Why no U.S. made gliders ?
Ronald Viegelahn
I'm new to soaring, and I'm schedualed to begin lessons this saturday.
After reading up on this on the net here, I have noticed that most of
the planes come from germany. Why are there no U.S. manufactured
planes on the market ?
Thanks
LarSwan
>the planes come from germany. Why are there no U.S. manufactured
>planes on the market ?
We've got better weather...
;-)
Bob Kuykendall
> I'm new to soaring, and I'm schedualed to
> begin lessons this saturday.
>
> After reading up on this on the net here,
> I have noticed that most of the planes come
> from germany. Why are there no U.S. manufactured
> planes on the market ?
Hoo-boy, that question opens a big ol' can of worms. If I didn't know from previous exchanges that you are asking out of actual curiosity, I'd suspect that this is a troll. But you're legit, and so's the question, so here my take on it:
Cheap shot #1: Litigous America - One stock answer is that nobody can afford to manufacture gliders in the US because they're afraid of getting sued. Well, there's a grain of truth to this assertion, but it's more honored in the breach than in the observance. Manufacturing gliders is such a low-profit venture that if you did sue, you'd get very little for your trouble.
Also, the semi-dangerous nature of soaring is such that court cases can be rather hard to win. Imagine the defence: 'So, your husband's aircraft had no engine, and yet he still voluntary chose to fly it, isn't that correct?'
Cheap shot #2: Lazy Americans - The next most popular stock answer is that it costs too much to hire Americans to make gliders. This one is truer than the first, but can be easily refuted. Given a factory located away from major metropolitan areas, and adequate production run rates, the numbers show that it is only a few percent more expensive to manufacture composite structures in the US than in Germany. We're way behind Lithuania and Asian countries, but we're in the running.
Cheap shot #3: No Know How - Cheap shot number three is that America doesn't have the technology to manufacture complex composite structures. Again, there's a grain of truth to this. But really, that's like saying that the inventor of ice died and took the recipe with him. If we want to do it, we can figure it out and get cracking.
My favorite reason, and the one that I think is probably the closest to being any sort of universal truth, is this: The United States is literally a soaring backwater. Soaring here is like Nascar in Germany, like WWF in Italy, or like bullfighting in Japan.
Consider the numbers: There are about 5000 gliders and sailplanes in the US. Further, imports into the US accounts for no more than 15% of world glider shipments.
Contrast that to Germany, where there are about 15000 sailplanes. That's three times as many gliders, and they're packed into a country the size of Oregon plus Washington.
Soaring just isn't part of the national consciousness here, not anything like what it is in Germany. So we don't have the Akafliegs here, or the factories, or the like-minded people. And that's just sort of the way it is.
I'm reminded of an exchange from one of the Muppet Movies:
Kermit: Everybody has a dream, What's yours, Gonzo?
Gonzo: I wan't to go to Bombay and become a great movie star.
Fozzie: Bombay? You don't go to Bombay to be a star! You go to Hollywood!
Gonzo: Yeah, but only if you want to do it the easy way.
<Sigh>
Bob 'Akaflieg Envy' K.
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: 47.81.103.11
==============================================================
Liam Finley
At 18:50 02 August 2001, Ronald Viegelahn wrote:
>
> I'm new to soaring, and I'm schedualed to begin lessons this saturday.
>
> After reading up on this on the net here, I have noticed that most of
>the planes come from germany. Why are there no U.S. manufactured
>planes on the market ?
>
> Thanks
>
> r...@etcheshop.Berkeley.EDU
>
>
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: gimme.west.saic.com
==============================================================
Lennie the Lurker
<REMOVE_TO_RE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Actually there were some good gliders made in the US up until around the late 60's. It was around then that a law was passed in the U.S. which was meant to ban LSD. As the result of an unfortunate typographical error, the actual law passed banned 'L/D', and consequently all glider manufacturers were shut down with the exception of the Schweizers, whose gliders were found to posess such minute trace amounts of L/D that they were deemed harmless.
>
>
Methinks Liam, that perhaps you should pass on german brainrot found
in brown bottles once or twice.
But then, we do have to make some exceptions for the krauts, don't we?
Lennie the Lurker
Public Relations Officer
Whack-A-Loon Ink.
Makers and Purveyors of fine Loon Mallets
B Lacovara
As a representative of the U.S. composites industry I'd like to take exception
to several of your statements:
<<<Cheap shot #2: Lazy Americans - The next most popular stock answer is that
it costs too much to hire Americans to make gliders. This one is truer than the
first, but can be easily refuted. Given a factory located away from major
metropolitan areas, and adequate production run rates, the numbers show that it
is only a few percent more expensive to manufacture composite structures in the
US than in Germany. We're way behind Lithuania and Asian countries, but we're
in the running.>>>
There are not many countries in the world with higher labor costs than Germany.
We can manufacture composites structures at considerably less expense in the
U.S. We cannot match the labor costs of Lithuania or Poland, but we can offset
the labor with better manufacturing technology.
<<<Cheap shot #3: No Know How - Cheap shot number three is that America doesn't
have the technology to manufacture complex composite structures. Again, there's
a grain of truth to this. But really, that's like saying that the inventor of
ice died and took the recipe with him. If we want to do it, we can figure it
out and get cracking.>>>
Not even remotely true - the U.S. is clearly the world leader in composites
development. We have better materials and more technical know-how in composites
than any other country.
The reason we are not building gliders in the U.S. is complex, but certainly
has nothing to do with a lack of composites technology.
Bob Lacovara
Technical Director
Composites Fabricators Association
Segelflug1
> I'm new to soaring, and I'm schedualed to begin lessons this saturday.
>
> After reading up on this on the net here, I have noticed that most of
> the planes come from germany. Why are there no U.S. manufactured
> planes on the market ?
I would like to naively answer this question with both some basic
economic principals and with an observation that makes no claim to
statistical significance. Clearly there does not seem to be the
demand in the US soaring "market" that there is in Germany/ Europe,
hence the lack of native supply. This simple equation has clear
implications on the cost and economic efficiencies in production etc.
etc. etc. etc. As such it seems to me all stems from this central
point, how many people in the US will buy a new US made glider? This
is clearly a point of market and economics.
Now the question of WHY there are so few people is yet another
complicated issue that has been addressed in this forum ad infinitum.
But allow me my observation - in Europe, and Germany in particular,
getting young people involved is a key objective of the soaring
culture. Once sufficient people are introduced to the sport (at a
subsidy born by the more senior members of the club or organization)
then some will clearly stay in the sport and a market is created for
new and used gliders. This is clearly the objective of the "Young
Eagles" program sponsored by the EAA.
It is also clear to me that in Germany, and in Europe proper, there
seems to be a bit more loyalty in buying home grown products (even if
more expensive) then foreign made. This bit of cultural/economic
focus is ultimately important. One only has to drive the roads of
Germany and observe the proportion of German to non-German cars on the
road; this goes for Gliders, radios, dishwashers, etc. etc. etc. To
paraphrase a movie quote "If you build it, there may not be enough of
them to buy it". Simple answer to an difficult question.
Robert Ehrlich
> ...
> It is also clear to me that in Germany, and in Europe proper, there
> seems to be a bit more loyalty in buying home grown products (even if
> more expensive) then foreign made. This bit of cultural/economic
> focus is ultimately important. One only has to drive the roads of
> Germany and observe the proportion of German to non-German cars on the
> road; this goes for Gliders, radios, dishwashers, etc. etc. etc.
I don't think this bit of cultural/economic focus is more developped in
Germany than in USA. See all previous threads advocating the Schweitzers.
People in Germany use German gliders, cars, radios, dishwashers because
among the best in the world are built in Germany. They probably nevertheless
use computers made in USA or Taiwan, most of their light aircraft probably
use Lycoming engines, etc. This is the economic law of specialization. Once
some producer or group of producer has taken a significant advance over its
competitors it is almost impossible for these competitors to cope with this
or even to survive, unless they have a new product based on a new concept and
they can develop it sufficiently fast before the leader(s) steps also in the
new niche. And in the domain of aviation, the lenghty process of certification
will not help to this. This is probably why a lot of recent developpment in
this field is rather made in ultra light aircrfts.
Bob Kuykendall
> We can manufacture composites structures at
> considerably less expense in the U.S.
I'm sure that you're right - we can. But at production run rates
commensurate with sailplane demand, it can be hard to arrange.
[about cheap shot #3]
> Not even remotely true - the U.S. is clearly the
> world leader in composites development. We have
> better materials and more technical know-how in
> composites than any other country.
Oops - my bad. I meant to state the "conventional wisdom" cheap shot,
and then refute it.
Lennie the Lurker
<Robert....@inria.fr> wrote:
>People in Germany use German gliders, cars, radios, dishwashers because
>among the best in the world are built in Germany.
None of them one iota better than those made anywhere else in the
world. German engineering is "fiddly" at best, meaning when it works,
it is a joy to behold, but nothing compared to the nightmare when it
doesn't work. Which is about 50% of the time.
The US market for gliders consists mostly of high income people, with
a very definate conservative mindset. (Set in concrete, usually)
Anything that would appeal to the mass market, which means it would
have to be designed for mass production and a medium range of
performance, would NOT be accepted by this market. Then, in
advertising, you don't ask the average person what he thinks of the
product, you want a "big name", and big names always have big mouths.
The mass market being where the US has always done the best, for
gliders, doesn't exist. Even if someone was to produce a successful
design, it would have to satisfy those that would never buy one, or
face the barrage of badmouth that they would deliver. Even if the
market was there, and I don't believe it is, or someone would be
filling it, it would not exist long before it was killed from within,
by the very people that depend on it to keep them going. Without the
potential for production numbers, the price of manufacture can't be
kept down, and without the price held down, the market isn't there.
LarSwan
dominated the heavy aircraft market for the last 40 years. That, in basic
marketing theory and/or economist comparative advantage theory, leaves only
small niches for other countries to dominate...and in this case bless Germany
(and a few others) for doing so.
It's that we in the US are too successful elsewhere.
Ugh?
LT
Ian Strachan
<lar...@aol.com> writes
>Sometimes I wonder if it's best explained by the fact that the USA has
>dominated the heavy aircraft market for the last 40 years.
But see below
> That, in basic
>marketing theory and/or economist comparative advantage theory, leaves only
>small niches for other countries to dominate...and in this case bless Germany
>(and a few others) for doing so.
>
>It's that we in the US are too successful elsewhere.
Will the big B be "too successful" with the Sonic Cruiser, compared to
the more conventional Airbus A380 which fundamentally is just a larger
707 and therefore not difficult to develop ....
Whereas the Sonic Cruiser is a sort of cut-down Concorde, but I suspect
expensive to develop even on Boeing resources.
Quite ironic, really.
Is it true that Boeing HQ is going from the Seattle Slipway (where Bill
B built his first flying boats) to the Windy City ....
Is this a good move or a sign that Boeing commercial has lost dominance
in the company? With knock-on consequences for the Sonic Cruiser and
its commercial viability, well, development costs anyway. I suspect the
F-15 guys at St Louis with the "can-do" approach, very creditable if you
have the DoD behind your project. But if not ....
--
Ian Strachan
Lennie the Lurker
<I...@ukiws.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Will the big B be "too successful" with the Sonic Cruiser, compared to
>the more conventional Airbus A380 which fundamentally is just a larger
>707 and therefore not difficult to develop ....
Aren't most airliners today just knockoffs of the 707? Not too much
has changed since it first appeared.
>
>Whereas the Sonic Cruiser is a sort of cut-down Concorde, but I suspect
>expensive to develop even on Boeing resources.
Or maybe a cut down XB-70 Valkyrie? Can't forget that one Ian. In
which case, Boeing already has a lot of development that was put away
for a while and is now re emerging.
>
>Quite ironic, really.
>
More ironic, like most people here, I would love nothing better than
to see one of the majors develop and put into production the
"Chevrolet of gliders", meaning modest price, good performance, and
ready availability. The ironic part is that there isn't enough market
to support it. The other part is that most, if not all, US companies
have adopted the idea that it's better to build limited numbers at a
high profit per unit than large numbers at limited profit per unit.
AFAIK, none of the majors are in business for charity.
LarSwan
My look is we have a mature heavy aircraft aviation market where being the low
cost producer (temporaily) is now more important than any new engineering leaps
(though note this stance is always wrong over the long term). Success at this
point in the product lifecycle comes to those who drive cost and market best.
An economic downturn will only bring this into brutal light (and government
bailouts).
May the brightest engineering minds bring the most suitable products to the
market for all to enjoy (because commodity products are boring!).
I can not predict the future of these new huge expensive efforts but wish
everyone's stock prices well.
Banker not engineer,
LT
Chad Moore
> a very definate conservative mindset. (Set in concrete, usually)
> Anything that would appeal to the mass market, which means it would
> have to be designed for mass production and a medium range of
> performance, would NOT be accepted by this market. Then, in
> advertising, you don't ask the average person what he thinks of the
> product, you want a "big name", and big names always have big mouths.
