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

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

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

With a basic tube trailer similar.

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

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

[Pete[_9_]]

Agreed! I would love to see this.

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

[Tango Eight]

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

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

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Bruce Hoult]

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

That indicates a declining membership.

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

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

[Sean Fidler]

Where do I send in my deposit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:09:32 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> What we need in soaring is a new glider built for a reasonable price. $150,000 for a new glider is just not even a consideration for most people. Let's face it, you can get a low mileage Ferrari for half that price!
>
> The PW-5 was a terrible failure. The engineers made the wingspan too short, without a common T-tail and failed to have the gear retract.
>
> What we really need is something that looks like an ASW-19 bare bones that is brand new for $25,000.
>
> It needs to have only the basics:
> -15 meter wingspan
> -T-tail
> -Retractable landing gear
> -Hinged canopy
> -Airspeed
> -Altimeter
> -Basic VSI (no audio)
> -Tube trailer
> -Mag compass
>
> With a basic tube trailer similar.
>
> If the PW-5 can be made for around that price, so could something like this.
>
> Just to get a basic sailplane for $25,000 that has a 35:1 to 40:1 glide ratio, pilots could once again afford this sport and it would be one less reason for pilots to not get into soaring.

[Tango Whisky]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le mardi 14 mars 2017 13:09:32 UTC+1, a écritÂ*:
> What we need in soaring is a new glider built for a reasonable price. $150,000 for a new glider is just not even a consideration for most people. Let's face it, you can get a low mileage Ferrari for half that price!
>
> The PW-5 was a terrible failure. The engineers made the wingspan too short, without a common T-tail and failed to have the gear retract.
>
> What we really need is something that looks like an ASW-19 bare bones that is brand new for $25,000.
>
> It needs to have only the basics:
> -15 meter wingspan
> -T-tail
> -Retractable landing gear
> -Hinged canopy
> -Airspeed
> -Altimeter
> -Basic VSI (no audio)
> -Tube trailer
> -Mag compass
>
> With a basic tube trailer similar.
>
> If the PW-5 can be made for around that price, so could something like this.
>
> Just to get a basic sailplane for $25,000 that has a 35:1 to 40:1 glide ratio, pilots could once again afford this sport and it would be one less reason for pilots to not get into soaring.

[BobW]

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

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

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

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

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

Bob W.

[Andrew Ainslie]

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

[Dan Marotta]

Giggle, snort...

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

Lock and load...

On 3/14/2017 9:14 AM, chipsoars wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 11:13:23 AM UTC-4, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
>> Oh I get it now. You're reminding us of the halcyon Bush days when brave Americans pumped out affordable gliders..:)
> no, it was the Reagan era.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Tango Eight]

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


Douglas Adams had it nailed 30 years ago:

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

[Dan Marotta]

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

On 3/14/2017 10:19 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 12:05:27 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Giggle, snort...
>>
>> You guys are a laugh a minute! Each one of us likes his guy and hates
>> the other's. Do we really need to rehash stale politics? Oops! Did my
>> proper use of a pronoun, and apostrophe, and correct spelling give me away?
>>
>> Lock and load...
>
> Douglas Adams had it nailed 30 years ago:
>
> http://zenbullets.com/blog/?p=1637
>

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

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

The same nonsense statements were said about the wright brothers.

A PW-5 cost $18,500 new.

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




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

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

[Andrew Ainslie]

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

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

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

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

[[email protected]]

Uncle Hank,

Roman Åšwitkiewicz is laughing right now reading YOUR comment!!

[[email protected]]

Uncle Hank,

Roman Åšwitkiewicz is laughing right now reading YOUR comment!!

[[email protected]]

Andrew Ainslie,

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

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 4:02:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Uncle Hank,
>
> Roman Åšwitkiewicz is laughing right now reading YOUR comment!!

Maybe you can tell me who he is.
UH

[Andrew Ainslie]

If WHAT was the same price?

There is no such product, nor will there be.

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

Or - just buy a 2nd hand 19.

[[email protected]]

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

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

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

At 05:47 15 March 2017, wrote:
>That Douglas Adams quote is so appropriate today in The Netherlands.
>Thanks!
>

[[email protected]]

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

Wow!!!!

It's just a miracle isn't it?

[JS]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 3:31:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Just amazing how those PW-5's were produced at affordable prices!!!
>
> Wow!!!!
>
> It's just a miracle isn't it?

"Wilbur":
Didn't that turn into a bit of a failure?
Believe the target price for the World Class glider was supposed to be $10,000.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 10:30:01 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> What we need is a passionate engineer fresh out of college who can design this. Then take deposits of $5,000 into escrow to help fund the construction.
>
> All you have to do is start with 1.
>
> Go ahead, flame away you naysayers!!!

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

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

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

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

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

[Phil Chidekel]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 5:59:21 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> It would be really nice if the leadership came together and paired up resources to make something like this happen. We've seen American's do much greater things than anywhere on earth. We've sent men to the moon, we invented rock n roll, we connected hands across america, we are the innovators in so much stuff. But why can't we build a airplane (without an engine, or avionics) for less than $100,000?? You an buy a brand new Mustang for $25,000 and it is way more of a complex machine. Sure they've had assembly lines, but with creative minds, we could make something happen.
>
> Paul Remde was funded through our membership to stay in business. This can happen with a drive from our membership to fund a revolutionary glider that is affordable.
>
> That extreme price tag of gliders is something that kills the sport, and therefor needs to be addressed.
>
> The SSA leadership needs to step up and start pairing together resources to help new gliders being built at reasonable prices. We have members who own warehouses that aren't even being used. There are mega wealthy members among us, that would donate space in a warehouse or other resources, at no cost, out of the love for this sport. We have engineers who would help mentor a project. We have it all, just need a leadership to lead a revolution.

[Bruce Hoult]

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

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

Stuff weight shift control for a joke though.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

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

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

9B

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

[TND]

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

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


--

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

[JS]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 5:55:30 PM UTC-7, tnd wrote:
> "Great idea! As a new pilot I'd be first in line. This should be built somewhere where labor is cheap, like Mexico, under expert supervision."
>
> You'll have to fly them in over the wall...
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------
> This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
> confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those
> of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of their
> organisation.
hahahahahaaaaaaa!
Jim (a real person, not "f*cking wilbur")

[Sean Fidler]

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


On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 8:13:39 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Sean and Wilbur arguing is priceless... :-D
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FR_76LZVNw
>
> 9B
>
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:38:10 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > Where do I send in my deposit?
> >
> > I'm sorry, but your statements are ridiculous. Please, go ahead, knock yourself out and prove this model.
> >
> > If you actually believe that your new business idea...
> >
> > Let's call it "Magical Flying Unicorn Sailplanes" by Wilber" shall we?
> >

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

#popcorn

;-)

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 7:40:36 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Oh, Andy. Are you still sore with me because I called your boyfriend's rules ugly?

