Grow soaring thru entertainment

[John]

Added a similar comment when I filled in the SSA soaring survey.

Want to grow soaring? Market soaring as low-cost entertainment to
generate mass appeal. Develop a commercial gliding site that focuses
on giving rides only, quickly and cheaply.

Look at all the teenagers spending $5-$15 to ride go-karts or roller
coasters every Saturday at county fairs. Would they not also pay
$5-15 for a quick 750-1000 foot winch or auto launch glider ride?
Especially, if the gliders were launching right next to the county
fair (airport was next door...or maybe launching right off the
fairgrounds themselves). This is entertainment, not soaring. But
from the launch to the high bank turn on final, along with the 750
foot altitude, should be quite entertaining for the masses.

Key is low cost and keeping the wait in line to less than 15 minutes.
Might need several winches and several gliders. And maybe even drop
the launch height to 600 feet. (Just want to be high enough to not
create any landing pattern safety issues, but low enough to get on the
ground as quick as possible for the next ride). Have to compete with
other forms of low-cost entertainment, in terms of both time and
money. This is how you develop mass appeal.

How do these entertaining glides create a benefit for the larger sport
of soaring? Thru numbers...throw enough people into the air, and some
of them might develop an interest to become soaring pilots.

[Bill Daniels]

I LIKE it.

Bill Daniels

"John" > wrote in message
om...
> Added a similar comment when I filled in the SSA soaring survey.
>
> Want to grow soaring? Market soaring as low-cost entertainment to
> generate mass appeal. Develop a commercial gliding site that focuses
> on giving rides only, quickly and cheaply.
>
> Look at all the teenagers spending $5-$15 to ride go-karts or roller
> coasters every Saturday at county fairs. Would they not also pay
> $5-15 for a quick 750-1000 foot winch or auto launch glider ride?
> Especially, if the gliders were launching right next to the county
> fair (airport was next door...or maybe launching right off the
> fairgrounds themselves). This is entertainment, not soaring. But
> from the launch to the high bank turn on final, along with the 750
> foot altitude, should be quite entertaining for the masses.
>
> Key is low cost and keeping the wait in line to less than 15 minutes.
> Might need several winches and several gliders. And maybe even drop
> the launch height to 600 feet. (Just want to be high enough to not
> create any landing pattern safety issues, but low enough to get on the
> ground as quick as possible for the next ride). Have to compete with
> other forms of low-cost entertainment, in terms of both time and
> money. This is how you develop mass appeal.
>
> How do these entertaining glides create a benefit for the larger sport
> of soaring? Thru numbers...throw enough people into the air, and some
> of them might develop an interest to become soaring pilots.

[Whitson Bush]

One thing we tried was inviting the Air Force JRROTC cadets over to fly at a
reduced rate. They made a club of it and even had non cadets flying with us.
Maybe we should hit the high schools.
"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
news:NKSfc.144982$gA5.1763352@attbi_s03...
> I LIKE it.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> "John" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Added a similar comment when I filled in the SSA soaring survey.
> >
> > Want to grow soaring? Market soaring as low-cost entertainment to
> > generate mass appeal. Develop a commercial gliding site that focuses
> > on giving rides only, quickly and cheaply.
> >
> > Look at all the teenagers spending $5-$15 to ride go-karts or roller
> > coasters every Saturday at county fairs. Would they not also pay
> > $5-15 for a quick 750-1000 foot winch or auto launch glider ride?
> > Especially, if the gliders were launching right next to the county
> > fair (airport was next door...or maybe launching right off the
> > fairgrounds themselves). This is entertainment, not soaring. But
> > from the launch to the high bank turn on final, along with the 750
> > foot altitude, should be quite entertaining for the masses.
> >
> > Key is low cost and keeping the wait in line to less than 15 minutes.
> > Might need several winches and several gliders. And maybe even drop
> > the launch height to 600 feet. (Just want to be high enough to not
> > create any landing pattern safety issues, but low enough to get on the
> > ground as quick as possible for the next ride). Have to compete with
> > other forms of low-cost entertainment, in terms of both time and
> > money. This is how you develop mass appeal.
> >
> > How do these entertaining glides create a benefit for the larger sport
> > of soaring? Thru numbers...throw enough people into the air, and some
> > of them might develop an interest to become soaring pilots.
>

[bt news]

In the UK the problems associated with getting a bunch of high school kids
onto an airfield are far too challenging for the average club. Health and
safety, child protection and the sheer responsibility of having someone
else's kids under the control of an unnofficial, untrained, unsupported and
potentially 'dangerous' supervisor is enough to make this a non-starter!