> The mass market being where the US has always done the best, for
> gliders, doesn't exist. Even if someone was to produce a successful
> design, it would have to satisfy those that would never buy one, or
> face the barrage of badmouth that they would deliver. Even if the
> market was there, and I don't believe it is, or someone would be
> filling it, it would not exist long before it was killed from within,
> by the very people that depend on it to keep them going. Without the
> potential for production numbers, the price of manufacture can't be
> kept down, and without the price held down, the market isn't there.
Interesting analysis of the situation, but the market is definately there.
The Russia series of sailplanes is selling well, despite not being the
"choosen" one. The price is reasonable ($21,000- Montana), the performance
is modest (35:1), it is a capable little glider (I have about 4000 km of
XC flight this season), and it has a high fun factor. Yes, AviaStroitel is
not a household name, and there are the pilots who bad mouth anything that
costs 1/4 of their 15 meter glider, but I think there are many pilots of a
"liberal mindset" who will surprise you.
> More ironic, like most people here, I would love nothing better than
> to see one of the majors develop and put into production the
> "Chevrolet of gliders", meaning modest price, good performance, and
> ready availability. The ironic part is that there isn't enough market
> to support it.
There are currently 70 Russias in the USA, with about 20 selling per year.
This makes it one of the best selling gliders in America. We could sell
more if the Russians could make more. Too bad it isn't made in the USA.
Chad Moore
Russia #045
Lennie the Lurker
Moore) wrote:
>
>> More ironic, like most people here, I would love nothing better than
>> to see one of the majors develop and put into production the
>> "Chevrolet of gliders", meaning modest price, good performance, and
>> ready availability. The ironic part is that there isn't enough market
>> to support it.
>
>There are currently 70 Russias in the USA, with about 20 selling per year.
>This makes it one of the best selling gliders in America. We could sell
>more if the Russians could make more. Too bad it isn't made in the USA.
>
together several times, and I'm also quite impressed with it. No, I
haven't flown it, probably never will. (DOH, if it makes any
difference)
However, even at 50 per year, it still wouldn't be enough to allow the
specialized tooling to really allow mass production technique come
into play. The difference in price between even 100 and 500 of an
item is not small, but the price of each item would drop dramatically
as the quantity goes up. It doesn't take any less time to set up for
20 pieces than it would to set up for five hundred, and that time is
spread over the total number.
To make something simple, say, similar to a Woodstock, a CNC router
could cut the pieces fast enough and with accuracy that can't be held
in a home shop, would be a relatively simple matter. However, that
100000rpm CNC router isn't going to be cheap. Nor is the cost of
making the programs, doing the setups. The time involved in these
would make a production run of less than 100 too expensive to
consider. 1000 would be a different matter.
Mat at Marske Flying Wings
building sailplanes. For me there is a greater reward than money. The
satisfaction of having done something I am proud of, that I have
actually built and flown Marske Flying Wings.... that I have set my own
design and building goals is most important.
We have developed something new that works extremely well... those are
my rewards as I watch it develop.
That I give up a new car, a wife and fancy house and even supper out
every week is not a hardship! To be able to work in the shop, fly the
plane and develop new ideas is once in a lifetime opportunity. Yes and
it actually costs us to build sailplanes....but I would not give it up
for anything!
-mat
Mat Redsell CFIG <mar...@continuo.com>
Marske Flying Wings
3007 Harding Highway East,
Marion OH 43302.
ph 740 223-3550
Marske Flying wings <http://www.continuo.com/marske>
André Somers
says...
>
> I'm new to soaring, and I'm schedualed to begin lessons this saturday.
>
> After reading up on this on the net here, I have noticed that most of
> the planes come from germany. Why are there no U.S. manufactured
> planes on the market ?
>
from the onces allready given, may be this:
Between the First and the Second Word War, Germany was not allowed to
build aircraft, but it was allowed to build gliders. In order to be able
to train pilots, gliding became an important activity in Germany. Since
then, it has become part of the German culture.
I think the reason is mostly historical. On top of that, the European
market is much bigger than the American on when it comes to gliders, and
the Germans have a very good reputation. I think it will be hard to get
a significant marketshare for any new manufacturer.
André
--
Replies to my email are not appreciated unless explicitly asked for.
Bill Daniels
of engineering then it will fail.
A well engineered glider with demonstrably superior qualities will grab
market share no matter where is designed or built. Proving those qualities
in competition is essential for any new design.
Bill Daniels
"André Somers" <a.t.s...@student.utwente.nl> wrote in message
news:MPG.15d8bcc3e...@borft.student.utwente.nl...
> In article <9kc723$vmm$1...@cns.ME.Berkeley.EDU>, r...@cns.ME.Berkeley.EDU
Lennie the Lurker
<mar...@gte.net> wrote:
>I notice that most of the posting dwell on the monetary reward in
>building sailplanes. For me there is a greater reward than money. The
>satisfaction of having done something I am proud of, that I have
>actually built and flown Marske Flying Wings.... that I have set my own
>design and building goals is most important.
>We have developed something new that works extremely well... those are
>my rewards as I watch it develop.
>
>That I give up a new car, a wife and fancy house and even supper out
>every week is not a hardship! To be able to work in the shop, fly the
>plane and develop new ideas is once in a lifetime opportunity. Yes and
>it actually costs us to build sailplanes....but I would not give it up
>for anything!
>-mat
The same can be said for most phases of the hobby industry, Mat.
There are very few that are even moderate sized companies, and most
are "Mom and Pop" operations. Modern production methods are just
starting to enter into some areas, but with limited production numbers
the costs are still high. I've looked at some of the kits that are
available to the HO scale modelers, and while they are expensive, the
laser cut parts actually fit. I'm also aware that the kitter probably
had the laser cutting farmed out, as the demand for the kits isn't
high enough to justify the cost of the machine to make them.
But the elements of what it would take to make a successful design for
the market should be there, a reasonable chance of putting it together
in a reasonable time, and have it look like what it's supposed to look
like. With respect to a full size glider, there are some things that
I would be more comfortable having pre-built, the spar and the
attachment points coming to mind readily, but the precision that
should be available in the fit of the other parts should make assembly
a lot quicker. The problem then becomes a "circular argument",
without demand, there would be no sense making it, and until someone
actually produces something with a low enough price to create a
demand, the prices are going to remain high.
To break the circle, someone with enough resources to actually build
even 100 units, and be able to either sit on them until the market
developed, or to sell them at somewhat of a loss to develop the market
would be required. The only ones with this kind of excess are those
that are the least interested, and the Board of directors is a rather
hard nosed body. They insist on seeing profits not losses.
Lennie the Lurker
<wdan...@uswest.net> wrote:
>Hard, but not impossible. If the manufacturer relies on marketing instead
>of engineering then it will fail.
And if he ignores marketing completely, he can go bankrupt while
sitting on the worlds best glider.
>
>A well engineered glider with demonstrably superior qualities will grab
>market share no matter where is designed or built. Proving those qualities
>in competition is essential for any new design.
A glider proven in competition is like an Indy race car. It proves
that with excess amounts of money, and huge crews, with tons of backup
material, anything is possible. The PW-5 vs Russia AC-4 is one good
example. The PW won the competition, but it's still an ugly piece of
crap that few want. Make something strictly for the sport flyer,
without regard to competition, that the average Joe can identify with,
and it would sell, regardless of the badmouth that the competitors
would deliver.
Ian Strachan
<mar...@gte.net> writes
>I notice that most of the posting dwell on the monetary reward in
>building sailplanes. For me there is a greater reward than money.
Absolutely, look at the guy in Germany who bought up Glaser-Dirks
because (as I understand it) the company was about to go into
liquidation and he had a DG glider which he liked, and wished to
continue to get spares! That's dedication to our beloved sport, in my
opinion, and I hope that he is now turning in a profit from his
investment.
In terms of manufacturing gliders, you have to have cost-effective
designs of sufficient performance to make your dedication worthwhile.
Unless you are like one of those rich but atonal singers who have been
known to hire Carnegie Hall (Carnegie was a Scotsman, I seem to
remember) and sing off-key to a less-than-adoring public.
As you will know from other postings of mine, my view of the gliding
equivalent of singing off-key is trying to produce low performance
gliders in this new century when the competition from other very good
gliders is fierce. Such as anything under 15 metre span unless it's for
aerobatics and not really for cross-country soaring.
Gliding is not like sail boating. A low performance yacht may be a good
training vehicle, but will not sink (often, anyway). A low performance
glider will land out all too often (with the cows, as our French friends
have it), if you are using it to do what I believe that our sport is all
about, which is cross-country soaring that stretches your personal
abilities.
Therefore, in our sport, a minimum level of performance is "of the
essence" if we are to practise it. That is, soaring cross-country and
getting back to base rather than just local flying or landing out.
Translate that into designs, cost, production and world sales ....
Our German friends seem to have got it pretty well right but as for the
Brits, French, Russians, oh, and have I forgotten the only super power
on the other side of the pond ....
PS. I can't help just mentioning that my local comp at downtown Lasham,
UK, just finished with 7 competition days out of 9 and flew 95 gliders
in three task groups. Not bad in the allegedly unsoarable UK? By the
way, all the gliders flying in the comp were manufactured in Germany
except a Kestrel (UK) and a Pilatus (Switzerland).
--
Ian Strachan
Brad Hill
Some of us enjoy our 35:1 machines, which perform just fine.
Too bad your snobbish rich guy attitude had to be directed
towards those of us who do what we can to
afford the machines we fly.
Brad
199RK
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: blv-proxy-04.boeing.com
==============================================================
Lennie the Lurker
<I...@ukiws.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>As you will know from other postings of mine, my view of the gliding
>equivalent of singing off-key is trying to produce low performance
>gliders in this new century when the competition from other very good
>gliders is fierce. Such as anything under 15 metre span unless it's for
>aerobatics and not really for cross-country soaring.
So you are saying that it is better to produce high performance
glider at ridiculous cost for the few that could afford them than to
try to produce an entry level machine for the rest of us? Sorta
elitist there.
>
> if you are using it to do what I believe
Right here is the focus of the entire paragraph. I doubt that you
speak for more than 2% of the glider community, if that many. I have
found that this group is representative of the smallest number of
glider guiders, but is also very vocal, and very restricted in their
interests.
> that our sport is all
>about, which is cross-country soaring that stretches your personal
>abilities.
Again, one mans opinion, not necessarily the majority.
>
> That is, soaring cross-country and
>getting back to base rather than just local flying or landing out.
I'm beginning to think there's a theme here, somewhere.
>
>Translate that into designs, cost, production and world sales ....
>
World sales also translates into having to comply with wildly
differing regulations and does nothing but drive cost up. This is why
I advocate making one that complies with our regulations, and doesn't
even take other countries into consideration.
No Ian, sucking butt with the "top end" of the scale and ignoring the
entry level is the surest way of seeing any activity join the
dinosaurs. Which is just exactly what is happening, and the
extinction is only a matter of time.
Just as a matter of pounding sand up anal orfices, I have determined
that I'm getting tired of watching others having fun with my 1-26,
while I stand on the ground. Therefore, with the help of Gods own
instructor, I hope to be back in my own plane before the month is out.
The 1-26 will not be the first step, but the only one. To any who
disagree with my opinion, you are entitled to your own, but bear in
mind that you would need 99.8%of the matter in the universe along with
it to have any effect on the balance.
Brad Hill
The Russia AC4 kit fits your description of the type
of kit you would build. This was the first kit aircraft
I had ever built and it was a joy.
I must say I was very dissapointed that kit sales were
poor......I can only hope that it was
due to my lack of business savvy than to the kit itself.
I thought the people were screaming for a sailplane kit, when it was provided, they decided they wanted something else...
I'm not sure they ever knew what they really wanted!
I know what I wanted......and I'm having great fun flying it.
Brad
199RK
>Lennie the Lurker
>Public Relations Officer
>Whack-A-Loon Ink.
>Makers and Purveyors of fine Loon Mallets
>
==============================================================
Walt Konecny
Lennie the Lurker <Lennie@LurkersLair> wrote in message
news:3b6ed6cc...@news.mwci.net...
lots of typical dribble snipped...
> Just as a matter of pounding sand up anal orfices, I have determined
> that I'm getting tired of watching others having fun with my 1-26,
> while I stand on the ground. Therefore, with the help of Gods own
> instructor, I hope to be back in my own plane before the month is out.
Amazing how your system is able to withstand all these 180s at full speed.
Or did the FDA just approve new medication? Or was your troll starving?
wk
Ian Strachan
>On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:38:40 +0100, Ian Strachan
><I...@ukiws.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>As you will know from other postings of mine, my view of the gliding
>>equivalent of singing off-key is trying to produce low performance
>>gliders in this new century when the competition from other very good
>>gliders is fierce. Such as anything under 15 metre span unless it's for
>>aerobatics and not really for cross-country soaring.
>
>So you are saying that it is better to produce high performance
>glider at ridiculous cost for the few that could afford them than to
>try to produce an entry level machine for the rest of us? Sorta
>elitist there.
I cannot help being reeled in by your comment, perhaps I should keep
quiet but over here I am not renowned for that!