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 02:43 16 March 2017, gotovkotzepkoi wrote:
>
;940545 Wrote:
>> What we need in soaring is a new glider built for a reasonable
price.
>> $150,000 for a new glider is just not even a consideration for
mos
>> people. Let's face it, you can get a low mileage Ferrari for half
tha
>> price!
>>
>> The PW-5 was a terrible failure. The engineers made the
wingspan to
>> short, without a common T-tail and failed to have the gear
retract.
>>
>> What we really need is something that looks like an ASW-19
bare bone
>> that is brand new for $25,000.
>>
>> It needs to have only the basics:
>> -15 meter wingspan
>> -T-tail
>> -Retractable landing gear
>> -Hinged canopy
>> -Airspeed
>> -Altimeter
>> -Basic VSI (no audio)
>> -Tube trailer
>> -Mag compass
>>
>> With a basic tube trailer similar.
>>
>> If the PW-5 can be made for around that price, so could
something lik
>> this.
>>
>> Just to get a basic sailplane for $25,000 that has a 35:1 to
40:1 glid
>> ratio, pilots could once again afford this sport and it would be
on
>> less reason for pilots to not get into soaring.
>
>Cheap launch is more important than somebody selling a new
sailplane fo
>$25k. Until winch launch becomes wide spread, as it is in
Germany, yo
>can kiss this sport goodbye. It will never totally die out but it wil
>atrophy to near nothing. That's a fact. Aero tows are simply to
>expensive
>
>
>
>
>--
>gotovkotzepkoi

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

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

[krasw]

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

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

[Ian[_2_]]

On 14/03/2017 14:09, wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[email protected]]

Wonder if the 2/3 of new gliders being self launchers is going to take resources away from club launching assets? If the majority of club members own self launchers will the club go extinct?
>
> Cheap launch is more important than somebody selling a new sailplane for
> $25k. Until winch launch becomes wide spread, as it is in Germany, you
> can kiss this sport goodbye. It will never totally die out but it will
> atrophy to near nothing. That's a fact. Aero tows are simply too
> expensive.
>
>
>
>
> --
> gotovkotzepkoi

[Bruce Hoult]

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:43:08 AM UTC+3, gotovkotzepkoi wrote:
> ;940545 Wrote:
> > What we need in soaring is a new glider built for a reasonable price.
> > $150,000 for a new glider is just not even a consideration for most
> > people. Let's face it, you can get a low mileage Ferrari for half that
> > price!
> >
> > The PW-5 was a terrible failure. The engineers made the wingspan too
> > short, without a common T-tail and failed to have the gear retract.
> >
> > What we really need is something that looks like an ASW-19 bare bones
> > that is brand new for $25,000.
> >
> > It needs to have only the basics:
> > -15 meter wingspan
> > -T-tail
> > -Retractable landing gear
> > -Hinged canopy
> > -Airspeed
> > -Altimeter
> > -Basic VSI (no audio)
> > -Tube trailer
> > -Mag compass
> >
> > With a basic tube trailer similar.
> >
> > If the PW-5 can be made for around that price, so could something like
> > this.
> >
> > Just to get a basic sailplane for $25,000 that has a 35:1 to 40:1 glide
> > ratio, pilots could once again afford this sport and it would be one
> > less reason for pilots to not get into soaring.
>
> Cheap launch is more important than somebody selling a new sailplane for
> $25k. Until winch launch becomes wide spread, as it is in Germany, you
> can kiss this sport goodbye. It will never totally die out but it will
> atrophy to near nothing. That's a fact. Aero tows are simply too
> expensive.

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

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

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

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

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

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

> It would be interesting to know the true cost of winch launch.
>
Last year we charged GBP 11 for a winch launch. IIRC which launches have
a small tug subsidy included in that charge.

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


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

[ND]

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 5:28:14 AM UTC-4, Ian wrote:
> On 14/03/2017 14:09, wrote:
>
> > What we need in soaring is a new glider built for a reasonable price.
> > $150,000 for a new glider is just not even a consideration for most
> > people. Let's face it, you can get a low mileage Ferrari for half
> > that price!
>
> Lots of people have explained why this is not going to happen. But maybe
> I can suggest an alternative.
>
> Set up a company that makes simple affordable, practical closed
> trailers, rigging aids, tow out aids, radios, flarm kit, loggers and
> instruments. Parachutes too while you are about it. It is essential that
> as much as possible should be standardised, with "entry level" feature
> set and mass produced.
>
> Then set your self up selling "refurb kits" for all the 2nd hand gliders
> that are quietly rotting away in storage, with rusty and/or home made
> trailers, radios etc that no longer meet today's standards, parachutes
> that are time ex and lacking flarm, GPS and loggers etc.
>
> While you are about it, set up a factory with cheap labour to refinish
> those gliders in 2 part polyurethane.
>
> Your new ships will still require all of the above. Irrespective whether
> you start with a new magically cheap airframe, or a proven 2nd hand one,
> you still need all of the above.


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

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

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

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

TL,DR;

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

[Bruce Hoult]

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

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

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

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:39:04 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 2:59:28 PM UTC+3, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 03:50:02 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>
>> > It would be interesting to know the true cost of winch launch.
>> >
>> Last year we charged GBP 11 for a winch launch. IIRC which launches
>> have a small tug subsidy included in that charge.
>>
>> We do a lot of winching: our winches are used every flying day provided
>> bad weather doesn't cause cancellation. That is 5 days/week in winter
>> and 7 days/week in summer.
>
> That's NZ$20. I hope that's where the charge will be in five years.
>
> In fact you can already get winch launches for $30 each (17 GBP) if you
> pay for 40 of them in advance (which must be used within two years).

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

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

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


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

[Vernon Brown]

At 14:24 16 March 2017, gotovkotzepkoi wrote:
>
>Bruce Hoult;940673 Wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 10:43:09 PM UTC+3, gotovkotzepko
>> wrote:-
>> This glider already exists; here it is:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru0deQRIS8c-
>>
>> High-deflection flaps, 14m wingspan, 20:1 L/D, 0.6 m/s sink. It coul
>> well be faster x-country than a 1-26. Not going to match a PW5 though.
>>
>> Stuff weight shift control for a joke though.
>
>Who cares? It's a lot more fun than a sailplane
>
>
>
>
>--
>gotovkotzepkoi
>

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

[Dan Marotta]

About $55 for a 2,000' tow.

