Phoebus C - why so cheap?

[jim wynhoff]

A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on
Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k.
How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a
1-26? I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at
OTHER gliders (don't tell UF).

Jim

[mike]

On Jul 21, 12:00*pm, jim wynhoff > wrote:
> A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus *that sold for under $7k on
> Wings and Wheels. *Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k.
> How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a
> 1-26? *I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at
> OTHER gliders (don't tell UF).
>
> Jim

The Phoebus probably has a poor finish and combined with no trailer it
is probably a fair deal if you do not mind doing some work.

The Phoebus C is a very nice 39:1 sailplane with good glide up to
around 80 knots.

I owned one and found it to be very docile and fun to fly, even with
the dreaded full flying stab and off center cg towhook. I ended up
spending more time fixing up the trailer than flying it though.

Mike

[Tony[_5_]]

On Jul 21, 1:00*pm, jim wynhoff > wrote:
> A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus *that sold for under $7k on
> Wings and Wheels. *Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k.
> How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a
> 1-26? *I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at
> OTHER gliders (don't tell UF).
>
> Jim

i've heard there can be issues with the balsa core that may be
difficult or impossible to inspect. they're basically first
generation glass. don't forget that there were 700 1-26's built,
there is tons of expertise, spare parts, a strong type organization,
and they are robust as hell. I do find a nice webpage from Bruno
Vassel that he had about his Phoebus and also a Yahoo Group, but have
a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association.
Resale value involves a lot more than performance.

[shkdriver]

[QUOTE=mike;735376]On Jul 21, 12:00*pm, jim wynhoff


Also, there seems to be a life cycle to any generation of machinery, whether it is a glider, automobile, or even household appliance. In the phoebus's pinnacle of popularity, they seem to have commanded prices on a scale of five to six thousand dollars, when an average home ran about twice that, at least here in oklahoma. today half a house money will buy a nice $60,000 to $80,000 glider! In 2006 I bought a 1967 SHK-1 needing paint for $5000.
In 1967 this glider traded hands for about $7500. In the obove "house" ratio My $5000 was about $500 in comparable 1967 buying power!
The 24 months I spent removing three previous paint jobs and refinishing my SHK were a labor of love, however dusty and tedious. For my effort I have a pretty, clean, and 40 pound lighter classic 39/1 glider barely worth $5000. Of course that is "market" value.
I guess in short, If someone isn't flying competition where a classic would be outclassed, we are living in a time of unprecedented GOOD DEALS!
Time to join the vintage sailplane association!

Scott W.

[mike]

On Jul 21, 12:49*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 1:00*pm, jim wynhoff > wrote:
>
> > A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus *that sold for under $7k on
> > Wings and Wheels. *Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k.
> > How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a
> > 1-26? *I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at
> > OTHER gliders (don't tell UF).
>
> > Jim
>
> i've heard there can be issues with the balsa core that may be
> difficult or impossible to inspect. *they're basically first
> generation glass. *don't forget that there were 700 1-26's built,
> there is tons of expertise, spare parts, a strong type organization,
> and they are robust as hell. *I do find a nice webpage from Bruno
> Vassel that he had about his Phoebus and also a Yahoo Group, but have
> a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association.
> Resale value involves a lot more than performance.

Hi Tony,

If having an association makes one glider more valuable than another,
the 1-26 is surely the most valuable glider in the world!

Concerning balsa core issue hearsay;

Before I bought my Phoebus C, I researched the balsa core issue, and
really could not find any issues that would justify the claim.
Apart from a problem with mold on a ASW-15 shear web, that was found
during an inspection, resulting in the issuance of an AD, I do not
know of another balsa related problem.

I also know of no problems resulting in crashes caused by using balsa
as a core material.

Concerning first generation glass....these sailplanes were built very
well and sometimes over designed to take into consideration any
unknowns concerning the new materials being used. This resulted, for
example, in the Phoebus having a 12 G spar. This also applies, to a
degree to the Libelle 301. After its certification in Germany, some
of the wings were sold for use in the Diamant where another 100 pounds
or so were added to the "wings load" with no modifications to the spar
or wings construction.

And then there is the abuse endured by some of the modified 301's
which are still around....