Dear Lurker, it is very simple, many of us in the world gliding
community believe that 15 metre span is the minimum for cost-effective
exploitation of our sport. I fail to see why that is "elitist". Just
cost-effective. You need a minimum performance to soar effectively and
continuously without landing out in some paddock. Gliding is about
soaring, not consorting with the cows on their own level. 15m gliders
are not expensive, I leave that to Hans-Werner Grosse with his 30m (or
more) ETA or whatever it is! Mind you, HWG is a lovely guy to talk to,
you might enjoy it too despite his predilection for large expensive
gliders. It takes all sorts ....
>> if you are using it to do what I believe
>
>Right here is the focus of the entire paragraph. I doubt that you
>speak for more than 2% of the glider community, if that many.
This side of the pond most glider pilots would agree with me on the need
to have performance to avoid field landings wherever possible. And,
voting with their wallets, not owning gliders of under 15m span.
Yourself, you enjoy failing to soar and landing in a paddock? In my
experience, farmer's daughters do not provide the services to glider
pilots that once they may have done ....
>I have
>found that this group is representative of the smallest number of
>glider guiders, but is also very vocal, and very restricted in their
>interests.
My interest is soaring, what's yours?
>> that our sport is all
>>about, which is cross-country soaring that stretches your personal
>>abilities.
>
>Again, one mans opinion, not necessarily the majority.
True, my opinion. But that is what my type of soaring is about since I
became a fanatic in the 1950s. We are all fanatics, I guess, but I
would rather be in the air flying cross country than on the ground of
just local soaring which gets boring after a while. Simple as that.
>> That is, soaring cross-country and
>>getting back to base rather than just local flying or landing out.
>
>I'm beginning to think there's a theme here, somewhere.
You are eventually beginning to catch on!
>>Translate that into designs, cost, production and world sales ....
>>
>World sales also translates into having to comply with wildly
>differing regulations and does nothing but drive cost up. This is why
>I advocate making one that complies with our regulations, and doesn't
>even take other countries into consideration.
>
>No Ian, sucking butt with the "top end" of the scale
The thousands of 15 metre gliders in the world are hardly the
millionaire "top end" as you put it.
>and ignoring the
>entry level
15 metre solo gliders to the FAI 15m and Standard Classes ARE the entry
level for most nations involved in soaring sport.
>is the surest way of seeing any activity join the
>dinosaurs. Which is just exactly what is happening, and the
>extinction is only a matter of time.
You are good at standing logic on its head. The dinosaurs died out
because they could not cope with evolution (progress, performance,
better structure, etc). Is there possibly a parallel with the ex-Brit,
-US, and -French glider manufacturers?
--
Ian Strachan
Non-loon mallet purveyor, but soaring enthusiast
By the way, Lennie, I like your company name, is it listed on NASDAQ ?
Lennie the Lurker
<REMOVE_TO_RE...@gte.net> wrote:
>Richard,
>
>The Russia AC4 kit fits your description of the type
>of kit you would build. This was the first kit aircraft
>I had ever built and it was a joy.
I followed that pretty close, Brad. I had wondered how it would go
over, and can think that the only reason it didn't is that the ready
to fly ship is too close to it in price.
>
I was with Del (DOH) when he first looked at his AC-4b, and was
impressed with it then, even moreso when another pilot flew it so he
could give Del something to work on during his first flight. It's
small, it's fast, and it has a roll rate that is as good as most acro
ships. Del tells me that it's very easy to fly, and seems to have no
bad habits. We're still coming to terms with the assembly, but even
so, it only takes about ten minutes to rig it.
When it comes to a kit, the fellows that are building them aren't
doing it because they want a plane, they want to build one. This may
change, if something "rock bottom" in price and medium performance was
put on the market, but the market would have to exist before anyone
would invest in the tooling and materials to make a batch of kits.
This would pretty much rule out glass, but with a bunch of old duffers
like myself, might not be a factor. The main reason is that I know
what I can do in wood and metal, but glass is an unknown for me.
But, without the kits, there's no market, and without the market,
there won't be any kits. Unless someone with a large amount of spare
cash decides to break the cycle.
Lennie the Lurker
<wkon...@uswest.net> wrote:
Lots of things have happened diskonnectny. One of them being that I
think, know, I know what's good for me and what I want better than you
ever will, as you have no power of understanding. period. Another
is that just because I operate out of your pidgeon hole, I'll be
damned if I'll let any idiot like you ruin it for me. If this
irritates you, you're 1500 miles away, stay there. You won't be
missed.
>
>Amazing how your system is able to withstand all these 180s at full speed.
>Or did the FDA just approve new medication? Or was your troll starving?
>
>wk
>
>
Lennie the Lurker
Lennie the Lurker
<I...@ukiws.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I cannot help being reeled in by your comment, perhaps I should keep
>quiet but over here I am not renowned for that!
Nor am I renowned for that anywhere.
>
>Dear Lurker, it is very simple, many of us in the world gliding
>community believe that 15 metre span is the minimum for cost-effective
>exploitation of our sport. I fail to see why that is "elitist".
The header being "US made", you seem to be saying that we shouldn't
even try to develop something for the mass market, in an attempt to
draw more in to the hobby. I'm sorry, but another example is Leica
cameras, of which Kodak will produce more cameras in one day than
Leitz will in one year. Our strength has always been and always will
be, in producing a useable product at a reasonable price, not high
tech extravagances.
> Gliding is about
>soaring, not consorting with the cows on their own level.
And you talk like that was the only, inevitable, result of flying
something less than 15 meters. Not so. Never was.
> 15m gliders
>are not expensive,
Expensive is a relative term. What is expensive for me may well be
something you wouldn't even consider.
I leave that to Hans-Werner Grosse with his 30m (or
HWG may indeed be a "lovely guy to talk to", until he found something
about my grandfathers past, at which time I would cease to exist.
Lovely people, these germans. The term "hardheaded kraut" is very
justifiably applied.
>
>Yourself, you enjoy failing to soar and landing in a paddock? In my
>experience, farmer's daughters do not provide the services to glider
>pilots that once they may have done ....
I like to think that I have enough sense to understand that if the
"house thermal" isn't working, don't go so far that you can't get
back.
>
>My interest is soaring, what's yours?
Aircraft, limnology, model railroading, metalworking, the study of
algae, astronomy. Add on antique cameras, microscopes, 25 years in
amateur radio, I'm sure there are some I forgot, but that should be
enough.
>
>. We are all fanatics, I guess, but I
>would rather be in the air flying cross country than on the ground of
>just local soaring which gets boring after a while. Simple as that.
Boredom is a state of mind, not a physical location.
>
>>I'm beginning to think there's a theme here, somewhere.
>
>You are eventually beginning to catch on!
You're trying to tell me that there is only one way to fly, and one
size of plane that's worthy, and follow your example or die.
BS!
>
>The thousands of 15 metre gliders in the world are hardly the
>millionaire "top end" as you put it.
And everyone of the "thousands" are beyond the reach of what I'm
willing to spend.
>
>>and ignoring the
>>entry level
>
>15 metre solo gliders to the FAI 15m and Standard Classes ARE the entry
>level for most nations involved in soaring sport.
By entry level, I mean something for the people that want to try it,
but don't know if they will stay with it or not. Meaning the vast
majority of people.
>
>You are good at standing logic on its head. The dinosaurs died out
>because they could not cope with evolution (progress, performance,
>better structure, etc).
Not really up on your paleontology either, eh? Try a net search on
"Chixulub" and see what turns up.
>By the way, Lennie, I like your company name, is it listed on NASDAQ ?
>
I hope not. If it is, I'm only 5000 loon mallets behind.
Robertmudd1u
Lurker) writes:
>World sales also translates into having to comply with wildly
>differing regulations and does nothing but drive cost up. This is why
>I advocate making one that complies with our regulations, and doesn't
>even take other countries into consideration.
Richard,
I had given up responding to your posts as their shortcomings are fairly
obvious. However I can't let this one go without comment as it so well
demonstrates your ignorance of the subject on which you write.
The European based JAR-22 is the internationally recognized standard for
certifying gliders. The FAA accepts it and issued an advisory circular in 1993
stating that. To certify a new glider design, in the U.S. in the
standard/utility category you will most likely use JAR-22 whether you like it
or not. It is the only standard the FAA has seen gliders certified to in a long
time.
It could be considered foolhardy to not use JAR-22, based as it is on recent
decades of actual glider design, building and service experience and is far
more up to date than FAR 21 or the Basic Glider Criteria Handbook. And if you
do not use the most current certifying standards your legal defense after the
first crash is going to be pretty thin. So designing a new glider automatically
puts it on the world stage by virtue of the standards used. There is nothing in
JAR-22 that is not already accepted by the gliding public in the U.S. anyway,
as that is the standard the majority of gliders in the U.S. are certified to.
Your usual response will be some off the wall rant that does nothing but
further expose your ignorance and attitude. Been self-testing those Loon
Mallets again?
Robert Mudd
Lennie the Lurker
wrote:
>
>
>Your usual response will be some off the wall rant that does nothing but
>further expose your ignorance and attitude.
The result of having to carry, as an inspector, a four inch thick
notebook with the different modifications needed to comply with the
laws of the different countries we shipped out units to. The units
intended for sale in the US were not a problem, they were the
standard. To comply with, say, france, there were modifications that
were NOT LEGAL in the US that had to be made. If a unit got shipped
that was not according to the export model, guess who's head would
have rolled? YOU can trust, YOU can say they're the same, I've been
burned for it. I don't trust, nor believe, any government of any
country, nor the regulatory bodies they have. Experience is a good
teacher, and doesn't care about diplomacy. I was taught that to trust
them is the sure sign of a complete fool.
John Morgan
"Lennie the Lurker" <Lennie@LurkersLair> wrote in message >
> speak for more than 2% of the glider community, if that many. I have
> found that this group is representative of the smallest number of
> glider guiders, but is also very vocal, and very restricted in their
> interests.
> Public Relations Officer
> Whack-A-Loon Ink.
> Makers and Purveyors of fine Loon Mallets
Lennie,
Do you speak for *any* glider pilots *anywhere*? No? Of course you speak for
yourself, but by your own admission you're no glider pilot nor do you wish
to become one . . . which is probably just as well, I suppose.
regards,
bumper
Defender of Innocent Loons Everywhere
S10-VT (elitist, foreign made motorglider w/ 23 meter span)
Bruce Hoult
<I...@ukiws.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> As you will know from other postings of mine, my view of the gliding
> equivalent of singing off-key is trying to produce low performance
> gliders in this new century when the competition from other very good
> gliders is fierce. Such as anything under 15 metre span unless it's for
> aerobatics and not really for cross-country soaring.
>
> Gliding is not like sail boating. A low performance yacht may be a good
> training vehicle, but will not sink (often, anyway). A low performance
> glider will land out all too often (with the cows, as our French friends
> have it), if you are using it to do what I believe that our sport is all
> about, which is cross-country soaring that stretches your personal
> abilities.
>
> Therefore, in our sport, a minimum level of performance is "of the
> essence" if we are to practise it. That is, soaring cross-country and
> getting back to base rather than just local flying or landing out.
While I agree with your general thrust, I haven't seen the stone tablet
from which you get the magic incantation of "15 metre span".
A lot of people here in NZ get in a lot of great cross country soaring
in gliders such as the K6 and now the PW-5. At one point I went to our
local club on every Wednesday through one winter and witnessed a certain
K6e driver who went off into the hills yonder every Wednesday even as
others declined to launch and sat on the ground. He was usually gone
for half the day and didn't very often land out.
I very much enjoy flying higher-performance gliders such as the Janus,
and do a lot of local soaring in one. But when it comes to a
competition or cross country where there is a good chance that you won't
get home I'd *far* rather be in the PW-5, and competing against others
flying the same aircraft type. Sure the performance is less, but then
it's the same for every one and the competition is hard fought and the
chance of expensive damage is far less. And it takes half the number of
people for any necessary retrieve...
Now, OK, the PW-5 is in a privileged position through having won a
design contest, and it may well be that some -- or several -- other low
cost glider out there is better than it. And indeed the Russia appears
to be selling quite well, in the USA at least, despite having been the
loser.
So if it's true that a 15m glider is that much better, and needn't be
that much more expensive than a PW-5, then where are the cheap new 15m
gliders? The only thing remotely fitting that description is a Czech
built update of an old Glasflugel design. Great, and I'm sure it's a
lovely glider -- I've certainly enjoyed flying Libelle's -- but last I
saw the price is nowhere near as low as the PW-5. As I recall it's
about US$20k for a new PW-5 but a 304CZ is more like $30k. That's a big
difference!
-- Bruce
Walt Konecny
Bruce Hoult <br...@hoult.org> wrote in message
news:bruce-1FFDD4....@news.akl.ihug.co.nz...
> So if it's true that a 15m glider is that much better, and needn't be
> that much more expensive than a PW-5, then where are the cheap new 15m
> gliders? The only thing remotely fitting that description is a Czech
> built update of an old Glasflugel design. Great, and I'm sure it's a
> lovely glider -- I've certainly enjoyed flying Libelle's -- but last I
> saw the price is nowhere near as low as the PW-5. As I recall it's
> about US$20k for a new PW-5 but a 304CZ is more like $30k. That's a big
> difference!