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

On 3/16/2017 1:55 PM, Vernon Brown wrote:
> At 14:24 16 March 2017, gotovkotzepkoi wrote:
>> Bruce Hoult;940673 Wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 10:43:09 PM UTC+3, gotovkotzepko
>>> wrote:-
>>> This glider already exists; here it is:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru0deQRIS8c-
>>>
>>> High-deflection flaps, 14m wingspan, 20:1 L/D, 0.6 m/s sink. It coul
>>> well be faster x-country than a 1-26. Not going to match a PW5 though.
>>>
>>> Stuff weight shift control for a joke though.
>> Who cares? It's a lot more fun than a sailplane
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> gotovkotzepkoi
>>
> Winch in the US quoted as $30, so how much is an aerotow?
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Frank Whiteley]

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 2:00:06 PM UTC-6, Vernon Brown wrote:
> At 14:24 16 March 2017, gotovkotzepkoi wrote:
> >
> >Bruce Hoult;940673 Wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 10:43:09 PM UTC+3, gotovkotzepko
> >> wrote:-
> >> This glider already exists; here it is:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru0deQRIS8c-
> >>
> >> High-deflection flaps, 14m wingspan, 20:1 L/D, 0.6 m/s sink. It coul
> >> well be faster x-country than a 1-26. Not going to match a PW5 though.
> >>
> >> Stuff weight shift control for a joke though.
> >
> >Who cares? It's a lot more fun than a sailplane
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >gotovkotzepkoi
> >
>
> Winch in the US quoted as $30, so how much is an aerotow?

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

[[email protected]]

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

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

[Soartech]

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

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

[[email protected]]

Relative performance to the class of aircraft. HG/PG pilots can buy the highest performance in HG/PG. Only reason some don't is unlike sailplanes HG/PG get sketchier the more performance you squeeze out of them.
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 10:51:07 AM UTC-4, Soartech wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 2:11:21 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > Nothing cheap and low(ish) performance is going to sell. People would rather have nothing and dream of a supership than buy a lower performance glider. Although lots of people will claim otherwise. Funny thing. Buying an old glider somehow covers the ego. Probably because what you get was once a supership. No fault of your own, that was 30 years ago.
>
> HA! Tell that to the many thousands of hang glider and paraglider pilots out there enjoying flight in their "low" performance, low-cost soaring machines! THAT is the problem: There are much cheaper, no-license-required alternatives to sailplanes these days. And they are just as much fun.

[Tango Eight]

Low capital cost isn't everything.

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

On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 3:55:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Relative performance to the class of aircraft. HG/PG pilots can buy the highest performance in HG/PG. Only reason some don't is unlike sailplanes HG/PG get sketchier the more performance you squeeze out of them.
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 10:51:07 AM UTC-4, Soartech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 2:11:21 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > Nothing cheap and low(ish) performance is going to sell. People would rather have nothing and dream of a supership than buy a lower performance glider. Although lots of people will claim otherwise. Funny thing. Buying an old glider somehow covers the ego. Probably because what you get was once a supership. No fault of your own, that was 30 years ago.
> >
> > HA! Tell that to the many thousands of hang glider and paraglider pilots out there enjoying flight in their "low" performance, low-cost soaring machines! THAT is the problem: There are much cheaper, no-license-required alternatives to sailplanes these days. And they are just as much fun.

[Ben Coleman]

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

Cheers Ben

[Soartech]

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

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

[[email protected]]

"Add in no license required and free launches"


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

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

[Giaco]

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

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

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

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

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 2:49:36 AM UTC+3, Soartech wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 5:31:39 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > Low capital cost isn't everything.
> >
> > What's the depreciation on a high performance hang glider?
>
> It IS everything if you can't afford it!
> Then the alternative is to not fly or buy something you can afford.
> Add in no license required and free launches. For most young people it's a
> no-brainer. Been there and done that.

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

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

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

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


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

[Dan Marotta]

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

On 3/19/2017 4:55 AM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 2:49:36 AM UTC+3, Soartech wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 5:31:39 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
>>> Low capital cost isn't everything.
>>>
>>> What's the depreciation on a high performance hang glider?
>> It IS everything if you can't afford it!
>> Then the alternative is to not fly or buy something you can afford.
>> Add in no license required and free launches. For most young people it's a
>> no-brainer. Been there and done that.
> In I assume many countries -- New Zealand is one definite example -- a hang glider pilot requires exactly the same "license" as a glider pilot (or parachutist, or ultralight pilot), namely:
>
> - must belong to a club affiliated to the appropriate national organisation, to which authority is delegated by the Ministry of Transport
>
> - said club must have a CFI approved by the national organisation
>
> - said pilot may not fly unless the CFI says so (usually expressed as "has not grounded them")
>
>
> You can't just buy a used hang glider on TradeMe and jump off the nearest hill.

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

[[email protected]]

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

Your feedback is appreciated.

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

[[email protected]]

Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

[Craig Reinholt]

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

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

[[email protected]]

http://www.proairsport.com/project-glow.php Predicted price $53K. That's with two motors. Twice the record breaking capacity. If you had new 25K ASW-19s on the market, all it would do is make old ASW-19s worth 12K. But I don't think it can be done with current construction techniques. Figure out how to build a plastic rotomolded glider(same as kayaks) and you'd be in the low cost glider market. That assumes there are low cost glider buyers. How much performance would pilots give up for a cheap new glider? And how much performance would they give up for a new glider with a motor at a 'low' price? Get permission to build new 1-26s that would fix everything... Rotomolded plastic 1-26s are the future. Order yours today. Available in traditional yellow and orange.
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 10:08:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I respect your engagement in this forum to help our failing sport. You have a tough job ahead of you.
>
> Perhaps if there was enough orders for the remaking of the ASW-19, say 50 orders at a reasonable price, the Alexander Schliecher factory could start up production again.
>
> Just like Chevrolet can make a high end fully loaded Corvette with the latest technology for over $100,000 and a stripped down camaro for $25,000 (both brand new 2017 models). Surely, a sailplane factory could do the same thing, offer a high end and a low end glider.
>
> I have to believe that if there were enough orders for this sailplane to be brought back into production at a reasonable price there would be a tremendous amount of orders and it would jumpstart the club class like you've never seen before.
>
> I will say it again, if the PW-5 was produced for the price it was, so can it happen again.

[Andrew Ainslie]

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

[[email protected]]

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

Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!

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

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

[Bruce Hoult]

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

I'm not sure that's true.

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

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

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

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

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

[[email protected]]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 1:36:41 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?
>
> Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!
>
> Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.
>
> How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?

