ish) performance is going to sell. People would rather have nothing and dream of a supership than buy a lower performance glider. Although lots of people will claim otherwise. Funny thing. Buying an old glider somehow covers the ego. Probably because what you get was once a supership. No fault of your own, that was 30 years ago.

HA! Tell that to the many thousands of hang glider and paraglider pilots out there enjoying flight in their "low" performance, low-cost soaring machines! THAT is the problem: There are much cheaper, no-license-required alternatives to sailplanes these days. And they are just as much fun.

[gregg...@gmail.com]

Relative performance to the class of aircraft. HG/PG pilots can buy the highest performance in HG/PG. Only reason some don't is unlike sailplanes HG/PG get sketchier the more performance you squeeze out of them.

[Tango Eight]

Low capital cost isn't everything.

What's the depreciation on a high performance hang glider?

[Ben Coleman]

Wouldn't the SZD-55 be a logical candidate? Competitive performance, no carbon, simple.

Cheers Ben

[Soartech]

On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 5:31:39 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> Low capital cost isn't everything.
>
> What's the depreciation on a high performance hang glider?

It IS everything if you can't afford it!
Then the alternative is to not fly or buy something you can afford.
Add in no license required and free launches. For most young people it's a
no-brainer. Been there and done that.

[markm...@gmail.com]

"Add in no license required and free launches"

To paraphrase, there is no such thing as a free launch. I flew hang gliders for thirty years, and I have to say that most "free launches" involved a 4wd truck and hours of driving. Of course, I also had the option of a $6.50 tramway ride to the top of Sandia Peak in Albuquerque, but everywhere else required a drive or fees paid for winch or aerotow.

As far as depreciation, most hang gliders had about a five year lifespan if maintained properly- possibly more (depending on the amount of UV exposure.) The big problem was advancing technology, which required more investment on a regular basis to keep up. With the amount of airtime I regularly logged, I was trading gliders on a two to three year schedule. Over the years, I probably spent two or three times as much as what I spent on my Pegasus- and it is still getting me 150 hours a year, and holding its value reasonably well.

[Giaco]

Not sure that $25k in today's dollars has ever translated to a new glider.
http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=7000&year=1968

For example, $7K in 1968 is now just under $50k

That means your ASW-19 would have cost $5k delivered when it was originally released in 1975...

Long story short, Bob K is taking orders, get your HP-24 while you can!

[Bruce Hoult]

In I assume many countries -- New Zealand is one definite example -- a hang glider pilot requires exactly the same "license" as a glider pilot (or parachutist, or ultralight pilot), namely:

- must belong to a club affiliated to the appropriate national organisation, to which authority is delegated by the Ministry of Transport

- said club must have a CFI approved by the national organisation

- said pilot may not fly unless the CFI says so (usually expressed as "has not grounded them")


You can't just buy a used hang glider on TradeMe and jump off the nearest hill.

[Dan Marotta]

I'll bet you can in the USA. Mark, has that changed?

--
Dan, 5J

[markm...@gmail.com]

Dan- I haven't been really involved in hang gliding since 2002 or so, but as far as I KNOW, "Licensing" of hang glider and paraglider pilots is still not within the purview of the FAA. In the US, pilot rating and instruction is administered by the US Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (USHGPA), headquartered in Colorado Springs, CO.

Many flying sites and commercial operations for foot launch, ground tow (winch) or aerotow require liability insurance. This insurance is available to the pilot, site owner or commercial operator through the USHGPA. It is an included benefit of USHGPA membership, or a purchased certificate of endorsement for the particular site, club, landowner, commercial operator or government entity that has influence or financial interest in the particular site or operation.

In order to fly at one of these insured sites, USHGPA membership (or reciprocal foreign organization), and applicable pilot ratings must be presented.

[cschra...@gmail.com]

This is a good discussion. The closest thing to what you're talking about is the HPH 304C. I recently emailed Sean Franke and asked for a quote and was told that nobody had ordered one since 2014. A bulk order with cheaper US made trailers may be the way to go. The other key component to this is currently there's only 1 Bank that has loans specific to gliders. Yes you can take out a home equity line to partially finance the latest and greatest, but clubs cannot do this. As the Chair of the Growth and Retention Committee I intend to spend some face time to see what can be done for clubs who have at least 50% equity in their glider. Such loans shouldn't require a Guarantor where the glider is new or newly used and worth more than $50k. One option is to have pledges in the event of a default (which isn't quite the same thing as being a Guarantor but ought to still help reduce the risk for a bank). The next question is, who wants to get into the glider Repo business? Hopefully this won't be needed though.