Then again, there is a big difference in performance between the two, plus
as a bonus, the CZ looks like a real glider. Matter of fact, it IS a real
glider.
wk
Bruce Hoult
<wkon...@uswest.net> wrote:
But what makes one a "real glider" and the other not? Where is this
magic line drawn, and why?
-- Bruce
Robert Ehrlich
> ...
> So if it's true that a 15m glider is that much better, and needn't be
> that much more expensive than a PW-5, then where are the cheap new 15m
> gliders? The only thing remotely fitting that description is a Czech
> built update of an old Glasflugel design. Great, and I'm sure it's a
> lovely glider -- I've certainly enjoyed flying Libelle's -- but last I
> saw the price is nowhere near as low as the PW-5. As I recall it's
> about US$20k for a new PW-5 but a 304CZ is more like $30k. That's a big
> difference!
>
The difference is much more related to the country where the glider is built
and the cost of manpower in this country than to the wing span. Remember until
its production was stopped, the price of a LAK-12 was also about $20k for a
20m glider with 47:1 L/D.
Jon Meyer
For the same money you could almost get a half share in an old LS6 (43:1 and high speed performance to die for), a quarter share in an LS8 or a whole ASW19 or Std Cirrus all to yourself.
Surely the entry level is the club class. The majority of the types that are available are cheaper than a PW5 and significantly better. These small gliders are definitely not cost effective - if you have any common sense you will get yourself a first generation racing glider instead.
Jon.
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: inktomi2-bre.server.ntl.com
==============================================================
Lennie the Lurker
<flyb...@castles.com> wrote:
>
>
>Do you speak for *any* glider pilots *anywhere*?
God, I hope not.
Liam Finley
>saw the price is nowhere near as low as the PW-5. As I recall it's
>about US$20k for a new PW-5 but a 304CZ is more like $30k. That's a big
>difference!
>
>
The standard class version of the 304 is now being offered for $25K. I'd say that's not a huge difference in price for a huge difference in performance.
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: gimme.west.saic.com
==============================================================
Bill Daniels
Further, I haven't seen convincing evidence that span alone is the
determining factor in manufacturing cost. In fact, increasing span might be
the least costly way of increasing performance if other factors like surface
finish are held constant.
Bill Daniels
"Jon Meyer" <REMOVE_TO_RE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9kov6i$5np97$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Bruce Hoult
<REMOVE_TO_RE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> An ugly glider, with an L/D of 32:1 (lets be realistic) and the high
> speed performance of a brick!
And?
Have you ever flown a PW-5? Have you ever flown one in a contest,
against other PW-5's and similar gliders such as the K6?
> For the same money you could almost get a half share in an old LS6 (43:1
> and high speed performance to die for), a quarter share in an LS8 or a
> whole ASW19 or Std Cirrus all to yourself.
>
> Surely the entry level is the club class. The majority of the types that
> are available are cheaper than a PW5 and significantly better. These
> small gliders are definitely not cost effective - if you have any common
> sense you will get yourself a first generation racing glider instead.
You seem to have forgotten the age difference.
Or, are you suggesting that a 1975 glider bought today has the same life
expectancy as a brand new PW-5?
-- Bruce
Bruce Hoult
<REMOVE_TO_RE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> At 09:10 07 August 2001, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> >saw the price is nowhere near as low as the PW-5. As I recall it's
> >about US$20k for a new PW-5 but a 304CZ is more like $30k. That's a big
> >difference!
> >
> >-- Bruce
> >
> The standard class version of the 304 is now being offered for $25K. I'd
> say that's not a huge difference in price for a huge difference in
> performance.
So I see (just found the web site).
They've sacrificed the lovely Glasflugel airbrakes to do it :-(
-- Bruce
Brad Hill
have you?
Talk to my pals who own an LS-1C and see what they've got to say about the Russia's performance. Seeing is believing,
not some prattle a *purist* spouts!
Cheers,
Brad
At 15:00 07 August 2001, Jon Meyer wrote:
>I must say that I am a purist, so I can't understand anyone making a glider intentionally that has lower than achievable performance. The most intriguing thing for me is why anyone would buy a PW5 or an ME7 or whatever. What do they cost new? About £12000 (~$20000)? And what do you get for your money? - An ugly glider, with an L/D of 32:1 (lets be realistic) and the high speed performance of a brick!
>
>For the same money you could almost get a half share in an old LS6 (43:1 and high speed performance to die for), a quarter share in an LS8 or a whole ASW19 or Std Cirrus all to yourself.
>
>Surely the entry level is the club class. The majority of the types that are available are cheaper than a PW5 and significantly better. These small gliders are definitely not cost effective - if you have any common sense you will get yourself a first generation racing glider instead.
>
>Jon.
>
>==============================================================
> Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
> Host: inktomi2-bre.server.ntl.com
>==============================================================
>
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: blv-proxy-04.boeing.com
==============================================================
Walt Konecny
> Or, are you suggesting that a 1975 glider bought today has the same life
> expectancy as a brand new PW-5?
>
> -- Bruce
Yes. Just like I expect a 1975 Mercedes bought today to have a better life
expectancy than a brand new Yugo or (please feel free to insert the name of
any of your favorite Eastern European fine line of motorcars here).
wk
Chris Davison
>Further, I haven't seen convincing evidence that span alone is the determining factor in manufacturing cost.
Bill, Jon, span has got nothing to do with cost. No one buys a PW5 or AC4 because it is the lowest cost route into gliding. And Jon a PW5 outfit will set you back a whole lot more than £12,000. These gliders are FUN, they make you smile and make you laugh when you fly further than the 'better performance' gliders. If you want a great performer for low money, buy a LAK 12, excellent value, or any number of first gen glass gliders, all far more LD for your £...if you want fun, enjoyment, satifaction and great value, then consider something other than a LD/£ debate.
Oh yes, and remember the great truth...'big span, small willy'
Chris!
In fact, increasing span might be
>the least costly way of increasing performance if other factors like surface
>finish are held constant.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
>'Jon Meyer' <REMOVE_TO_RE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9kov6i$5np97$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
>> I must say that I am a purist, so I can't understand anyone making a
>glider intentionally that has lower than achievable performance. The most
>intriguing thing for me is why anyone would buy a PW5 or an ME7 or whatever.
>What do they cost new? About £12000 (~$20000)? And what do you get for your
>money? - An ugly glider, with an L/D of 32:1 (lets be realistic) and the
>high speed performance of a brick!
>>
>> For the same money you could almost get a half share in an old LS6 (43:1
>and high speed performance to die for), a quarter share in an LS8 or a whole
>ASW19 or Std Cirrus all to yourself.
>>
>> Surely the entry level is the club class. The majority of the types that
>are available are cheaper than a PW5 and significantly better. These small
>gliders are definitely not cost effective - if you have any common sense you
>will get yourself a first generation racing glider instead.
>>
>> Jon.
>>
>> ==============================================================
>> Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
>> Host: inktomi2-bre.server.ntl.com
>> ==============================================================
>>
>
>
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: inktomi2-not.server.ntl.com
==============================================================
Liam Finley
>You seem to have forgotten the age difference.
>
>expectancy as a brand new PW-5?
>
>-- Bruce
This is an interesting point. What determines the life expectancy of a glider? Most glider airframes are certified to 6000 or so flight hours, which at normal rates of use for private owners would make them last about 100 years. The risk of a wreck would seem to be about the same for a new glider as for a 25 year old one. It would seem that the primary threat to the happy life of a glider is the risk of neglect and abandonment. Is this risk greater for an ASW 19 than a PW5?
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: gimme.west.saic.com
==============================================================
Tim Mara
it's coming into the USA you need to add the Roger release option to the
canopy for FAA certification (USA only as far as I know) that adds $555.00
Obviously this does not include shipping or trailer and radio/instruments
but still a complete and ready to fly 304C can be had for about $38,000
$40,000 NICELY equipped including a Cobra trailer, Radio, Instruments, and
including shipping to the USA.......
And......for this you will have a really excellent NEW sailplane. Hard to
beat!
Already over 50 304CZ's and 304C's have been sold since production started.
If you'd like to see more, please go to
http://www.wingsandwheels.com/glasflugel304.htm
tim
"Liam Finley" <REMOVE_TO_RE...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9kp8qt$5mgor$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Marc Ramsey
> It would seem that the primary threat to the happy life of a glider
> is the risk of neglect and abandonment. Is this risk greater for
> an ASW 19 than a PW5?
No, the primary threats to the happy life of a glider are the need
for a refinish (around $15000 for a standard class ship in the US),
and decrepit trailers (a decent used 15M trailer costs $3000 to
$5000 here).
--
_____________________________
Marc Ramsey, ma...@ranlog.com
http://www.ranlog.com/ramsey/
Ian Strachan
Hoult <br...@hoult.org> writes
>In article <9kov6i$5np97$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de>, Jon Meyer
><REMOVE_TO_RE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> An ugly glider, with an L/D of 32:1 (lets be realistic) and the high
>> speed performance of a brick!
The PW5 has been measured in test flights in the UK at 590 ft/min sink
when flying at 80 knots indicated. Not quite a brick but not good
either, for instance gap crossing in sinking air. Something to do with
the limitations of a small span?
>Have you ever flown a PW-5? Have you ever flown one in a contest,
>against other PW-5's and similar gliders such as the K6?
But the K-6 is a 1950s design, performance was very good for its time
but nowadays? Why build new gliders today to 1950s performance? To me,
"fun" is soaring and not landing aux vaches. For which a bit of L/D and
a reasonable min sink will always help. If money is a problem, form a
syndicate of like-minded soaring enthusiasts rather than try and buy a
low performance glider which may be all your own but limits the type of
soaring that you can do.
--
Ian Strachan
Bruce Hoult
<I...@ukiws.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <bruce-4C14CA....@news.akl.ihug.co.nz>, Bruce
> Hoult <br...@hoult.org> writes
> >In article <9kov6i$5np97$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de>, Jon Meyer
> ><REMOVE_TO_RE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> An ugly glider, with an L/D of 32:1 (lets be realistic) and the high
> >> speed performance of a brick!
>
> The PW5 has been measured in test flights in the UK at 590 ft/min sink
> when flying at 80 knots indicated. Not quite a brick but not good
> either, for instance gap crossing in sinking air. Something to do with
> the limitations of a small span?
I'd have said more like 500 fpm at 80 knots, but it doesn't matter much.
That's the difference between 200 feet per km and 240 feet per km and if
you're in *that* bad sink you're not going to care all that much.
But yeah, you don't use 80 knots in a PW-5 unless the needle is already
pointing well down. So? It performs much better just a little slower
and inter-thermal speeds of 60 - 70 knots are common on a reasonable day.
As I've said, the other glider I fly by choice is a Janus which of
course goes much better -- when I was converting to it I observed that
the claimed polar had it flying as flat with full -ve flaps at 120 knots
as the Blanik does at 50 knots.
But I still have just as much fun in a PW-5 as I do in the Janus.
>
> >Have you ever flown a PW-5? Have you ever flown one in a contest,
> >against other PW-5's and similar gliders such as the K6?
>
> But the K-6 is a 1950s design, performance was very good for its time
> but nowadays?
So? And the BMW motorcycle I ride has the same basic engine design as a
1935 model. It will still do highly illegal speeds and will comfortably
take me from one end of the country to the other. An old design is not
necessarily a bad design.
Hell, the Concorde design is probably as old as the Ka6e.
> Why build new gliders today to 1950s performance?
Because that turns out to be good enought to have fun in.
> To me, "fun" is soaring and not landing aux vaches. For which a bit
> of L/D and a reasonable min sink will always help. If money is a
> problem
Skill helps a lot more than either L/D or money. Not that I'm claiming
to have much of that, mind you, but it's others who claim the PW-5
doesn't perform well enough, or the Janus is too hard to fly, or
whatever...
> form a syndicate of like-minded soaring enthusiasts rather than
> try and buy a low performance glider which may be all your own
> but limits the type of soaring that you can do.
Taking that idea to it's reasonable (not absolute) limit is called a
"club".
-- Bruce
Bert Willing
in Europe - most people over here are more likely to put their money into an
older glider with decent performance rather than into something brandnew but
with a spririt from the sixties.
The cost is very much the same, and up to now, age of a glass ship has never
been an issue (at least from the point on when balsa was replaced by
Conticell :-)
--
---------------------
Bert Willing
Calif A21S
Come fly at La Motte du Caire in Southern France:
http://la-motte.decollage.org
Jon Meyer <REMOVE_TO_RE...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message :
9kov6i$5np97$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Bert Willing
Yes. There hasn't been a glass fiber glider yet that had to be grounded
because of age.
The typical early glass ship has around 3000h, and the most "experienced"
ones are at 12'000h.
If you're a private owner doing 200h/year, that difference leaves you
another 45 years of flying.
But anyway, it's your choice how to dump your money :-)
--
---------------------
Bert Willing
Calif A21S
Come fly at La Motte du Caire in Southern France:
http://la-motte.decollage.org
Bruce Hoult <br...@hoult.org> a écrit dans le message :
bruce-4C14CA....@news.akl.ihug.co.nz...
Bruce Bartley
PW5s are complete ready to fly for 25K or less.
Apples with apples, please....