Mike

[Tony[_5_]]

> Hi Tony,
>
> If having an association makes one glider more valuable than another,
> the 1-26 is surely the most valuable glider in the world!
>
> Concerning balsa core issue hearsay;
>
> Before I bought my Phoebus C, I researched the balsa core issue, and
> really could not find any issues that would justify the claim.
> Apart from a problem with mold on a ASW-15 shear web, that was found
> during an inspection, resulting in the issuance of an AD, I do not
> know of another balsa related problem.
>
> I also know of no problems resulting in crashes caused by using balsa
> as a core material.
>
> Concerning *first generation glass....these sailplanes were built very
> well and sometimes over designed to take into consideration any
> unknowns concerning the new materials being used. This resulted, for
> example, in the Phoebus *having a 12 G spar. This also applies, to a
> degree to the Libelle 301. *After its certification in Germany, some
> of the wings were sold for use in the Diamant where another 100 pounds
> or so were added to the "wings load" with no modifications to the spar
> or wings construction.
>
> And then there is the abuse endured by some of the modified 301's
> which are still around....
>
> Mike

mike,

i certainly think that the support network is part of the reason for
the relatively high resale value for 1-26's. if resale was based on
pure performance my cherokees would be worth more than a 1-26. as it
is i could maybe sell both of the Cherokees for the value of a good
1-26 with trailer. I'll believe you on the balsa. I have heard
stories of some neglected gliders having problems with the cores
getting wet and rotting. Perhaps they are just stories or perhaps
they were discovered before causing problems in flight.

I hear you on first generation glass being robust, for sure. i was
just saying that its an old glider and that could be adversely
affecting the value.

I've noticed after reading through the Soaring Magazine archive that
most gliders seem to be immune to inflation.

[Brian Whatcott]

On 7/21/2010 1:49 PM, Tony wrote:
> On Jul 21, 1:00 pm, jim > wrote:
>> A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on
>> Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k.
>> How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a
>> 1-26? I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at
>> OTHER gliders (don't tell UF).
>>
>> Jim
>
> i've heard there can be issues with the balsa core that may be
> difficult or impossible to inspect. they're basically first
> generation glass. don't forget that there were 700 1-26's built,
> there is tons of expertise, spare parts, a strong type organization,
> and they are robust as hell. I do find a nice webpage from Bruno
> Vassel that he had about his Phoebus and also a Yahoo Group, but have
> a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association.
> Resale value involves a lot more than performance.

In case there may be some slight relevance, it's observed that the
first generation of glass sailboats were helluva stout - but where wood
was imbedded as stringers etc., they can be expected to have rotted out...

Brian W

[Greg Arnold]

On 7/21/2010 6:44 PM, brian whatcott wrote:
> On 7/21/2010 1:49 PM, Tony wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 1:00 pm, jim > wrote:
>>> A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on
>>> Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k.
>>> How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a
>>> 1-26? I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at
>>> OTHER gliders (don't tell UF).
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> i've heard there can be issues with the balsa core that may be
>> difficult or impossible to inspect. they're basically first
>> generation glass. don't forget that there were 700 1-26's built,
>> there is tons of expertise, spare parts, a strong type organization,
>> and they are robust as hell. I do find a nice webpage from Bruno
>> Vassel that he had about his Phoebus and also a Yahoo Group, but have
>> a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association.
>> Resale value involves a lot more than performance.
>
> In case there may be some slight relevance, it's observed that the
> first generation of glass sailboats were helluva stout - but where wood
> was imbedded as stringers etc., they can be expected to have rotted out...
>
> Brian W



Another data point -- some incredibly expensive boats are built with
balsa coring below the waterline. See, for example, Baltic Yachts,
which has an excellent reputation for high quality.
http://www.balticyachts.fi/

[Grider Pirate]

On Jul 21, 6:50*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> On 7/21/2010 6:44 PM, brian whatcott wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/21/2010 1:49 PM, Tony wrote:
> >> On Jul 21, 1:00 pm, jim > wrote:
> >>> A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on
> >>> Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k.
> >>> How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a
> >>> 1-26? I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at
> >>> OTHER gliders (don't tell UF).
>
> >>> Jim
>
> >> i've heard there can be issues with the balsa core that may be
> >> difficult or impossible to inspect. they're basically first
> >> generation glass. don't forget that there were 700 1-26's built,
> >> there is tons of expertise, spare parts, a strong type organization,
> >> and they are robust as hell. I do find a nice webpage from Bruno
> >> Vassel that he had about his Phoebus and also a Yahoo Group, but have
> >> a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association.
> >> Resale value involves a lot more than performance.
>
> > In case there may be some slight relevance, it's observed that the
> > first generation of glass sailboats were helluva stout - but where wood
> > was imbedded as stringers etc., they can be expected to have rotted out....
>
> > Brian W
>
> Another data point -- some incredibly expensive boats are built with
> balsa coring below the waterline. *See, for example, Baltic Yachts,
> which has an excellent reputation for high quality.http://www.balticyachts.fi/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Also insulation/flotation in LPG tankers, floors in airliners (alum/
balsa sandwich).
After the Logan contest is over I'm going to ping Bruno about his
experience with the Phoebus.