Your feedback is appreciated.

Chris Schrader, Chair of SSA's Growth & Retention Committee

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

Chris,

I respect your engagement in this forum to help our failing sport. You have a tough job ahead of you.

Perhaps if there was enough orders for the remaking of the ASW-19, say 50 orders at a reasonable price, the Alexander Schliecher factory could start up production again.

Just like Chevrolet can make a high end fully loaded Corvette with the latest technology for over $100,000 and a stripped down camaro for $25,000 (both brand new 2017 models). Surely, a sailplane factory could do the same thing, offer a high end and a low end glider.

I have to believe that if there were enough orders for this sailplane to be brought back into production at a reasonable price there would be a tremendous amount of orders and it would jumpstart the club class like you've never seen before.

I will say it again, if the PW-5 was produced for the price it was, so can it happen again.

[Craig Reinholt]

> Perhaps if there was enough orders for the remaking of the ASW-19, say 50 orders at a reasonable price, the Alexander Schliecher factory could start up production again.
>
> Just like Chevrolet can make a high end fully loaded Corvette with the latest technology for over $100,000 and a stripped down camaro for $25,000 (both brand new 2017 models). Surely, a sailplane factory could do the same thing, offer a high end and a low end glider.
>
> I have to believe that if there were enough orders for this sailplane to be brought back into production at a reasonable price there would be a tremendous amount of orders and it would jumpstart the club class like you've never seen before.
>
> I will say it again, if the PW-5 was produced for the price it was, so can it happen again.

As the CEO of General Motors said a year or so ago in an interview, "I can bend metal that looks ugly or bend metal looks good. The cost of doing either is the same."
I can't believe that the actual cost of producing an ASW19 today in Germany is significantly less than the cost of making the ASW28. Both will be manufactured with the same processes, etc, but just a different shape. The bulk of the manufacturing cost is labor. Carbon fiber? That cost differencial is small in the overall picture. Plus you get the added benefit of improved cockpit safety in the newer design.
Are you expecting the new ASW19's to be made in China, Malaysia, or another low labor cost country? I'd enjoy listening to the conversations at Schleicher when that topic is discussed.
I think your idea has some huge practical road blocks directly in it's path.

[gregg...@gmail.com]

http://www.proairsport.com/project-glow.php Predicted price $53K. That's with two motors. Twice the record breaking capacity. If you had new 25K ASW-19s on the market, all it would do is make old ASW-19s worth 12K. But I don't think it can be done with current construction techniques. Figure out how to build a plastic rotomolded glider(same as kayaks) and you'd be in the low cost glider market. That assumes there are low cost glider buyers. How much performance would pilots give up for a cheap new glider? And how much performance would they give up for a new glider with a motor at a 'low' price? Get permission to build new 1-26s that would fix everything... Rotomolded plastic 1-26s are the future. Order yours today. Available in traditional yellow and orange.

[Andrew Ainslie]

...not to mention that they can't keep up with demand for their $200k gliders, what possible incentive do they have to do this?

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?

Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!

Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.

How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?

[Bruce Hoult]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 8:20:45 PM UTC+3, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> ...not to mention that they can't keep up with demand for their $200k gliders, what possible incentive do they have to do this?

I'm not sure that's true.

While manufacturers do tend to have a year or so delay from ordering to delivery, I don't think the queue is getting longer. They are producing gliders at, on average, exactly the same rate as new orders are coming in.

Are they losing potential orders because someone isn't prepared to wait a year, but would buy a new glider today if it was sitting in a showroom? Possibly some, but I don't think it's significant.

Security of employment for skilled workers, and the time taken to train new ones are quite enough to explain the queue. You can't hire someone if you can't guarantee them a year's work.

If someone came along with a firm order for 10000 gliders then they could expand and step up the production rate, with a delay of a couple of years.

No doubt DG is very happy to have a few dozen DG1000/1001 ordered by the world's airforces. but it's not enough to fundamentally change the production equation.