Gliders are not defined by L/D alone, otherwise hang-glider and paraglider
pilots would
be a miserable lot... I wonder why "their" sport is growing, while "ours"
isnt??
Just my 2c worth on a winter's night...
Bruce Bartley
Jon Meyer
I cannot see how you can argue that they are 'more fun', and therefore worth more money. Dont get the impression that I am an old fogey who is desperate for span - I'm not. I am in fact only 19 years of age and just starting to really get my teeth into competition flying. For the money I had available to get a glider I could have bought a K6 or a 1/3rd share in an ASW20. Take a wild guess which one I went for. Until you have flown a glider with decent high speed performance you dont know what you are missing.
For one thing, there appears to me to be an obvious performance threshold where the style of x-country flying changes completely. K6 style cross countries involve a lot of turning (I know from experience), where as ASW20 x-countries involve a lot of dolphining and line of energy flying.
I will not preach about which is more fun - but I know which I prefer....
Jon.
p.s. I will also once again point out the ugliness factor - look at an asw20 next to a PW5 or ME7. Which one would you rather be seen in.
>Bill, Jon, span has got nothing to do with cost. No one buys a PW5 or AC4 because it is the lowest cost route into gliding. And Jon a PW5 outfit will set you back a whole lot more than £12,000. These gliders are FUN, they make you smile and make you laugh when you fly further than the 'better performance' gliders. If you want a great performer for low money, buy a LAK 12, excellent value, or any number of first gen glass gliders, all far more LD for your £...if you want fun, enjoyment, satifaction and great value, then consider something other than a LD/£ debate.
>
>Oh yes, and remember the great truth...'big span, small willy'
>
>Chris!
Billy Verreynne
> God, I hope not.
Er.. you called Me my son?
Wallace Berry
<t...@wingsandwheels.com> wrote:
> actually, at today's exchange rate the base price would be $25101.00, if
> it's coming into the USA you need to add the Roger release option to the
> canopy for FAA certification (USA only as far as I know) that adds $555.00
> Obviously this does not include shipping or trailer and radio/instruments
> but still a complete and ready to fly 304C can be had for about $38,000
> $40,000 NICELY equipped including a Cobra trailer, Radio, Instruments, and
> including shipping to the USA.......
> And......for this you will have a really excellent NEW sailplane. Hard to
> beat!
> Already over 50 304CZ's and 304C's have been sold since production started.
> If you'd like to see more, please go to
> http://www.wingsandwheels.com/glasflugel304.htm
> tim
>
>
>
One of my friends picked up his 304CZ at Charleston this weekend. What
a beautiful ship and an incredible bargain considering it came with a
new Cobra trailer, winglets, and the long wingtips.
By the way, anybody know who's new LS that was at the dock?
Chris Davison
At 10:10 08 August 2001, Jon Meyer wrote:
>Chris,
>I cannot see how you can argue that they are 'more fun', and therefore worth more money.
If you value fun in your life they are worth more, certainly to me.
>Dont get the impression that I am an old fogey who is desperate for span - I'm not. I am in fact only 19 years of age and just starting to really get my teeth into competition flying.
Difference number two - I am a recreational pilot who enjoys the odd XC flight and fun competitions, but most of all the views and sense of achievement when I see new bits of the UK. Seeing the Bristol channel come into view over the Cotswolds is high on my list of things I will remember for a long time.
> For the money I had available to get a glider I could have bought a K6 or a 1/3rd share in an ASW20. Take a wild guess which one I went for.
I guess we're not twins! - I would have gone for my own K6, mine to fly when I want. PW5's and AC4's are better gliders but cost more. Look at what you can aford and what you want and then decide.
>Until you have flown a glider with decent high speed performance you dont know what you are missing.
Been there, done that. Not enough time to enjoy the views, and when you get back you have a niggling feeling the glider did 90% of the flight and the pilot only 10% I would like a Duo though, to share the views with others.
>For one thing, there appears to me to be an obvious performance threshold where the style of x-country flying changes completely. K6 style cross countries involve a lot of turning (I know from experience), where as ASW20 x-countries involve a lot of dolphining and line of energy flying.
Agreed - though you can dolphin in mid handicap gliders too.
>I will not preach about which is more fun - but I know which I prefer....
Me too!
>
>Jon.
>p.s. I will also once again point out the ugliness factor - look at an asw20 next to a PW5 or ME7. Which one would you rather be seen in.
I rest my 'big span, small willy' case!
See you at cloudbase sometime! Chris
>
>
>>Bill, Jon, span has got nothing to do with cost. No one buys a PW5 or AC4 because it is the lowest cost route into gliding. And Jon a PW5 outfit will set you back a whole lot more than £12,000. These gliders are FUN, they make you smile and make you laugh when you fly further than the 'better performance' gliders. If you want a great performer for low money, buy a LAK 12, excellent value, or any number of first gen glass gliders, all far more LD for your £...if you want fun, enjoyment, satifaction and great value, then consider something other than a LD/£ debate.
>>
>>Oh yes, and remember the great truth...'big span, small willy'
>>
>>Chris!
>
>
>==============================================================
> Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
> Host: inktomi2-bre.server.ntl.com
>==============================================================
>
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: sungold2t.uk.ibm.com
==============================================================
grey...@mwci.net
<REMOVE_TO_RE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jon.
>p.s. I will also once again point out the ugliness factor - look at an asw20 next to a PW5 or ME7. Which one would you rather be seen in.
>
If ever there was a total lack of reason to fly, or not fly, any
particular glider, this is it. You are going to use the same criteria
when choosing a wife?
Brad Hill
Nice to see younger newcomers to the sport, we need
motivated folks like yourself to help grow and promote
our beloved sport......or in my case, obsession with
soaring.
Don't be too quick to knock what you don't know....I started soaring at your age and now 20+ years later am still
very muched hooked.
True, an ASW-20 looks sexier than the AC4, but so what!
When you outright own your own glider, that feeling is
worth a lot.....and knowing that when you go out to fly it,
you won't be drawing straws with all your partners to see
who will be flying it......especially when you've waited
weeks for good conditions and you draw the short end of
the straw! Been there yet?
I'd rather be in a 2-33 soaring at cloudbase than sitting on
the ground waiting for my turn! Been there-done that....
BTW......the Russia dolphin flies just fine!
Of course, my opinions may be a bit jaded, as an ex-hang glider pilot of many years......12:1 was something I enjoyed also.
Cheers,
Brad
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: blv-proxy-04.boeing.com
==============================================================
Wallace Berry
<r...@cns.ME.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> I'm new to soaring, and I'm schedualed to begin lessons this saturday.
>
> After reading up on this on the net here, I have noticed that most of
> the planes come from germany. Why are there no U.S. manufactured
> planes on the market ?
>
> Thanks
>
> r...@etcheshop.Berkeley.EDU
Thanks to the government and a litigous society, it is virtually
impossible for anyone to manufacture a new light aircraft design in the
U.S and make a profit. I read somewhere, maybe in one of the
Schweizer's books, that it cost them $1 million to certify the SGS
1-35. Schweizer probably didn't make a million in profits on all the
gliders they ever built combined. They could have been the only
manufacturer of gliders in the world at the time and they would never
have recouped their investment in the 1-35.
You should read Schweizer's account of meeting government mandated
noise regs when they were certifying the 1-34. The rules mandated that
any new aircraft had to be some number of decibels quieter than the
previous model. Didn't matter to the bureaucrats that it had no engine.
Schweizer had to rig an older glider with a noisemaker so it would
register on the noise meters when they did a low pass in it. Then they
were able to demonstrate the the 1-34 was "quieter" on it's fly-by.
James Beckman
news:CcEM+xBB...@ukiws.demon.co.uk...
>
> Yourself, you enjoy failing to soar and landing in a paddock? In my
> experience, farmer's daughters do not provide the services to glider
> pilots that once they may have done ....
----------------------------------------------
Ah, well, I've noticed that myself. It just ain't the same anymore.
Unfortunately I have to conclude that the farmer's daughters are
just as sweet and obliging as ever. It's me that's changed. Why
they should care less about me after gaining twenty five years and
a few pounds, and losing rather a lot of hair, well I just can't explain
it. Probably doesn't apply to your situation, I suppose.
Jim Beckman
James Beckman
>
> p.s. I will also once again point out the ugliness factor - look at an
asw20 next to a PW5 or ME7. Which one would you rather be seen in.
Well, yes, of course. But which glider would rather be seen with
*you* flying it? In my own case, *any* glider that I fly will look
great in comparison to its pilot.
Jim Beckman
Mark Parker
Jon was only saying the ugliness was one factor among many, so with regard to your point about choosing a wife I think the answer is 'yes, that and others' Of course looks arent everything, but they are definitley something, along with age, equipment, how she handles....
Anyway, back to gliders... Chris, this is clearly turning into a clash of opinions. Your points are fair enough- you likes what you likes, each to his own etc.. the point I think Jon was trying to make is why potter up and down the Cotswolds in a PW5 when you can do it in a cheaper, nicer handling, better performing, better looking first generation glass glider like a Libelle etc? Beats me.
I must disagree with one point you made though. No matter how good the glider is, if you are flying at your absolute limit, you never get the feeling the glider has done 90% of the work. Better gliders go further, faster, but the problem is the same wether you are flying a k8 or a 20. So is it not always better to get the best possible performance for your money?
I would agree that buying a Discus for jolly jaunts in the local area is a cardinal waste of a glider, but I also think paying through the nose for a PW5 is a cardinal waste of money.
Cheers,
Mark
At 14:50 08 August 2001, grey...@mwci.net wrote:
>On 8 Aug 2001 10:02:11 GMT, Jon Meyer
><REMOVE_TO_RE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jon.
>>p.s. I will also once again point out the ugliness factor - look at an asw20 next to a PW5 or ME7. Which one would you rather be seen in.
>>
>If ever there was a total lack of reason to fly, or not fly, any
>particular glider, this is it. You are going to use the same criteria
>when choosing a wife?
>
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: pr-netcache-1.server.uk.worldonline.com
==============================================================
Chris Davison
At 15:50 08 August 2001, Mark Parker wrote:
>Anyway, back to gliders... Chris, this is clearly turning into a clash of opinions. . the point I think Jon was trying to make is why potter up and down the Cotswolds in a PW5 when you can do it in a cheaper, nicer handling, better performing, better looking first generation glass glider like a Libelle etc? Beats me.
I used to have a Libelle but sold it and bought an AC4 - bigger cockpit, better brakes, actually more responsive handling, paint not gel, auto connect controls and as near as damn in the same performance...and you learn to get on with the looks! The pottering up and down the Cotswolds was 227Km away from home, so I don't feel too bad. Why did I buy it? because I just love the concept, and hell life is too short to pretend we are all racing pilots who need an ASW20 to match our ability...when I get limited by the AC4 (read first gen performance) I will buy a Discus. This will be some years away!
>
>I must disagree with one point you made though. No matter how good the glider is, if you are flying at your absolute limit, you never get the feeling the glider has done 90% of the work.
I agree totally, my point is VERY few pilots ever get close to 50% of their gliders ability let alone 90%..and all this guff about needing 44:1+ just as a starting point amuses me greatly. What is the difference in anything between 200K in say a K6 or 300K in a Discus? (yes 100K, but what else?) And more to the point how many pilots delude themselves that that when they do 200Km in a Discus they have actually flown well and are good pilots?
>I would agree that buying a Discus for jolly jaunts in the local area is a cardinal waste of a glider, but I also think paying through the nose for a PW5 is a cardinal waste of money.
Not sure, if you want a Discus for local soaring (and can afford it) great, just don't fool yourself you 'need' one. Equally don't buy a PW5 or AC4 because you think it is better bang per buck, buy one because you want one and it makes you smile!
Give my regards to Birmingham
Chris
>
>Cheers,
>Mark
>
>
>
>
>At 14:50 08 August 2001, grey...@mwci.net wrote:
>>On 8 Aug 2001 10:02:11 GMT, Jon Meyer
>><REMOVE_TO_RE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jon.
>>>p.s. I will also once again point out the ugliness factor - look at an asw20 next to a PW5 or ME7. Which one would you rather be seen in.
>>>
>>If ever there was a total lack of reason to fly, or not fly, any
>>particular glider, this is it. You are going to use the same criteria
>>when choosing a wife?
>>
>
>==============================================================
> Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
> Host: pr-netcache-1.server.uk.worldonline.com
>==============================================================
>
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: inktomi2-not.server.ntl.com
==============================================================
Ian Strachan
Beckman <jamesb...@home.com> writes
> Ah, well, I've noticed that myself.
> It just ain't the same anymore.
Ain't life hard!
> Unfortunately I have to conclude that the farmer's daughters are
> just as sweet and obliging as ever. It's me that's changed. Why
> they should care less about me after gaining twenty five years and
> a few pounds, and losing rather a lot of hair, well I just can't
> explain it. Probably doesn't apply to your situation, I suppose.
I have to confess to adding a few pounds (the wife keeps on reminding me
but I'm free tonight as she is consorting with No 1 Daughter in London).
However, I am told by independent witnesses that I still have hair,
quite an achievement since my first cross-country and other experiences
in fields and other places of delectation ...