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

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

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

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:29:32 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> That would fix the decline, along with the SSA incorporating the international rules of soaring and the supporting Grand Prix racing. Simple. Get with the rest of the world!
>
> But since this cockamamie set of rules is "religion" to so many of you, the decline continues.
>
> If you can't explain the way a race is won within 30 seconds or less, and the costs to compete are out of control expensive, then the demise of soaring is the fault of your own.
>
> You are now entering the final glide for Soaring as we know it.

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

-Evan / T8

[Papa3[_2_]]

Chris,

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

Exactly three Club-Owned gliders showed up. Three.

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

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

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



On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 9:03:01 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> This is a good discussion. The closest thing to what you're talking about is the HPH 304C. I recently emailed Sean Franke and asked for a quote and was told that nobody had ordered one since 2014. A bulk order with cheaper US made trailers may be the way to go. The other key component to this is currently there's only 1 Bank that has loans specific to gliders. Yes you can take out a home equity line to partially finance the latest and greatest, but clubs cannot do this. As the Chair of the Growth and Retention Committee I intend to spend some face time to see what can be done for clubs who have at least 50% equity in their glider. Such loans shouldn't require a Guarantor where the glider is new or newly used and worth more than $50k. One option is to have pledges in the event of a default (which isn't quite the same thing as being a Guarantor but ought to still help reduce the risk for a bank). The next question is, who wants to get into the glider Repo business? Hopefully this won't be needed though.
>
> Your feedback is appreciated.
>
> Chris Schrader, Chair of SSA's Growth & Retention Committee

[Bruce Hoult]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 8:50:41 PM UTC+3, chipsoars wrote:
> http://all-aero.com/index.php/component/content/article/60-gliders/9701-schleicher-asw-19--valiant-t
>
> $19,500 USD
>
>
> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 1:36:41 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?
> >
> > Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!
> >
> > Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.
> >
> > How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?

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

Which is right about what the HpH 304 costs now.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

That $19,500 is not in today's dollars, so the figure is not as meaningful. Wasn't the ASW-19 a contemporary of the LS-4, a better performing glider. And didn't they try to produce the LS-4, as a club class glider with both fixed gear or with retractable gear after LS went BK? That project failed with a more popular glider than the ASW-19. As pointed out the HPH 304 is along the line of this thread but none have been ordered since 2014.

China produced a very cheap racing sailboat "Flying Tiger", but last time I spoke with an owner they looked great but had too many problems, haven't seen one on the water lately. I frankly do not want anything from China, do not trust their safety record on baby formula, children's jewelry, dry wall, plywood, dog food, cat food................

Gee Wilbur, you took the year off, if you are so sure this will work why don't you buy the tooling and molds find a 3rd world country that you can hire a labor force of children like Nike and build your machines.

As a side note to doing work in other countries, a friend who was general counsel to a very large public company told me a tale of setting up a cigaret manufacturing factory in Russia. They started having trouble contacting the factory so they sent their lead production manager to Russia. When he got there, surprise, the entire factory had been moved to an unknown location and the local government was asking a huge sum to find and return the factory.

If you are so sure this will work, I look forward to seeing your results!


On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 10:50:41 AM UTC-7, chipsoars wrote:
> http://all-aero.com/index.php/component/content/article/60-gliders/9701-schleicher-asw-19--valiant-t
>
> $19,500 USD
>
>
> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 1:36:41 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?
> >
> > Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!
> >
> > Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.
> >
> > How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?

[Bruce Hoult]

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

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

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 10:36:41 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?
>
> Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!
>
> Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.
>
> How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?

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

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

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

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

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

Andy
9B

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:50:24 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

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

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


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

[[email protected]]

Again, no one on here will discuss these questions:

How much was a PW-5 brand new?

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


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

[[email protected]]

Again, no one on here will discuss these questions:

How much was a PW-5 brand new?

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


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

[Craig Reinholt]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:50:01 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Again, no one on here will discuss these questions:
>
> How much was a PW-5 brand new?
>
> What would that be worth in today's dollars with inflation?
>
>
> The answer alone removes all doubt that affordable sailplanes CAN be made!

Sean Spicer.... is it really you?

[[email protected]]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 8:50:01 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Again, no one on here will discuss these questions:
>
> How much was a PW-5 brand new?
>
> What would that be worth in today's dollars with inflation?
>
>
> The answer alone removes all doubt that affordable sailplanes CAN be made!

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

[Papa3[_2_]]

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

[[email protected]]

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

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

[Dan Marotta]

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

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

On 3/20/2017 11:36 AM, wrote:
> How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?
>
> Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!
>
> Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.
>
> How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

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

On 3/20/2017 8:25 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Well, let's just say that the ASW-19, brand new in 1975 cost $25,000,
> though I'm sure it was a bit more. Adjusting for inflation, that's
> $116,296.72 in today's dollars ($30K inflates to $139,556.07).
>
> Guess that sucks the wind out of your sails, huh, Wilbur? A similar
> lookup could just as easily be done for the first production year of
> the PW-5.
>
> On 3/20/2017 11:36 AM, wrote:
>> How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?
>>
>> Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!
>>
>> Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market
>> for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable
>> price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.
>>
>> How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

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

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:50:01 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Again, no one on here will discuss these questions:
>
> How much was a PW-5 brand new?
>
> What would that be worth in today's dollars with inflation?
>
>
> The answer alone removes all doubt that affordable sailplanes CAN be made!

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

A literary dumpster fire, so to speak.

[Bruce Hoult]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ben Coleman]

On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 19:34:09 UTC+11, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 3:50:01 AM UTC+3, wrote:
> > Again, no one on here will discuss these questions:
> >
> > How much was a PW-5 brand new?
>
> Is it not a rhetorical question? I believe my club's two PW5s in 1994 or 1995 (which were somewhere in the first five or six serial numbers) cost NZ$25000, or about US$15000.
>
> > What would that be worth in today's dollars with inflation?
>
> That's US$24000 now, based on US inflation.
>
> I suspect other factors such as the cost of living in Poland might be more relevant -- that looks to me more like a factor of 3.5 since the mid 90s, which would make a PW5 cost $52500 now.

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

Cheers Ben

[[email protected]]

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!!

Thank you Bruce, thank you.

Yes that's right. According to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com a PW-5 in today's money would be $23,976.

I'll repeat that a second time for clarification $23,976.

And a third time for impact $23,976


I rest my case to all you naysayers who say a glider can't be produced at a reasonable cost!



There it is. An ASW-19 WAS cutting edge on the production line, a PW-5 was NOT! "If" the PW-5 didn't look like a Volkswagen clown car, it would have revolutionized the sport. Perhaps someone should take a aesthetically pleasing 15 meter popular club class glider and replicate it using the same production quality of the PW-5 and sell them.

Here's to hoping a second chance at the great intentions of the PW-5 to someone out there. If we had that, the hopes and dreams of a world class would be a reality, and soaring would be made great again.