[chipsoars]

http://all-aero.com/index.php/component/content/article/60-gliders/9701-schleicher-asw-19--valiant-t

$19,500 USD

[gregg...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 1:36:41 PM UTC-4, wilburwri...@gmail.com wrote:

When the PW5s were being built I believe the Euro was in the toilet and Eastern European wages were lagging. When introduced the HPH 304 were 25K. Why can't HPH sell them at that price anymore? First Sparrowhawks with a preproduction down payment were in that price range as well. Maybe we are suffering from double secret invisible inflation. On the other hand how many 304s, PW5s, and Sparrowhawks sold at those prices? Not enough to get anyone sane interested in building new ones. Thankfully soaring runs on the labor of the insane so there is always hope. For laughs prices from the back of America's Soaring Book published 1974: 1-26C(kit) $3,660; 1-26E $5,495; 2-33 $6,995; 2-32 $14,995; ASW-15B $9,300; Libelle $9,350; ASW-17 $14,200; Nimbus II $12,350.
Dammit why can't we have brand new $6,995 2-33s? That'd fix the decline...

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

That would fix the decline, along with the SSA incorporating the international rules of soaring and the supporting Grand Prix racing. Simple. Get with the rest of the world!

But since this cockamamie set of rules is "religion" to so many of you, the decline continues.

If you can't explain the way a race is won within 30 seconds or less, and the costs to compete are out of control expensive, then the demise of soaring is the fault of your own.

You are now entering the final glide for Soaring as we know it.

[Tango Eight]

Wrong account :-). At least I think so. Sort of hard to keep track!

-Evan / T8

[Papa3]

Chris,

It would be a huge mistake to put your energy into this pursuit. Here's a simple data point. Last year's US Club Class Nationals was held at Wurtsboro. Wurtsboro is an easy one day drive from the major population centers of the Northeast (Washington, Philadelphia, New York, Boston etc.) There are literally hundreds of true Club Class gliders based in this area and dozens of soaring Clubs (the "Club" in "Club Class"). There are thousands of licensed glider pilots as well.

Exactly three Club-Owned gliders showed up. Three.

Why the focus on individual ownership? The inventory/fleet is already here. It's the qualified/interested pilots who are missing along with the support from Clubs and/or FBOs.

Data point number two. Our club (which sent 2 of the 3 Club gliders to Wurtsboro) has an LS4 and LS3 which we are very liberal with in terms of letting folks bring them to contests. We have over 120 members. Only 9 members flew those 2 gliders all of last year. 4 pilots accounted for 85% of the flying in those ships. Just down the road is an even bigger club which has a large, all-glass fleet including 2 true Club Class racers. They sent exactly zero competitors.

Erik Mann (P3)
ASG-29 and sometimes LS4 driver

[Bruce Hoult]

So, according to http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php, that $19500 in 1975 would be $90,711 now. $19500 in 1976 would be $84827 now.

Which is right about what the HpH 304 costs now.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:16:17 AM UTC+3, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> That $19,500 is not in today's dollars, so the figure is not as meaningful. Wasn't the ASW-19 a contemporary of the LS-4, a better performing glider. And didn't they try to produce the LS-4, as a club class glider with both fixed gear or with retractable gear after LS went BK? That project failed with a more popular glider than the ASW-19. As pointed out the HPH 304 is along the line of this thread but none have been ordered since 2014.

Non have been ordered in the USA, or none world-wide?

[Andy Blackburn]

Material cost by the pound. Labor costs by the hour. Hours are somewhat proportional to wetted area which correlates to pounds - plus mostly fixed labor hours to make all the innards. Add some overhead and a little profit for the OEM and distributor and there's your retail price.

Modern material like carbon fiber cost more per pound than plain old GRP, but you can make gliders smaller and lighter with it so if you do it right the cost goes down. Build them in a lower labor cost country with some manufacturing skills and that's about as cheap as it's gonna get. For the most part you don't save money by using an old airfoil. Sure, you can use cheaper materials if you can make the thicker wing out of GRP instead of carbon, but the whole thing gets heavier and more expensive as a result so it's a losing game these days with modern materials, modern airfoils and CFD design tools.