--
Ian Strachan
John Giddy
is considering increasing the ultimate life to around 50,000
hours, based on a regime of regular inspections. Apparently
this proposal is based on experience gained with large wind
turbines, whose blades are not unlike glider wings.
Cheers, John G.
Bert Willing <wil...@ir-microsystems.com> wrote in message
news:3b70f2d3$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
grey...@mwci.net
<I...@ukiws.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I have to confess to adding a few pounds (the wife keeps on reminding me
>but I'm free tonight as she is consorting with No 1 Daughter in London).
I'll take ten of them excess pounds, but you've gotta include a little
hair with it. Six feet, 155 lbs, and getting bald as a spar.
>
Armand A. Medeiros
> I agree totally, my point is VERY few pilots ever get close to 50% of
their gliders ability let alone >90%..and all this guff about needing 44:1+
just as a starting point amuses me greatly.
Less fear of running through 10 miles of sink! Greater range of options!
Better L/D usually means better higher speed performance!
Ahh...depends on local and conditions. I use my L/D to the max sometimes and
its performance at higher speeds at well. In the Sierra range, you can go 10
to 30 miles with no lift and the L/D really helps cross the large expanses
of unlandable terrain. Of course, the rule is get high and stay high flying
those conditions. And counting all the sailplanes at various airports from
Minden to California City, that is a LOT of pilots who I am sure use and
need that performance for longer distances.
Still, I love to hang around some areas and enjoy the scenery...that is what
soaring is all about to me. Nothing is more lovely than sitting at 17,800'
MSL and looking out at the snow capped mountains on a clear day...
> What is the difference in anything between 200K in say a K6 or 300K in a
Discus? (yes 100K, but what >else?)
100K of more beautiful sights to see! 8-)
> And more to the point how many pilots delude themselves that that when
they do 200Km in a
>Discus they have actually flown well and are good pilots?
If conditions were such that 200K was the best that could be done, then it
"was" a well flown flight! (not saying I am good enough to do even 100K
under the same conditions!)
8-)
Armand
Eric Greenwell
ber...@acesag.auburn.edu says...
> You should read Schweizer's account of meeting government mandated
> noise regs when they were certifying the 1-34. The rules mandated that
> any new aircraft had to be some number of decibels quieter than the
> previous model. Didn't matter to the bureaucrats that it had no engine.
> Schweizer had to rig an older glider with a noisemaker so it would
> register on the noise meters when they did a low pass in it. Then they
> were able to demonstrate the the 1-34 was "quieter" on it's fly-by.
That was 30 years ago, and I know the situation is much improved now
that the USA accepts/uses JAR 22 requirements like the Europeans do.
According to Greg Cole, designer of the SparrowHawk, he'll certify the
SparrowHawk if it can't be built to the 155 pound ultralight
requirement. He helped certify the Lancair Columbia 300 as the lead
designer, and didn't think it would be hard or unduly expensive to
certify a glider.
--
Remove REMOVE from my e-mail address to reply
Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)
grey...@mwci.net
Not unless you're Hung, the god of thermals. In which case, if you
continue to ignore my burnt offerings of 1987 vintage AAA contest
grade balsa, I'm gonna switch to Guillows kit wood.
>
>
mic...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
Since you are posting from a University, please give us the usual
annual salary of a University professor, compare it with the
$40 000 you describe as an incredible bargain, and please explain us
how such a professor will buy said glider - and i am not speaking
of a postdoc waiting year after year to get a permanent position.
> By the way, anybody know who's new LS that was at the dock?
--
Michel Talon
mic...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
> Chris,
> I cannot see how you can argue that they are 'more fun', and therefore worth more money.
> Dont get the impression that I am an old fogey who is desperate for span -
> I'm not. I am in fact only 19 years of age and just starting to really get my teeth into
> competition flying. For the money I had available to get a glider I could have bought a K6
> or a 1/3rd share in an ASW20. Take a wild guess which one I went for. Until you have
> flown a glider with decent high speed performance you dont know what you are missing.
> For one thing, there appears to me to be an obvious performance threshold where the style of
> x-country flying changes completely. K6 style cross countries involve a lot of turning (I
> know from experience), where as ASW20 x-countries involve a lot of dolphining and line of energy flying.
> I will not preach about which is more fun - but I know which I prefer....
What you are describing is exactly what has been my experience, first time
i have been "launched" in a Pegase. I had previously flied a lot of old
and ugly wooden gliders where the problem was to stand in the air. With the
Pegase remaining as long as needed in the air was no more a problem, soaring
began for me.
Now, wouldn't it be nice if one could produce a glider of the class of the
ASW20 (or simpler of the LS4) at half the price of such a beast? When the
Pegase appeared (it was more or less a copy of the ASW20 with redesigned wings
and no flaps) it offered basically the same perfs as the ASW20 (except at very
high speed) for a fraction of the cost. I am convinced that one could at
present successfully design and produce a good glider - not a flying brick, as
suggested by some nostalgic posters - for a reasonable price, not for the
insane, stupid and ridiculous prices of the present German gliders. These
prices are completely killing the sport.
--
Michel Talon
mic...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
> When it comes to a kit, the fellows that are building them aren't
> doing it because they want a plane, they want to build one. This may
> change, if something "rock bottom" in price and medium performance was
> put on the market, but the market would have to exist before anyone
> would invest in the tooling and materials to make a batch of kits.
> This would pretty much rule out glass, but with a bunch of old duffers
> like myself, might not be a factor. The main reason is that I know
> what I can do in wood and metal, but glass is an unknown for me.
Sincerely i don't think that wood or metal allows to build at lower
cost than glass. Use of glass allows by far the simplest and most
cost effective building of gliders. I am convinced that the extravagant
cost of German gliders is a German problem, not a glass problem.
Although i agree with Ian that Standard class gliders are the bare
minimum, and that cross country flying is the only thing of interest
in gliding, i wholly disagree with him that only German gliders are
able to survive. When the Pegase appeared, it was an excellent
standard glider, and had as good performances as any other German glider.
Of course it was displaced by the Discus. But it costed way less than
equivalent gliders built in Germany. And the guy producing the Pegase
was notoriously not someone very competent and serious. This glider
was produced to a rather large number of units and equipped a lot of
French clubs. I am convinced that a big country like the USA could
do the same type of job, copy or improve a good German glider and
mass produce it at half the price of a German glider or even less.
This glider may not have the absolute top performance in its category,
but this is important only to the 1% of pilots doing competition.
If it is sufficiently cheap, all the clubs worldwide will buy it
immediately. At present a large number of pilots who have begun
flying are obliged to stop because it is too expensive and costs
too much time. It is vital that someone stops this process by
producing cheap gliders, or the sport will die.
--
Michel Talon
Wallace Berry
Greenwell <REMOVEeg...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> In article <080820010916218914%ber...@acesag.auburn.edu>,
> ber...@acesag.auburn.edu says...
> > You should read Schweizer's account of meeting government mandated
> > noise regs when they were certifying the 1-34. T
> That was 30 years ago, and I know the situation is much improved now
> that the USA accepts/uses JAR 22 requirements like the Europeans do.
> According to Greg Cole, designer of the SparrowHawk, he'll certify the
> SparrowHawk if it can't be built to the 155 pound ultralight
> requirement. He helped certify the Lancair Columbia 300 as the lead
> designer, and didn't think it would be hard or unduly expensive to
> certify a glider.
Glad to hear that the regs are more reasonable now. I wish the best of
luck and unlimited fortune to Greg Cole and anyone like him who
actually goes out and tries to make a new aircraft, certified or
otherwise.
LarSwan
>do the same type of job, copy or improve a good German glider and
>mass produce it at half the price of a German glider or even less.
Michel-
Could you expand on this statement? How are you convinced? Please provide us
your analysis possibly including:
1- Price/demand curve. If the price was lowered 1-50%, what would the
incremental units sold be?
2- If USA builds it, the landed price in Europe considering the current
dollar/euro exchange ratio.
3- Your projected cost takeouts broken out by
materials/labor/tooling/distribution/marketing/insurance/profit as production
volume increases. Expand on any significant cost breakthoughs.
4- Competitive/price reaction both in the new and used sailplane market. Note
there are alot of inexpensive high performance gliders available...the used
market always competes with the new.
I've visited and compared production facilities of a German glider (two a week)
and an American boat(three a day) manufacturer. I saw many differences, most
driven by intensive use of specialized tooling. While there does seem to be
room for cost improvement for glider manufacturers, IMHO I don't believe the
market volume is there to support the (my question #1 and #4 above) investment
in high volume tooling required.
If someone ignored the return of capital required issue, bought all the stuff
"to make it happen", they would have to put the existing manufacturers out of
business to get the volume (and lower the price of all the used gliders we
currently polish each winter in our garage)...unless a huge number of new
participants came into the sport solely because of your "lower price".
Start with the demand side of the equation. We should focus on increasing the
number of active participants in this hobby. Demand is driven by marketing,
product innovation...and yes, price. But in reality, "price", from the
manufacturers point of view, is actually the worst way to drive volume as the
benefits of additional volume are not retained by the entreprenuer/risk taker.
The secrets of high volume production are not secret, we have enough
manufacturers, we need more consumers.
2 cents,
LT
grey...@mwci.net
>...unless a huge number of new
>participants came into the sport solely because of your "lower price".
Could be why hang gliders and ultralights are doing just fine, while
GA and soaring in particular are headed "down the tubes".
>
> Demand is driven by marketing,
>product innovation...and yes, price. But in reality, "price", from the
>manufacturers point of view, is actually the worst way to drive volume as the
>benefits of additional volume are not retained by the entreprenuer/risk taker.
Demand may not be driven by price, but it is indeed limited by it.
I'm not sure just what the upper limit would be, but if one questions
other types of recreational vehicles, almost all of which are more
numerous than gliders, there is a definate "cutoff", above which few
machines will be found. Above that cutoff point, they have to be
special ordered, and with a six week to six month wait. (Sound
familiar?) Below that point, you can get them off the showroom floor.
Other factors that I see from time to time, the availability of
"kiddie machines", such as are found in some all terrain vehicles,
snowmobiles, and even in some boats. I do not like it when I see
someone 8 or 9 years old riding unattended over the trails at the
park, but have to admit that they will probably be customers for
bigger and more expensive machines, probably through their lives. I'm
not advocating a "kiddie glider" here, I think that would be most
unwise. Merely pointing out that most of the kids are directed to
something else long before soaring becomes even a possibility for
them.
>
>The secrets of high volume production are not secret, we have enough
>manufacturers, we need more consumers.
>
Couple that with needing a design of reasonable performance, price,
and availability. There are no secrets to high production, but it
does take a goodly amount of money. Not to mention lots of "Know how"
which in this age of computer everything, is disappearing rapidly.
Segelflug1
> Since you are posting from a University, please give us the usual
> annual salary of a University professor, compare it with the
> $40 000 you describe as an incredible bargain, and please explain us
> how such a professor will buy said glider - and i am not speaking
> of a postdoc waiting year after year to get a permanent position.
I just happen to know what the academics at Auburn earn on average;
Prof. Full 76,600 USD
Prof Assoc 56,400 USD
Prof Asst 48,000 USD
Prof Inst 29,700 USD
Don"t even bother asking what a post doc makes, and even if it was
significant, post docs do not have time to breathe let alone fly.
Martin Gregorie
ROTFL
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie.| Harlow
demon. | UK.
co. |
uk |
grey...@mwci.net
<ki...@see.sig.for.address> wrote:
>>>
>>>Er.. you called Me my son?
>>>
>>Not unless you're Hung, the god of thermals. In which case, if you
>>continue to ignore my burnt offerings of 1987 vintage AAA contest
>>grade balsa, I'm gonna switch to Guillows kit wood.
>>>
>>>
>ROTFL
>
Didn't think there would be any here that would get the gag, let alone
understand it. Another model builder, I presume?
Jim Husain
>>>continue to ignore my burnt offerings of 1987 vintage AAA contest
>>>grade balsa, I'm gonna switch to Guillows kit wood.
>>>>
>>>>
>>ROTFL
>>
>Didn't think there would be any here that would get the gag, let alone
>understand it. Another model builder, I presume
I think you're working with 12lb C grade balsa, CO2 engine filled with propane,
high wing parasol, rudder escapement, bunt dethermalizer, monokote covered,
then nitrate doped.
And I still don't get your stinkin' gag. AMFYOYO
Jim
N483SZ
gapagod...@aol.com
Bill Dean.
The question should be, why is it that only Germany (and that really means
the old West Germany) has had a truly viable, thriving and long term glider
manufacturing industry since world war 2?
There is no comparable industry in the U.S.A., U.K., any other European
country, Japan or any Asian country. Why not? I don't know the answer,
but this is what should be discussed.
Yes, I know that various manufacturers in other countries have built
gliders, and some still do, but nowhere else has the continuous record of
types successful both technically and commercially.
If you went to any national or international competition in the last 30 or
so years, nearly all and quite often all the gliders will have been German.
This is because they are thought by the pilots to be the best. Sometimes
pilots fly machines built in their own country for patriotic reasons, often
these have been outclassed. From time to time another country produces a
machine thought to be competitive or even the best; when this happens you
find them on the grid. Examples have been the Pik20 from Finland, and the
Pegasus from France; but there is no follow through, what replaced the Pik20
or the Pegasus?