[Paul B[_2_]]

Well when that glider was produced, the wages in Poland were peanuts. Whilst I am sure that current wages in Poland do not match wages in Germany, clearly the polish businesses worked out that it is useful to set prices closer to those in the west. So the simplistic comparison where the dollar price is inflated by the inflation factor is not accurate. The landscape has changed.

Cheers

Paul

[Bruce Hoult]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:05:09 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!!
>
> Thank you Bruce, thank you.
>
> Yes that's right. According to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com a PW-5 in today's money would be $23,976.
>
> I'll repeat that a second time for clarification $23,976.
>
> And a third time for impact $23,976
>
>
> I rest my case to all you naysayers who say a glider can't be produced at a reasonable cost!
>
>
>
> There it is. An ASW-19 WAS cutting edge on the production line, a PW-5 was NOT! "If" the PW-5 didn't look like a Volkswagen clown car, it would have revolutionized the sport. Perhaps someone should take a aesthetically pleasing 15 meter popular club class glider and replicate it using the same production quality of the PW-5 and sell them.
>
> Here's to hoping a second chance at the great intentions of the PW-5 to someone out there. If we had that, the hopes and dreams of a world class would be a reality, and soaring would be made great again.

You seem to have missed the part where I said:

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

[Dan Marotta]

Here's your chance, Wilbur/Sean. Sell your ASG-29 and buy 10 used PW-5s
and hand them out to deserving individuals and/or clubs. You can ensure
your place in history with that one selfless act!

But, as was said earlier, you can build something ugly or something
pretty (performance, looks, whatever) for the same price, but you won't
build thinner airfoils for the same price. If you could, why weren't
then done in the past? Hint: it wasn't science, it was technology
(theory vs engineering/materials) and the materials to produce the
theory cost more, not to mention the labor.

Is this thing repeating? To paraphrase Einstein: Saying the same thing
over and over again is the definition of insanity. Maybe Sean/Wilbur is
simply trying to drive us all mad and we're taking the bait.

I'm out (I hope).

On 3/21/2017 3:05 AM, wrote:
> Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!!
>
> Thank you Bruce, thank you.
>
> Yes that's right. According to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com a PW-5 in today's money would be $23,976.
>
> I'll repeat that a second time for clarification $23,976.
>
> And a third time for impact $23,976
>
>
> I rest my case to all you naysayers who say a glider can't be produced at a reasonable cost!
>
>
>
> There it is. An ASW-19 WAS cutting edge on the production line, a PW-5 was NOT! "If" the PW-5 didn't look like a Volkswagen clown car, it would have revolutionized the sport. Perhaps someone should take a aesthetically pleasing 15 meter popular club class glider and replicate it using the same production quality of the PW-5 and sell them.
>
> Here's to hoping a second chance at the great intentions of the PW-5 to someone out there. If we had that, the hopes and dreams of a world class would be a reality, and soaring would be made great again.

--
Dan, 5J

[Bruce Hoult]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 7:36:58 PM UTC+3, chipsoars wrote:
> anyone remember Lennie the Lurker?
>
> On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 11:34:24 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Here's your chance, Wilbur/Sean. Sell your ASG-29 and buy 10 used PW-5s
> > and hand them out to deserving individuals and/or clubs. You can ensure
> > your place in history with that one selfless act!
> >
> > But, as was said earlier, you can build something ugly or something
> > pretty (performance, looks, whatever) for the same price, but you won't
> > build thinner airfoils for the same price. If you could, why weren't
> > then done in the past? Hint: it wasn't science, it was technology
> > (theory vs engineering/materials) and the materials to produce the
> > theory cost more, not to mention the labor.
> >
> > Is this thing repeating? To paraphrase Einstein: Saying the same thing
> > over and over again is the definition of insanity. Maybe Sean/Wilbur is
> > simply trying to drive us all mad and we're taking the bait.
> >
> > I'm out (I hope).
> >
> > On 3/21/2017 3:05 AM, wrote:
> > > Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!!
> > >
> > > Thank you Bruce, thank you.
> > >
> > > Yes that's right. According to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com a PW-5 in today's money would be $23,976.
> > >
> > > I'll repeat that a second time for clarification $23,976.
> > >
> > > And a third time for impact $23,976
> > >
> > >
> > > I rest my case to all you naysayers who say a glider can't be produced at a reasonable cost!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There it is. An ASW-19 WAS cutting edge on the production line, a PW-5 was NOT! "If" the PW-5 didn't look like a Volkswagen clown car, it would have revolutionized the sport. Perhaps someone should take a aesthetically pleasing 15 meter popular club class glider and replicate it using the same production quality of the PW-5 and sell them.
> > >
> > > Here's to hoping a second chance at the great intentions of the PW-5 to someone out there. If we had that, the hopes and dreams of a world class would be a reality, and soaring would be made great again.

Sure. Active about 15 years go. Hated progress of any kind.

Someone claiming to be him posted this in '14:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.aviation.soaring/PviZkEdK5BM/5wH9FeoVwfkJ

[JS]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 9:36:58 AM UTC-7, chipsoars wrote:
> anyone remember Lennie the Lurker?

Nice one, Chip.
A possible way for "Wilbur" or "Lennie" to produce his/her/their cheap gliders...

Use prison labor.
Wages are about ten cents an hour plus the fees paid to the company running the prison. There is no need to provide employee benefits. Wonder if anyone checks that the factory is a safe and healthy place to work? Overrated.
Employees are conveniently housed on site, like Dubai construction workers. Additional fees paid to the prison management might give your best employees incentive to remain with you beyond their original contract period.
With the factories located in the USA you can even use slogans (apparently people fall for them) like: "25% more than a PW5, same low price" "make America great again" "new improved formula", or the one Wal-Mart got busted for using: "made in the USA".
Wilbur/Lennie can be leaders in the new American way!

Diabolical laughter, with lots of reverb...
Jim

[Bob Kuykendall]

Yes, that was him. The parts he made for the HP-24 project are still working great.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 2:34:09 AM UTC-6, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 3:50:01 AM UTC+3, wrote:
> > Again, no one on here will discuss these questions:
> >
> > How much was a PW-5 brand new?
>
> Is it not a rhetorical question? I believe my club's two PW5s in 1994 or 1995 (which were somewhere in the first five or six serial numbers) cost NZ$25000, or about US$15000.
>
> > What would that be worth in today's dollars with inflation?
>
> That's US$24000 now, based on US inflation.
>
> I suspect other factors such as the cost of living in Poland might be more relevant -- that looks to me more like a factor of 3.5 since the mid 90s, which would make a PW5 cost $52500 now.