Take advantage of all of that and you pretty much get the GP 11 out of Poland. 39:1 max L/D and a 260 lb empty weight. Ask Tim McAllister to price you one. They make bigger ones too, but more $$.

As someone posted, building a 1980s standard-class glider today will cost about what a modern 15-meter glider costs less the flaps, which add less than $10,000 - and part of the reason why no one is building standard class gliders anymore. The old days weren't cheaper by design, they were cheaper by compounded inflation. If I take the LS-4 I bought new in 1980 for $26,000 and apply the CPI for the intervening 37 years, I end up at more than $80,000.

The only way to get a new glider for much less is to build a time machine. You can skip 40 years of inflation. Hope you saved some D-Marks though.

Andy
9B

[Martin Gregorie]

Does the HPH 304 S|SJ|E Shark count? If so, then they are selling. A
304SJ arrived on our club field in the UK last year and another two are
due this year of which, IIRC, one is an E (FES) version.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

Again, no one on here will discuss these questions:

How much was a PW-5 brand new?

What would that be worth in today's dollars with inflation?


The answer alone removes all doubt that affordable sailplanes CAN be made!

[wilburwri...@gmail.com]

[Craig Reinholt]

Sean Spicer.... is it really you?

[gregg...@gmail.com]

What's a used PW-5 worth and how fast do they sell? Hint there is one on W&W for 18.5K listed for over a year. You are barking up the wrong tree.

[Papa3]

If this is so incredibly important to you, why wouldn't you just do the research yourself. The data is there in the SSA Magazine archive. In today's dollars, the answer is "nowhere near $25,000". What's more telling is that the manufacturing of the PW-5 stopped and started at least twice under different ownership, going out of business each time. And, nobody took up the "offer" of license manufacturing which was part of the deal in the first place.

[gregg...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 9:24:16 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> If this is so incredibly important to you, why wouldn't you just do the research yourself. The data is there in the SSA Magazine archive. In today's dollars, the answer is "nowhere near $25,000". What's more telling is that the manufacturing of the PW-5 stopped and started at least twice under different ownership, going out of business each time. And, nobody took up the "offer" of license manufacturing which was part of the deal in the first place.

Darn you, you got me to go look. But it was worth it. For a laugh go read the University of Tennessee marketing study on the PW-5 in Soaring magazine December 1995 page 8.

[Dan Marotta]

Well, let's just say that the ASW-19, brand new in 1975 cost $25,000,
though I'm sure it was a bit more. Adjusting for inflation, that's
$116,296.72 in today's dollars ($30K inflates to $139,556.07).

Guess that sucks the wind out of your sails, huh, Wilbur? A similar
lookup could just as easily be done for the first production year of the
PW-5.

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

Since someone said the price was $19,500, that's $88,294.77 in today's
dollars. Still a bunch. For that money you could get at least a used
ASW-27 so why rebuild a '19?

[Dan Marotta]

No, not Spicer, more like Obama. More bullshit per minute.

Get over it. Hillary lost. It's over. Grow up. Accept that it's our
political process and this is a soaring group not a political group.

Can you get that?

--
Dan, 5J

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Read Andy Blackburn's post! He presented it in terms even someone with more dreams and desire than economics education should be able to understand. Not intending to be flippant.

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:50:01 PM UTC-7, wilburwri...@gmail.com wrote:

[twofiv...@gmail.com]

This thread is really bad, but yet I keep reading it. Please! Someone stop me.

[twofiv...@gmail.com]

A literary dumpster fire, so to speak.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 3:50:01 AM UTC+3, wilburwri...@gmail.com wrote:
> Again, no one on here will discuss these questions:
>
> How much was a PW-5 brand new?

Is it not a rhetorical question? I believe my club's two PW5s in 1994 or 1995 (which were somewhere in the first five or six serial numbers) cost NZ$25000, or about US$15000.

> What would that be worth in today's dollars with inflation?

That's US$24000 now, based on US inflation.

I suspect other factors such as the cost of living in Poland might be more relevant -- that looks to me more like a factor of 3.5 since the mid 90s, which would make a PW5 cost $52500 now.

[Ben Coleman]

I was surprised to find that a new Perkoz is not far off the cost of a new Duo. The landscape has changed a lot since our club bought its Puchacz (and Junior and Jantar).

Cheers Ben