The East European, particularly Polish aircraft were produced under the old
command economy regime, and were priced to undercut German machines to earn
Western currency. Now that they are having to compete in an open market
they are having a hard time.
Manufacturing costs have often been higher in Germany than anywhere else, so
other countries have done sub-contract work, or built German designs under
licence. Sometimes these derivative types have been further developed by
the subcontractor or licensee. Examples are the Kestrel built by Slingsby
in the U.K., the ASW20 built in France at Le Blanc (big mistake by
Schleicher), DGs built in former Yugoslavia and the 304CZ. Often these are
selling on price, if you build a glider with the design and development
costs written off you can lower the price. Sometimes the German
manufacturers keep a type in production when it is no longer the top
competition type, examples have been the ASW19 and the LS4, these are sold
at a lower price than the latest types.
Some people talk as if the Germans have formed a cartel to rip off the rest
of the world, this is nonsense. Read the DG newsletters, and see how they
have difficulty building their gliders incorporating known safety
improvements, because these increase the price! The German manufacturers
are all competing hard with each other, this is one of the reasons they
sometimes go to the hassle of sub-contracting abroad.
When the Pegasus appeared there was a good reason for it to have a
favourable price, its manufacturer had not paid most of the design and
development costs. They first built the French ASW20 under licence from
Schleicher. Then they built their own version of the ASW20L (16.6m)
without permission and outside the licence agreement. They were certainly
sued by Schleicher (I wonder if any company from outside France has ever
successfully sued a French company?). Later they developed the Pegasus
which is essentially an ASW20 fuselage with an unflapped version of the
ASW20 wing (just as the LS8 has an unflapped version of the LS6 wing). Of
course the Pegasus sold well to French clubs; it was and is a very good
glider (Schleicher gliders always are), it is always sensible to buy gliders
built in your own country where possible (not only for patriotic reasons),
and I suspect there were financial reasons other than price (e.g. grants
conditional on buying French). By the way, whatever happened to the
Marianne, which was I think a French design, how many sold outside France?
As to producing a superceded type (i.e. no longer competitive in top
competitions) at a lower price (such as the 304CZ) you are always in
competition with those buying the latest type and selling their old ship.
Some will prefer a brand new ship (people still buy LS4s, they have stopped
buying the Pegasus) but some will go to the second hand market.
W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
>
> <mic...@lpthe.jussieu.fr> wrote in message
> news:9kof6h$ts$1...@rose.lpthe.jussieu.fr...
>
> Sincerely i don't think that wood or metal allows to build at lower
> cost than glass. Use of glass allows by far the simplest and most
> cost effective building of gliders. I am convinced that the extravagant
> cost of German gliders is a German problem, not a glass problem.
> Although i agree with Ian that Standard class gliders are the bare
> minimum, and that cross country flying is the only thing of interest
> in gliding, i wholly disagree with him that only German gliders are
> able to survive. When the Pegase appeared, it was an excellent
> standard glider, and had as good performances as any other German glider.
> Of course it was displaced by the Discus. But it costed way less than
> equivalent gliders built in Germany. And the guy producing the Pegase
> was notoriously not someone very competent and serious. This glider
> was produced to a rather large number of units and equipped a lot of
> French clubs. I am convinced that a big country like the USA could
> do the same type of job, copy or improve a good German glider and
> mass produce it at half the price of a German glider or even less.
> This glider may not have the absolute top performance in its category,
> but this is important only to the 1% of pilots doing competition.
> If it is sufficiently cheap, all the clubs worldwide will buy it
> immediately. At present a large number of pilots who have begun
> flying are obliged to stop because it is too expensive and costs
> too much time. It is vital that someone stops this process by
> producing cheap gliders, or the sport will die.
>
> Michel Talon
>
LarSwan
>
>The question should be, why is it that only Germany (and that really means
>the old West Germany) has had a truly viable, thriving and long term glider
>manufacturing industry since world war 2?
>
I took a 2 cents shot at this one in an earlier post.
In marketing it's called "a niche" and the Germans own it and have defended it
mostly though govt educational support at the University level. If there was
any real money in building gliders the companies involved would have floated an
IPO (or sold out) and owners gotten rich long ago....and there would be more
competitors.
Bless the family-owned businesses who have invested their names and locked
life's capital in the manufacture of our toys. The "niche" is too small to
interest Wall St or a major corporation as a profit center.
The German governments involvement is historical and perhaps (?) just like
after WW1, sought to keep the German aerospace industry alive after WW2.
Banker not historian,
LT
PS- My best suggestion is to interest a Cessna type corporation in marketing
the entry level (motor)glider this newsgroup often believes would be
successful...not as a profit center but as a loss leader trainer to build a
pool of customers for its advanced powered models. As an example, under this
strategy, say, the Katana would be made/badged "Cessna"...using Cessna's scale
in production/purchasing/marketing to drive down price (and cockpit fitted out
like a Cessna of course). Tired at looking at C150s, ;-) LT
grey...@mwci.net
wrote:
>>Not unless you're Hung, the god of thermals. In which case, if you
>>>>continue to ignore my burnt offerings of 1987 vintage AAA contest
>>>>grade balsa, I'm gonna switch to Guillows kit wood.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>ROTFL
>>>
>>Didn't think there would be any here that would get the gag, let alone
>>understand it. Another model builder, I presume
>
>I think you're working with 12lb C grade balsa,
Not sure what the wt is, 1987 was a long time ago, and I never weighed
it anyhow
> CO2 engine filled with propane,
Gliders, especially hand launched, got engines?
>high wing parasol,
Wrong.
> rudder escapement,
Radios are for pansys that can't make a simple model fly, let alone a
complex one.
> bunt dethermalizer,
You're chicken? No DT on my planes.
> monokote covered,
A crime against man and beast, let alone nature.
>then nitrate doped.
Randolph over jap tissue to be more correct, but not on a HLG, no
dope, dope. It's too heavy.
>
>And I still don't get your stinkin' gag.
Too bad.
>AMFYOYO
Eh?
>
grey...@mwci.net
wrote:
> The main reason is that I know
>> what I can do in wood and metal, but glass is an unknown for me.
>
>Sincerely i don't think that wood or metal allows to build at lower
>cost than glass. Use of glass allows by far the simplest and most
>cost effective building of gliders.
Maybe so, however I'm not speaking of that. I haven't ever worked
with any amount of glass, and don't really want to start something
that requires techniques that I'm unfamiliar with. Then there is the
factor of the fumes from the resins and hardeners, and I'm already
somewhat sensitive to epoxy resins. Many of the modern materials are
far too toxic for use by amateurs without the proper equipment, and
I'd just as soon stay away from them.
grey...@mwci.net
<REMOVE_TO_RE...@aston.ac.uk> wrote:
>Beardy-
>Jon was only saying the ugliness was one factor among many, so with regard to your point about choosing a wife I think the answer is 'yes, that and others' Of course looks arent everything, but they are definitley something, along with age, equipment, how she handles....
>
I see I have succeeded in making myself unclear again, so let's see if
I can straighten it out.
I have never thought of any airplane as a piece of clothing, and being
seen in any is preferable to be seen in none. If one notices, when
comparing, say, a Cherokee and an Aeronca C-3, which one will more
people notice and watch? I won't say one is sexier than the other, as
I'm not into kinky things with flying machines. They have said that
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I have found that this is
true. I find that there is no glass ship that I like the appearance
as well as I do my own 1-26.
As far as your comments above, I was a batchelor, on a dead run
because I liked it that way, for the first 25 years of my life.
Then I married "Miss 5 X 5", you know, the one that nobody else would
date.
32 years later, her death made me a batchelor again.
I don't like it this time.
Apearances don't mean anything, now or ever.
Patrick Miller
"The PW won the competition, but it's still an ugly piece of crap that few
want."
Hey, I really resent that. The PeeWee is a great little plane to fly and
there's nothing wrong with its looks. Specially from the inside looking out!
mic...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
This is perfectly adequate to what i thought about an average professor
salary, namely 80 000 US$ Well in my opinion with such annual income
a 40 000 US$ glider seems to me very hard to buy, and a 100 000 + US$
German glider totally out of question.
To me this means that glider prices are insane. You need to be a rock star
to afford such a thing. But rock stars have other things to do to
spend their time.
--
Michel Talon
mic...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
> You are all dealing with the wrong question.
> The question should be, why is it that only Germany (and that really means
> the old West Germany) has had a truly viable, thriving and long term glider
> manufacturing industry since world war 2?
> There is no comparable industry in the U.S.A., U.K., any other European
> country, Japan or any Asian country. Why not? I don't know the answer,
> but this is what should be discussed.
Can you really speak of industry when each of these manufacturers produce
of the order of 80 gliders a year? This is very small business, and
yes, it is for me a mystery why such businesses don't exist in the
USA or Japan. For France, i understand easily, small businesses are
very rare, often doomed to failure. Here people with higher education
(say PhD) want to work for the State or very big firms. It is well known
that Germany has a much richer net of businesses of all sizes scattered
all over the country. On the other hand they have a strong tendency
to produce at too high costs, see the Leica, or to do junk at "low" cost,
like the Mercedes Class A. Precisely i am thinking that their glider
industry suffers from this disease.
> When the Pegasus appeared there was a good reason for it to have a
> favourable price, its manufacturer had not paid most of the design and
> development costs. They first built the French ASW20 under licence from
> Schleicher. Then they built their own version of the ASW20L (16.6m)
> without permission and outside the licence agreement. They were certainly
> sued by Schleicher (I wonder if any company from outside France has ever
> successfully sued a French company?). Later they developed the Pegasus
> which is essentially an ASW20 fuselage with an unflapped version of the
> ASW20 wing (just as the LS8 has an unflapped version of the LS6 wing). Of
As far as i have been told the wing of the Pegasus has been completely
redesigned and computed in particular by people at the Onera. There are
certainly very competent people here, as you can see looking at the
Dassaut civilian and military planes, the Airbus, the Concorde and so on.
Beleiving that gliders can only be designed in Germany is ridiculous.
The problem is that not a single big French constructor wants to invest one
penny in gliders. They are all obsessed with rentability, the value of their
shares, and so on. On the other hand there are several very successfull
producers of small plastic boats, who have very modern equipment and could
as well produce gliders if there was a market. I am quite confident
that getting the engeneering for free by university (or cnrs or onera people)
could be arranged, as it has already been done for the Pegase.
> course the Pegasus sold well to French clubs; it was and is a very good
> glider (Schleicher gliders always are), it is always sensible to buy gliders
> built in your own country where possible (not only for patriotic reasons),
> and I suspect there were financial reasons other than price (e.g. grants
> conditional on buying French). By the way, whatever happened to the
> Marianne, which was I think a French design, how many sold outside France?
The Pegasus is very good in particular because its wing gives good performance
without needing flaps. It climbs very well and flies well also.
Yesterday i spoke with a guy who has owned a LS4 and has done 1200 hours
on it. I asked him if the LS4 had better high speed performance than the
Pegase. To my great surprise he said me than no, the Pegase had probably
better high speed perfs, but the LS4 was better at slow speed and a better
climber. But my experience is that i think the Pegase a much better climber
than the LS4, so frankly we can say they are on par. Now compare the prices
at which they were sold - or the prices you can now find used Pegase
or LS4 and you will see that the Pegase was a good affair. On the
other hand the Marianne is a disaster, and very few French clubs have bought
it, none that i know. Perhaps there were grants, but they have been very
ineffective when the glider was bad. There is absolutely no doubt
that the ASK21 is much better than any other two seater for school.
The Marianne was so heavy that it was even a problem to push it on the field.
How people came out with such a design is a mystery.
--
Michel Talon
Jim Culp
>Segelflug1 <segel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> mic...@lpthe.jussieu.fr wrote in message
>>> Since you are posting from a University, please give us the usual annual salary of a University professor, compare it with the $40 000 you describe as an incredible bargain, and please explain us how such a professor will buy said glider - and i am not speaking of a postdoc waiting year after year to get a permanent position.
>> I just happen to know what the academics at Auburn earn on average;
>> Prof. Full 76,600 USD
>> Prof Assoc 56,400 USD
>> Prof Asst 48,000 USD
>> Prof Inst 29,700 USD
>This is what i thought about an average professor
>salary, namely 80 000 US$ in my opinion with such annual income a 40 000 US$ glider seems to me very hard to buy, and a 100 000 + US$ German glider totally out of question.
>
>To me this means that glider prices are insane. >Michel Talon
Dear Michel,
Purchase of gliders can and are done on incomes less than the Professor rates cited. It depends on a person's saving habits and his priorities and life circumstances.
People accumulate capital by many ways including saving, stock investing, and by ownership and sale of homes or other realestate in their lifetime.
Because you were talking of academics, I say academics and many others tend to do consulting projects which can produce good income outside of their salaried income.
Also, often their cited academic salaries are for nine months whereas they tend to get summer supplement pay too that is budgeted and reported separately in reference materials. They do pretty well in USA. If tenured or favored in the track to it, they will have gotten the keys to the salary larder for the summer and other projects.