[Papa3]

On Jul 23, 10:28*am, Grider Pirate > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 6:50*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/21/2010 6:44 PM, brian whatcott wrote:
>
> > > On 7/21/2010 1:49 PM, Tony wrote:
> > >> On Jul 21, 1:00 pm, jim > wrote:
> > >>> A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on
> > >>> Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k.
> > >>> How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a
> > >>> 1-26? I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at
> > >>> OTHER gliders (don't tell UF).
>
> > >>> Jim
>
> > >> i've heard there can be issues with the balsa core that may be
> > >> difficult or impossible to inspect. they're basically first
> > >> generation glass. don't forget that there were 700 1-26's built,
> > >> there is tons of expertise, spare parts, a strong type organization,
> > >> and they are robust as hell. I do find a nice webpage from Bruno
> > >> Vassel that he had about his Phoebus and also a Yahoo Group, but have
> > >> a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association.
> > >> Resale value involves a lot more than performance.
>
> > > In case there may be some slight relevance, it's observed that the
> > > first generation of glass sailboats were helluva stout - but where wood
> > > was imbedded as stringers etc., they can be expected to have rotted out...
>
> > > Brian W
>
> > Another data point -- some incredibly expensive boats are built with
> > balsa coring below the waterline. *See, for example, Baltic Yachts,
> > which has an excellent reputation for high quality.http://www.balticyachts.fi/-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Also insulation/flotation in LPG tankers, floors in airliners (alum/
> balsa sandwich).
> After the Logan contest is over I'm going to ping Bruno about his
> experience with the Phoebus.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I helped John Campbell work on his Phoebus C way back in 1987 or
1988. At that time, it was a 25 year old glider. I don't recall
any major issues or quirks, other than some slight problems with some
wooden covers (non-structural). These were related more to poor
maintenance than any design issues. The glider flew wonderfully,
though it looked kinda funky at higher speed with wing tips that
drooped due to the washout.

It's like any of the older ships. The ratio of flying to maintenance
will be worse. But if you have some time and talent, it's probably a
great deal.

P3

[Tony[_5_]]

You know, I knew there was something familiar about the tail number on
that Phoebus that is on Wings and Wheels. I couldn't place it though.
N121TT. Hmmmm

Well I am watching the Sunship Games tonight and there it is! N121TT
pulling into Marfa for the 1969 Nationals! I knew I'd seen it
somewhere!

[Mike[_8_]]

On Jul 29, 10:10*pm, Tony > wrote:
> You know, I knew there was something familiar about the tail number on
> that Phoebus that is on Wings and Wheels. *I couldn't place it though.
> N121TT. Hmmmm
>
> Well I am watching the Sunship Games tonight and there it is! N121TT
> pulling into Marfa for the 1969 Nationals! I knew I'd seen it
> somewhere!

Soaring Junkie!

[Grider Pirate]

On Jul 29, 11:09*pm, Mike > wrote:
> On Jul 29, 10:10*pm, Tony > wrote:
>
> > You know, I knew there was something familiar about the tail number on
> > that Phoebus that is on Wings and Wheels. *I couldn't place it though..
> > N121TT. Hmmmm
>
> > Well I am watching the Sunship Games tonight and there it is! N121TT
> > pulling into Marfa for the 1969 Nationals! I knew I'd seen it
> > somewhere!
>
> Soaring Junkie!

NOT! A soaring junkie would have told us who was flying it, how they
placed, and perhaps posted the daily results.

[Tony[_5_]]

> NOT! A soaring junkie would have told us who was flying it, how they
> placed, and perhaps posted the daily results.

well the daily results are in the SSA Soaring Magazine archive,
September 1969 edition Page 22 and 23 in the actual magazine (20 and
21 in the archive). 4 Phoebus's (or is that Phoebii?) were entered
and not noted as Standard Class gliders. One of the 4 was designated
a Phoebus C while the rest were just plain Phoebus. the Phoebus C
placed 21st, pilots last name was Ryan.