IIRC when the PW-6 was early in production, if you bought one, they would give you a PW-5 to go with it. Not sure how many took advantage of that, however, the late Dick Johnson donated a PW-6 and PW-5 to the Mississippi State University Gliding Club, so perhaps he did.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

What happened to Soar-point? That scrivener seemed to understand satire.


On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 9:36:58 AM UTC-7, chipsoars wrote:
> anyone remember Lennie the Lurker?
>

[Alex[_6_]]

Last years WGC club class was won in a glider valued under 15k dollars including all the accessories. It has never been cheaper than today to own a glider to compete with on a world level.

With declining numbers of glider pilots, a strong market for new high-end ships and virtually unlimited lifetime of used gliders, the availability of affordable gliders is really not an issue.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 2:05:09 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!!
>
> Thank you Bruce, thank you.
>
> Yes that's right. According to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com a PW-5 in today's money would be $23,976.
>
> I'll repeat that a second time for clarification $23,976.
>
> And a third time for impact $23,976
>
>
> I rest my case to all you naysayers who say a glider can't be produced at a reasonable cost!


I hate to be the math and economics guy all the time, but I think you rested your case on the wrong analysis.

The PW-5 was made in Poland. You applied the US CPI. Turns out US and Polish inflation rates are different because (drum roll) they are different countries. Poland went through hyperinflation after the end of the Cold War and did a 10,000:1 redenomination of their currency in 1995.

If you compound Polish CPI from 1994 to today you get higher prices by a factor of 5.9. That would make a $15,000 PW-5 in 1994 cost about $88,000 today.

But don't despair. Big differentials in inflation can be accompanied by offsetting currency exchange rates. The Polish Zloty has devalued a bit versus the dollar so, adjusting for inflation AND exchange rates (adjusting for the redenomination), a 1994 PW-5 would cost around $55,000 today.

I bet that's not too far off from what you'd pay for a GP 11, and the GP 11 performs a lot better than a PW-5.

This is a simplified analysis as inflation for skilled technical jobs (like making gliders) can rise at a somewhat different rate than overall prices. Nevertheless, engineering and economics are kind of like gravity, you ignore them at your peril.

Do I get a chicken dinner?

Andy Blackburn
9B

[[email protected]]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 10:36:41 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?

Because it had a tube tailboom and did not have a T-tail.

>
> Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!
>
> Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.
>
> How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?

Bob K and I have discussed the possibility of getting a S-LSA certification for the HP-24. It would cost about $500,000. If that were underwritten by investors, then the HP-24 could be sold as a completed and ready-to-fly glider. There is no other mechanism that would allow for selling a glider built new in the USA. You can not certificate a new, built in the USA aircraft as Experimental-air race and demonstration.

[[email protected]]

Sorry, no chicken dinner.

You are comparing apples to oranges from 2 decades ago where political environments have changed, in an attempt to prove that gliders MUST cost a fortune. It's just as silly as the prison example above, or the production plant in Mexico. One of the big reasons this sport has gone dow hill has been from the cult mantra that NOTHING can be changed (period), which is just ridiculous! Thus no structured group effort is made to change.

My point is this, you all say it can't be done, I say it already has been done. The PW-5 was created at an affordable price. And it absolutely could be created again, perhaps not in the same country, or by the same manufacture, and hopefully not the same design! But it has been done before and therefor can be done again.

After this in depth discussion I sincerely believe that the reason gliders cost so much is because there just isn't anyone capable of manufacturing a sailplane that actually wants to produce an affordable glider. The desire seems to be in only the extreme cutting edge technology. Sailboat, airplane, automobile and other transportation designs all have varieties available ranging from basic to advanced, except soaring.

Therefor, pilots are forced to choose between a sailplane that is the price of a Ferrari or Maserati, or an antique worn out old fiberglass ship that is crazed over and who knows just how safe it really is since there's no data on the structural integrity of 50 year old fiberglass.

Rant over, go ahead, flame away.

[[email protected]]

> You can not certificate a new, built in the USA aircraft as Experimental-air race and demonstration.

Wasn't this done with the few Duckhawk's that were built?

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Sorry, no chicken dinner.
>
> You are comparing apples to oranges from 2 decades ago where political environments have changed, in an attempt to prove that gliders MUST cost a fortune. It's just as silly as the prison example above,...

Wilbur/Sean, can you really not see the absurdity of you using the word "silly" to argue against economic theory which has withstood the test of time. Andy actually knows what he is speaking of and has a history to prove such. "Silly" is just rude name calling, not a valid argument, nor do you have a history of upper management making business decisions on sound economic analysis. At some point in every dreamers life it is time open the ears and stop with "silly" thoughts, or put up and form a company and move forward to prove how "silly" all the others are.

[krasw]

A new trailer, instruments, parachute, covers (etc.) will set you back 25k. If someone manages to build a new glider with same price, I have only one comment: shut up and take my money. Maybe add a sustainer for total price of 45k? Waiting for "Sealbur Gliders Ltd" start taking orders.

[Kevin Brooker]

As an owner and proponent of the PW-5 my heart is always made to beat a bit faster knowing this glider still has relevance even if it is as a benchmark of what not to do. The glider's place in history will show it has helped advance the sport.

The cost of gliders really doesn't matter. Make them free and after a surge in activity the y will not be flown very much. What gets in the way of flying is not availability of gliders it is the availability of time and the commitment to of this time to fly. Many of us are not blessed with the time needed to enjoy the sport. Find a way to make more time and then we can worry about the availability of gliders..

The only reason to own a glider is convenience. The cost of ownership is relatively high compared to renting or joining a club where ships are made available. The club I used to fly with has a 304 available to members and a few of the owners are gracious to loan their ships to qualified pilots. I was never at a loss for a better glider and went the route of the PW to chase records and go after a world championship. Didn't work out as planned.

When I owned a powerplane the break even cost of ownership vs. renting was flying about 65 hours each year. The benefit to owning was being able to fly when I wanted for as long as I wanted. Economically owning an airplane was not a great economic savings in terms of cash.

The glider isn't much different. Club dues were about $500 and I paid these whether I was an owner or used club ships. Owning the PW cos me about $1500 year including the trailer, insurance, annuals, and any additional expenses of hauling the thing around. My average year was about 75 hours in the PW. Almost every time I flew the club ships were in the box so I flew the PW by choice. Insert your favorite PW slight/bad choice joke here.

Want to fly inexpensively; join a good club, use their equipment and accept the inconvenience.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 12:03:34 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > You can not certificate a new, built in the USA aircraft as Experimental-air race and demonstration.
>
> Wasn't this done with the few Duckhawk's that were built?

looks like the Duckhawks have Experimental - Racing Airworthiness Certificates

[Tim[_11_]]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 5:39:26 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
<SNIP>
> I bet that's not too far off from what you'd pay for a GP 11, and the GP 11 performs a lot better than a PW-5.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

Thanks for the GP 11 shout-out Andy.