Others, academic or otherwise, may enter into business and make or lose money. Some inherit money.
There are many ways to accumulate the money to buy a glider.
The question is how much do they want a glider and are they willing to prepare to make sole ownership purchases happen over a period of years and in a series of glider purchases nd to forego other consumer spending choices?
Maybe they will choose to keep an auto ( a major expense for many) many years instead of buying a new one often or ever. With the cost difference saved, they may save and invest.
A modest middle income in US, with some savings and stock, and the sale of a house or borrowing money based on equity in house and putting that together with savings or stock sale money can buy a glider.
They need to avoid credit card or other debt to do this. Their past spending and consumer habits will direct their ability to buy the glider when they want to own one alone.
Many do it by a series of glider purchases, with each time recouping the money on the earlier model and maybe even gaining some profit. Then they put that money with their savings or stock money and buy a more expensive model or even a new one.
I prefer to buy gliders without debt, but have done minor debt to come up with the purchase amount of fine German gliders.
After my first solely owned glider, a Std Astir CS which was new, I used it several years, built a trailer for it, sold the glider and trailer and put that money with savings or stock sale money, sold a Harley-Davidson motorcycle I had, and put that money together and bought an LS3A and had money left over (invested that in stock).
When I went soaring in the LS3A I often recalled that I was then seemingly flying my Harley-Davidson Sportster motorcycle thru the air.
Each time one may repeat a similar cycle; moving up so to speak, putting more money together from proceeds of sale of the last well chosen standard brand glider and going to the next more expensive one with more savings or money from any source of accumulation.
You dont have to get what you want in one swift move, unless you can afford it then. Start less expensive in sole ownership, and move on up over time. Go Std Cirrus, Pik 20, LS4, Asw20, etc and on to new. Glider leap frog.
Caveate, be careful who you marry becuz they can sure mess up your glider improvement progression. Dont know how to tell you to assure against the perils of wives (and their lawyers) except to just avoid that by any means possible. Your marriage license is a certificate allowing your financial ruin and destruction by the little sweety. So Caveate Emptor in the field of romance; avoid the tendertrap. Am I cynical, realistic, or experienced...I think all of the above.
Dancing on clouds
(still, and single again),
Keep it up!
Jim Culp USA
H201B Libelle now
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: proxy.iad4.netsetter.com
==============================================================
Bert Willing
I don't think that the German manufacturers have problems because of too
high prices - you actually have to wait for years to get a glider delivered.
It's not an industry, it is a handcrafting business. However, gliders are
thus expensive because you have to pay huge amounts of development and
tooling costs on a ridiculous number of sold planes.
I don't think that those prices of DG, Schleicher, LS and Schempp-Hirth will
kill soaring. Appearently there are still people with heaps of money to
spend (look at all those expensive cars on the road), and they somehow put
their old gliders on the second hand market. This makes that you can buy a
glider adapted for any budget, at least here in Europe. For club class
gliders, the German "biete" web page constantly lists more than 100 gliders
for sale. And a decently run club will be able to invest even into
high-price ships (just look at Challes with their 2 ASH's).
Of course you can sell a very well performing ship like the Pégase at
more-than-interesting prices if you don't have to pay any investments in
development, and if the French Soaring Federation runs a very interesting
subvention scheme for clubs who want to buy "French"... Just look at the
bullshit called Alliance which is happening right know... At least with the
Pégase, Centrair went for a successful design.
For not-so-developed countries like the US, the idea to re-start a
fabrication of one of the "obsolete" gliders would be a good thing to go, I
guess.
Just to make clear, I don't claim that you need a $100'000+ ship to go
soaring and that the rest is just crap (although it shouldn't look like a
half-aborted fish). Soaring is a state of mind, not a price tag.
But then, I would buy any meter of span I can afford...
--
---------------------
Bert Willing
Calif A21S
Come fly at La Motte du Caire in Southern France:
http://la-motte.decollage.org
<mic...@lpthe.jussieu.fr> a écrit dans le message :
9l04bi$dh$2...@rose.lpthe.jussieu.fr...
> Can you really speak of industry when each of these manufacturers produce
> of the order of 80 gliders a year? This is very small business, and
> yes, it is for me a mystery why such businesses don't exist in the
> USA or Japan. For France, i understand easily, small businesses are
> very rare, often doomed to failure. Here people with higher education
> (say PhD) want to work for the State or very big firms. It is well known
> that Germany has a much richer net of businesses of all sizes scattered
> all over the country. On the other hand they have a strong tendency
> to produce at too high costs, see the Leica, or to do junk at "low" cost,
> like the Mercedes Class A. Precisely i am thinking that their glider
> industry suffers from this disease.
>
>
>
> As far as i have been told the wing of the Pegasus has been completely
> redesigned and computed in particular by people at the Onera. There are
> certainly very competent people here, as you can see looking at the
> Dassaut civilian and military planes, the Airbus, the Concorde and so on.
> Beleiving that gliders can only be designed in Germany is ridiculous.
> The problem is that not a single big French constructor wants to invest
one
> penny in gliders. They are all obsessed with rentability, the value of
their
> shares, and so on. On the other hand there are several very successfull
> producers of small plastic boats, who have very modern equipment and could
> as well produce gliders if there was a market. I am quite confident
> that getting the engeneering for free by university (or cnrs or onera
people)
> could be arranged, as it has already been done for the Pegase.
>
>
James Beckman
>
> I have never thought of any airplane as a piece of clothing, and being
> seen in any is preferable to be seen in none. If one notices, when
> comparing, say, a Cherokee and an Aeronca C-3, which one will more
> people notice and watch?
I think I catch your drift here, and will reinforce it by saying that
I will always stop to watch an Airknocker (particularly if it's landing,
it can be a marvelous comic performance) while the Cherokee won't
draw a second glance.
Jim Beckman
James Beckman
news:9krs7r$65a51$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Not sure, if you want a Discus for local soaring (and can afford it)
great, just don't fool yourself you 'need' one. Equally don't buy a PW5 or
AC4 because you think it is better bang per buck, buy one because you want
one and it makes you smile!
Ah yes, that's *it*, isn't it? The last time I was out at the glider
field, I was
one of three club members who ended up sharing the same thermal about
4,000 AGL - one Pilatus and two 1-26s, spaced out around the same
circle within a hundred feet of altitude, going round and round and
round.
It was incredibly beautiful. After I landed I found that I was
suffering from
noticeable jaw fatigue, just from grinning so much. Maybe I'm still
simple-
minded (happens with age, I'm told) to get so much pleasure from such a
small accomplishment. Still, it's all about smiles. If it makes you
smile, you
must be doing it right (people say that about sex, too, but that's a
different
news.group).
Jim Beckman
Christian Husvik
"Bert Willing" <wil...@ir-microsystems.com> wrote in message
news:3b73e60e$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> [...]. For club class
> gliders, the German "biete" web page constantly lists more than 100
gliders
> for sale.
For club class, only 58 at the moment at www.segelflug.de, but in total
there are more than 100 glider for sale on those web pages. Well, just
irrelevant details, perhaps, and your point remains the same.
Christian 8-)
Bert Willing
I stand corrected.
But then, I more frequently check the Open Class section :-)
--
---------------------
Bert Willing
Calif A21S
Come fly at La Motte du Caire in Southern France:
http://la-motte.decollage.org
Christian Husvik <chu...@online.no> a écrit dans le message :
9l0s9s$72lnu$1...@ID-49907.news.dfncis.de...
Segelflug1
> ......To me this means that glider prices are insane.......
My Portemonnaie agrees, lets say one is earning 100,000 USD per year.
This amount actually puts one in an income group that is quit high. A
small percentage of Americans earn so much money per year. Add the
expense of a car payment, a house, a child or two, etc. etc, and even
at such a relatively high salary it is "practically" impossible to buy
a new glider. I say practically because I assume some people can and
do make a different calculation as to what they can spend on toys vs
family and such.
So what is the actual cost of a glider. If someone can help break
down the costs it would be interesting. For example, the cost of ;
materials,
labor,
tools, molds, etc,
overhead, (admin, legal, research, registration, etc)
and so on and so on.
If the numbers add up then each of us posting here and commenting on
the price of a new glider, should get together , form a corporation
and build a glider for all to afford. Pardon the cultural puns, but
a sort of VolksGlider where we can eat our cake and fly it too, but
with slightly better performance then the name implies and slightly
less harsh consequences for being allowed to eat that cake (or is that
better translated as bread, no mater...I think it is all becoming a
bit obtuse).
I wonder what the profit margin must be for a company that sells less
then 100 units per year of anything (except maybe satellites and the
like) even Boeing and Airbus must sell better numbers then that. Even
with the subtle (foe the former) and Obvious for the later) subsidies
(sp) each gets.
Chris Ashburn
mic...@lpthe.jussieu.fr wrote:
>
> To me this means that glider prices are insane. You need to be a rock star
> to afford such a thing. But rock stars have other things to do to
> spend their time.
>
> --
> Michel Talon
So Share.......
Chris
Richard Brisbourne
<segel...@yahoo.com> writes
>If the numbers add up then each of us posting here and commenting on
>the price of a new glider, should get together , form a corporation
>and build a glider for all to afford. Pardon the cultural puns, but
>a sort of VolksGlider where we can eat our cake and fly it too, but
>with slightly better performance then the name implies and slightly
>less harsh consequences for being allowed to eat that cake (or is that
>better translated as bread, no mater...I think it is all becoming a
>bit obtuse).
>
clubs (or join existing clubs), and buy new gliders. Or syndicates and
buy new or recent second-hand gliders.
Sure new gliders are expensive, but as long as there are people out
there prepared to buy them, they will continue to supply a buoyant
second-hand market.
Here's some prices you can buy second-hand for in the UK right now
(translated to US$, as everyone here will probably understand them):
Nimbus 3: $40,000
LS4: $30,0000
DG200: $17,000
Kestrel 19: $15,000
All "real" gliders by any standard, although if National level
competitions are your bag you'd need the Nimbus 3 (Open class) or LS4
(Club class). And if you are happy with 32:1, I know where you can get
a K6CR for the equivalent of $3,700. At that price you would probably
run on third party insurance only.
Why re-invent the square wheel?
The discussion here about academic salaries was sort of interesting from
a UK perspective. I know lots of glider pilots doing lots of hours. I
doubt if more than a very few are making the equivalent of $100,000 pa.
I do know people doing 70 hours a year or so who have jobs that normally
pay around, or less than median incomes. When I was a young, single,
graduate I even did a 100 hours a year in state of the art gliders on a
less than median income myself.
If you look at the demographics of UK clubs, you will find bias towards
(a) young single professionals and (b) "empty nesters". OK, this is
where the disposable income is, but then who has the time when they have
a family to bring up and a career to build?
--
Richard Brisbourne
(middle income Kestrel owner)
Eric Greenwell
segel...@yahoo.com says...
> If the numbers add up then each of us posting here and commenting on
> the price of a new glider, should get together , form a corporation
> and build a glider for all to afford. Pardon the cultural puns, but
> a sort of VolksGlider where we can eat our cake and fly it too, but
> with slightly better performance then the name implies and slightly
> less harsh consequences for being allowed to eat that cake (or is that
> better translated as bread, no mater...I think it is all becoming a
> bit obtuse).
I think we already have some Volksgliders: the AC-4 and AC-5M, and the
304C and CZ (perhaps also the LAK gliders). The many happy owners
think these gliders are good machines and great bargains, but a lot of
people don't think they are cheap enough. I think these people have an
unrealistic understanding of what it takes to be a profitable glider
manufacturer.
The Russia achieves it's low cost in part by using modern technology
to achieve moderate` performance in a small glider that can be made
cheaply; the 304 achieves it's low cost in part by re-using a previous
design. Both designs use cheap labor to keep the cost low. Any new
glider must compete against proven designs like these that already
have a manufacturing and distributions system.
> I wonder what the profit margin must be for a company that sells less
> then 100 units per year of anything (except maybe satellites and the
> like) even Boeing and Airbus must sell better numbers then that. Even
> with the subtle (foe the former) and Obvious for the later) subsidies
> (sp) each gets.
The dream of a cheap, "high" performance glider has been around for
decades, but the dream remains unfulfilled even though many, many
people have worked on it. I think it must be a very difficult problem,
not possible with current technologies, because no one has solved it
yet; nonetheless, the dream returns every few years! Those that have
come close have done as the Russia and 304 people have done: made a
small glider, or used an existing design acquired cheaply, and used
cheap labor.
Is it even possible to build gliders more cheaply? How much volume
would it take to move from the current manufacturing techniques to
ones using less labor? 100 gliders per year? I suspect that would not
be near enough. 200 per year? Who knows? This suggests a growth in
glider ownership that is very unlikely, unless our sport begins to
grow at a fast rate instead of stagnating, as it is in the US and some
other countries.
It would take a very rich and confident person to start a glider
factory that requires selling several hundred gliders a year to
achieve the prices required to acquire those several hundred new
owners, year after year.
--
Remove REMOVE from my e-mail address to reply
Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)
Martin Gregorie
Yep, tho not from the US - Guillows wood is famous world wide.