[Grider Pirate]

On Jul 30, 10:20*am, Tony > wrote:
> > NOT! A soaring junkie would have told us who was flying it, how they
> > placed, and perhaps posted the daily results.
>
> well the daily results are in the SSA Soaring Magazine archive,
> September 1969 edition Page 22 and 23 in the actual magazine (20 and
> 21 in the archive). *4 Phoebus's (or is that Phoebii?) were entered
> and not noted as Standard Class gliders. *One of the 4 was designated
> a Phoebus C while the rest were just plain Phoebus. *the Phoebus C
> placed 21st, pilots last name was Ryan.

Soaring Junkie!

[mike]

On Jul 30, 11:36*am, Grider Pirate > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 10:20*am, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > NOT! A soaring junkie would have told us who was flying it, how they
> > > placed, and perhaps posted the daily results.
>
> > well the daily results are in the SSA Soaring Magazine archive,
> > September 1969 edition Page 22 and 23 in the actual magazine (20 and
> > 21 in the archive). *4 Phoebus's (or is that Phoebii?) were entered
> > and not noted as Standard Class gliders. *One of the 4 was designated
> > a Phoebus C while the rest were just plain Phoebus. *the Phoebus C
> > placed 21st, pilots last name was Ryan.
>
> Soaring Junkie!

John Ryan, the guy who was being interviewed before the last task,
saying any of 10 or was it 20 people could win. He was the USA
distributor for the Phoebus at the time. The first was Art
Zimmermann, who later designed and built the Concept 70. ... Uh oh
I'm a soaring junkie.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Jul 30, 1:45*pm, mike > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 11:36*am, Grider Pirate > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 30, 10:20*am, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > > NOT! A soaring junkie would have told us who was flying it, how they
> > > > placed, and perhaps posted the daily results.
>
> > > well the daily results are in the SSA Soaring Magazine archive,
> > > September 1969 edition Page 22 and 23 in the actual magazine (20 and
> > > 21 in the archive). *4 Phoebus's (or is that Phoebii?) were entered
> > > and not noted as Standard Class gliders. *One of the 4 was designated
> > > a Phoebus C while the rest were just plain Phoebus. *the Phoebus C
> > > placed 21st, pilots last name was Ryan.
>
> > Soaring Junkie!
>
> John Ryan, the guy who was being interviewed before the last task,
> saying any of 10 or was it 20 people could win. He was the USA
> distributor for the Phoebus at the time. The first was Art
> Zimmermann, who later designed and built *the Concept 70. *... *Uh oh
> I'm a soaring junkie.

ah, its not so much a distance task as a survival task.

was he the guy who compared it to an 8hr full dress ball? that line
always cracks me up

[sisu1a]

> ah, its not so much a distance task as a survival task.
>
> was he the guy who compared it to an 8hr full dress ball? *that line
> always cracks me up

Different guys, but the 8r ball guy also cracks me up. Anyone know who
that is BTW?

-Paul

[mike]

On Jul 30, 12:52*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 1:45*pm, mike > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 11:36*am, Grider Pirate > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 30, 10:20*am, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > > > NOT! A soaring junkie would have told us who was flying it, how they
> > > > > placed, and perhaps posted the daily results.
>
> > > > well the daily results are in the SSA Soaring Magazine archive,
> > > > September 1969 edition Page 22 and 23 in the actual magazine (20 and
> > > > 21 in the archive). *4 Phoebus's (or is that Phoebii?) were entered
> > > > and not noted as Standard Class gliders. *One of the 4 was designated
> > > > a Phoebus C while the rest were just plain Phoebus. *the Phoebus C
> > > > placed 21st, pilots last name was Ryan.
>
> > > Soaring Junkie!
>
> > John Ryan, the guy who was being interviewed before the last task,
> > saying any of 10 or was it 20 people could win. He was the USA
> > distributor for the Phoebus at the time. The first was Art
> > Zimmermann, who later designed and built *the Concept 70. *... *Uh oh
> > I'm a soaring junkie.
>
> ah, its not so much a distance task as a survival task.
>
> was he the guy who compared it to an 8hr full dress ball? *that line
> always cracks me up

I think that was Rudy Alleman.