Base Price for a GP 11, with calculated 38-39 L/D, is 43,900 EUR, with 11,900 EUR for a trailer and up to 12% discount with 50%-100% deposit. That's about as good a deal in a new-built glider as your likely to get out there folks.

Simple, robust, good performance, new materials and aerodynamic design, and perfect for club use.

BUT, there has been very little to no interest to date. We all representing GP Gliders wish this lack of interest was not the case. If you have any interest in this type of glider, give me a shout as the factory will only enter production if there is demand.

Tim McAllister
GP Gliders USA

[Dan Marotta]

I've got it!

You're that "Flexi Seal" guy, aren't you? What do you want? This
(shaking his head in a black and white video)? Or... /_*THIS*_/ (in
full living color)? What choice is there? We need an ASH-31mi (with
fixed gear and no flaps) for $15K.

I love you, Sean, but you'd get more takers as a barker at the county fair.

On 3/22/2017 7:17 PM, wrote:
> Sorry, no chicken dinner.
>
> You are comparing apples to oranges from 2 decades ago where political environments have changed, in an attempt to prove that gliders MUST cost a fortune. It's just as silly as the prison example above, or the production plant in Mexico. One of the big reasons this sport has gone dow hill has been from the cult mantra that NOTHING can be changed (period), which is just ridiculous! Thus no structured group effort is made to change.
>
> My point is this, you all say it can't be done, I say it already has been done. The PW-5 was created at an affordable price. And it absolutely could be created again, perhaps not in the same country, or by the same manufacture, and hopefully not the same design! But it has been done before and therefor can be done again.
>
> After this in depth discussion I sincerely believe that the reason gliders cost so much is because there just isn't anyone capable of manufacturing a sailplane that actually wants to produce an affordable glider. The desire seems to be in only the extreme cutting edge technology. Sailboat, airplane, automobile and other transportation designs all have varieties available ranging from basic to advanced, except soaring.
>
> Therefor, pilots are forced to choose between a sailplane that is the price of a Ferrari or Maserati, or an antique worn out old fiberglass ship that is crazed over and who knows just how safe it really is since there's no data on the structural integrity of 50 year old fiberglass.
>
> Rant over, go ahead, flame away.

--
Dan, 5J

[Tango Whisky]

It's just as it is:

For 25 k€, you'll get a pristine 40:1 glider tomorrow. Classifieds are full of them. It will have at most 20% of its service life expectance, it will have a trailer, instruments and everything. Pay today, fly the next day.

There is just no market *at all* for a re-birthed glider. Never has been, never will be.
If this Sean/Wilbur troll doesn't believe it, why doesn't he just take a million or three and go waste it on his business model? Right, because there is no business model to start with...

Bert TW

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 10:42:13 AM UTC-7, Tim wrote:

> Thanks for the GP 11 shout-out Andy.
>
> Base Price for a GP 11, with calculated 38-39 L/D, is 43,900 EUR, with 11,900 EUR for a trailer and up to 12% discount with 50%-100% deposit. That's about as good a deal in a new-built glider as your likely to get out there folks.
>
> Simple, robust, good performance, new materials and aerodynamic design, and perfect for club use.
>
> BUT, there has been very little to no interest to date. We all representing GP Gliders wish this lack of interest was not the case. If you have any interest in this type of glider, give me a shout as the factory will only enter production if there is demand.
>
> Tim McAllister
> GP Gliders USA


There you have it.

You can order a glider with ASW-19 performance for LESS than the inflation-adjusted price of a PW-5. Only problem is not enough people seem to want one. Not exactly sure why that is. Possibly available time is a bigger constraint than money for many and for the rest buying an actual ASW-19 on the used market is a better value proposition than a brand-new glider optimized for minimum possible cost.

Troll-on.

9B

[Frank Whiteley]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:58:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 10:36:41 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?
>
> Because it had a tube tailboom and did not have a T-tail.
>
> >
> > Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!
> >
> > Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.
> >
> > How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?
>
> Bob K and I have discussed the possibility of getting a S-LSA certification for the HP-24. It would cost about $500,000. If that were underwritten by investors, then the HP-24 could be sold as a completed and ready-to-fly glider. There is no other mechanism that would allow for selling a glider built new in the USA. You can not certificate a new, built in the USA aircraft as Experimental-air race and demonstration.

Ramping up type certificated glider production is estimated at $1M. Tim Barry holds the type certificate for the Krosno-KR03a (Peregrine). They've held Part Making Authorization for several years, but you must build three under FAA observation to become self certifying. This may mean keeping the assembly line up and lights on for an extended time as you will likely only get an FAA visit every four months. If they find something they are happy with, they leave, let you fix it and show up again in four months. The production line was set up, but there was not commercial money available after the 2008 bust. 55 percent of the respondents to a two-seater survey after the L-13's were grounded preferred metal construction.

So, starting without a type certificate, the ramp up cost is likely to be somewhat higher. Bob K has shown some concept images of a two-seater similar to the Schneider ES-65 Platypus, but thought it should be TC'd. Greg Cole showed a concept image of the two-seat trainer at the Barnaby Lecture a few years ago, but said it would only be experimental.

Simply put, there are no pathways to cheap two-seaters. Nor are there pathways to cheap single-seaters because there doesn't appear to be a market.

My experience in the UK (10.5 years over two tours) is getting dated, but ownership syndicates were the order of the day. Private gliders were owned by 3-4 pilots. Club fleets were similar. A syndicate (4) at one club formed and bought a DG-300 from a Swedish Club. They were surprised to find that private ownership of gliders in Sweden was uncommon (in the 1990's) and that clubs had large fleets (socialism?).

From what I've observed, shared ownership of gliders in the US has been rather rare, though it is a bit more common in my club today than it's been in the past 20 years. Splitting the cost and expenses four ways certainly should make several gliders attractive.

The cultures of soaring vary among countries, regions, and clubs for a variety of reasons, including geographic. Tough nut to crack.

Frank Whiteley

[Frank Whiteley]

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:19:36 PM UTC-6, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:58:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 10:36:41 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?
> >
> > Because it had a tube tailboom and did not have a T-tail.
> >
> > >
> > > Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!
> > >
> > > Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.
> > >
> > > How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?
> >
> > Bob K and I have discussed the possibility of getting a S-LSA certification for the HP-24. It would cost about $500,000. If that were underwritten by investors, then the HP-24 could be sold as a completed and ready-to-fly glider. There is no other mechanism that would allow for selling a glider built new in the USA. You can not certificate a new, built in the USA aircraft as Experimental-air race and demonstration.
>
> Ramping up type certificated glider production is estimated at $1M. Tim Barry holds the type certificate for the Krosno-KR03a (Peregrine). They've held Part Making Authorization for several years, but you must build three under FAA observation to become self certifying. This may mean keeping the assembly line up and lights on for an extended time as you will likely only get an FAA visit every four months. If they find something they are happy with, they leave, let you fix it and show up again in four months. The production line was set up, but there was not commercial money available after the 2008 bust. 55 percent of the respondents to a two-seater survey after the L-13's were grounded preferred metal construction.
>
> So, starting without a type certificate, the ramp up cost is likely to be somewhat higher. Bob K has shown some concept images of a two-seater similar to the Schneider ES-65 Platypus, but thought it should be TC'd. Greg Cole showed a concept image of the two-seat trainer at the Barnaby Lecture a few years ago, but said it would only be experimental.
>
> Simply put, there are no pathways to cheap two-seaters. Nor are there pathways to cheap single-seaters because there doesn't appear to be a market.
>
> My experience in the UK (10.5 years over two tours) is getting dated, but ownership syndicates were the order of the day. Private gliders were owned by 3-4 pilots. Club fleets were similar. A syndicate (4) at one club formed and bought a DG-300 from a Swedish Club. They were surprised to find that private ownership of gliders in Sweden was uncommon (in the 1990's) and that clubs had large fleets (socialism?).
>
> From what I've observed, shared ownership of gliders in the US has been rather rare, though it is a bit more common in my club today than it's been in the past 20 years. Splitting the cost and expenses four ways certainly should make several gliders attractive.
>
> The cultures of soaring vary among countries, regions, and clubs for a variety of reasons, including geographic. Tough nut to crack.
>
> Frank Whiteley

WRT FAA 'aren't happy with'

[[email protected]]

> From what I've observed, shared ownership of gliders in the US has been rather rare, though it is a bit more common in my club today than it's been in the past 20 years. Splitting the cost and expenses four ways certainly should make several gliders attractive.

> Frank Whiteley

Shared ownership was the norm when I was growing up at what is now Caesar Creek Soaring Club in the mid 1960s. Typically 2 but up to 8 partners. My dad had a partner who flew only on Sundays; we went to church so my dad flew on Saturdays and at contests. I started out with a 1/8 share of a 1-26 (one specific weekend day a month) but flew as much as I wanted because so few of my partners did.

What changed? Lifestyles. I'm not wealthy but earlier in my career I had more money than time regarding gliders so I own my glider outright. I never knew when I'd have a weekend day free and wanted to fly without having to coordinate with a partner. I fly contests and didn't want conflicts there, either.

Shared ownership is less expensive. But cost is only part of the problem. Club gliders and shared ownership gliders often sit on the ground even on good weekend soaring days. Soaring takes a lot of time and is tough on families (although we tried to make it fun for my daughters growing up, with some success). It's tough and frustrating to learn how. It's completely weather dependent so you can't plan ahead. There's a lot more ground time than flying time. Without a motorglider, you're dependent on others for launching and retrieves. You can spend hours waiting for both the former and the latter. Etc.

It's never going to be widely popular, either for participants or spectators. And I'd argue those two aren't that related anyway.

From a purely selfish perspective (the shame of it!), I just hope soaring survives long enough for me to continue enjoying it for a while longer and then sell my glider. :)

Chip Bearden

[Frank Whiteley]

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 4:07:24 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > From what I've observed, shared ownership of gliders in the US has been rather rare, though it is a bit more common in my club today than it's been in the past 20 years. Splitting the cost and expenses four ways certainly should make several gliders attractive.
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> Shared ownership was the norm when I was growing up at what is now Caesar Creek Soaring Club in the mid 1960s. Typically 2 but up to 8 partners. My dad had a partner who flew only on Sundays; we went to church so my dad flew on Saturdays and at contests. I started out with a 1/8 share of a 1-26 (one specific weekend day a month) but flew as much as I wanted because so few of my partners did.
>
> What changed? Lifestyles. I'm not wealthy but earlier in my career I had more money than time regarding gliders so I own my glider outright. I never knew when I'd have a weekend day free and wanted to fly without having to coordinate with a partner. I fly contests and didn't want conflicts there, either.
>
> Shared ownership is less expensive. But cost is only part of the problem. Club gliders and shared ownership gliders often sit on the ground even on good weekend soaring days. Soaring takes a lot of time and is tough on families (although we tried to make it fun for my daughters growing up, with some success). It's tough and frustrating to learn how. It's completely weather dependent so you can't plan ahead. There's a lot more ground time than flying time. Without a motorglider, you're dependent on others for launching and retrieves. You can spend hours waiting for both the former and the latter. Etc.
>
> It's never going to be widely popular, either for participants or spectators. And I'd argue those two aren't that related anyway.
>
> From a purely selfish perspective (the shame of it!), I just hope soaring survives long enough for me to continue enjoying it for a while longer and then sell my glider. :)
>
> Chip Bearden

Chip,

Let's hope FAA privatization falls on its ass if you want access to airspace without your ADS-B toll beacon.

Thanks for your thoughts.

My involvement with US soaring wasn't until 1981 and I did have a partner in a DG-100, but I didn't sense there were a lot of partnerships in the region. Of course that was in PASCO and the clubs I visited mostly lacked a pulse. PASCO helped create the greater social environment. I had read much about the Chico Soaring Association and was looking forward to joining when I got to California, but the Casamajor brothers had run out of steam by then. The preponderance of commercial operators in the region made it easy to operate independently.

Frank Whiteley

[Surge]

We don't need cheaper gliders until we can fix the declining membership issue.
In my club there are plenty of 35:1 to 40:1 gliders which have been up for sale for between $6000 and $16000 and they're not selling even after being advertised for two or three years. Single Astirs, ASW-15, etc.
I picked up a old 47:1 glider with trailer (Nimbus 2), refurbished it, installed some modern instrumentation and added a Mountain High O2 system for a total cost of under $20,000. Why would I want to purchase a more expensive, newer glider with less equipment and performance?
Even decent condition ASW 20's can be had for around the $25000 mark.

Where I live there are simply not enough students completing their training so the second hand market is abundant especially with the older members heading West one-by-one. A cheap, new glider is not going to fix that problem..

[[email protected]]

> In my club there are plenty of 35:1 to 40:1 gliders which have been up for sale for between $6000 and $16000 and they're not selling even after being advertised for two or three years. Single Astirs, ASW-15, etc.

What is your location and is the ASW-15 still available?