Add to this the fact that it might instill in them some form of :
responsibility for their own actions,
independent thought processes,
appreciation of science and nature,
the ability to communicate in more than grunts
a willingness to work as part of a team.
and the whole scenario is just too threatening to our 'modern' society.

Sorry guys, I have my somewhat cynical hat on today.

Ian


"Whitson Bush" > wrote in message
...
> One thing we tried was inviting the Air Force JRROTC cadets over to fly at
a
> reduced rate. They made a club of it and even had non cadets flying with
us.
> Maybe we should hit the high schools.
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> news:NKSfc.144982$gA5.1763352@attbi_s03...
> > I LIKE it.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
> >
> > "John" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Added a similar comment when I filled in the SSA soaring survey.
> > >
> > > Want to grow soaring? Market soaring as low-cost entertainment to
> > > generate mass appeal. Develop a commercial gliding site that focuses
> > > on giving rides only, quickly and cheaply.
> > >
> > > Look at all the teenagers spending $5-$15 to ride go-karts or roller
> > > coasters every Saturday at county fairs. Would they not also pay
> > > $5-15 for a quick 750-1000 foot winch or auto launch glider ride?
> > > Especially, if the gliders were launching right next to the county
> > > fair (airport was next door...or maybe launching right off the
> > > fairgrounds themselves). This is entertainment, not soaring. But
> > > from the launch to the high bank turn on final, along with the 750
> > > foot altitude, should be quite entertaining for the masses.
> > >
> > > Key is low cost and keeping the wait in line to less than 15 minutes.
> > > Might need several winches and several gliders. And maybe even drop
> > > the launch height to 600 feet. (Just want to be high enough to not
> > > create any landing pattern safety issues, but low enough to get on the
> > > ground as quick as possible for the next ride). Have to compete with
> > > other forms of low-cost entertainment, in terms of both time and
> > > money. This is how you develop mass appeal.
> > >
> > > How do these entertaining glides create a benefit for the larger sport
> > > of soaring? Thru numbers...throw enough people into the air, and some
> > > of them might develop an interest to become soaring pilots.
> >
>
>

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:49:35 UTC, "bt news"
> wrote:

: In the UK the problems associated with getting a bunch of high school kids
: onto an airfield are far too challenging for the average club. Health and
: safety, child protection and the sheer responsibility of having someone
: else's kids under the control of an unnofficial, untrained, unsupported and
: potentially 'dangerous' supervisor is enough to make this a non-starter!

All that proves is that if clubs want to run flying for minors they'll
have to do it properly. Maybe even think of this as a long term
development activity and not just, as with many/most other "Air
Experience" deals as a cash cow?

For a start, why does the supervisor have to be "unnofficial,
untrained, unsupported and
: potentially 'dangerous'"? What's so difficult about having an official, trained and supported youth officer?

: Add to this the fact that it might instill in them some form of :
: responsibility for their own actions,
: independent thought processes,
: appreciation of science and nature,
: the ability to communicate in more than grunts
: a willingness to work as part of a team.
: and the whole scenario is just too threatening to our 'modern' society.

I work with children in several roles. I am glad to say that I don't
recognize the pessimistic picture you paint. Overwhelmingly the
children I work with - for example, running robot building workshops,
including soldering, for 400 8 - 14 years olds last year - are keen,
responsible, interested, careful and cooperative.

Seriously, I honestly don't think it would be nearly as hard as people
seem to think to have a good youth programme at a gliding club.

Ian

[Shawn Curry]

bt news wrote:
> In the UK the problems associated with getting a bunch of high school kids
> onto an airfield are far too challenging for the average club. Health and
> safety, child protection and the sheer responsibility of having someone
> else's kids under the control of an unnofficial, untrained, unsupported and
> potentially 'dangerous' supervisor is enough to make this a non-starter!
>

Nah, its not so hard. Myself and a fellow clubie once flew with about
10 14 year olds. We were in the gliders most of the time. We gave them
rules and instructions. Followed up between flights. No problems and
no complaints.

Shawn

[Bruce Greeff]

Shawn Curry wrote:
> bt news wrote:
>
>> In the UK the problems associated with getting a bunch of high school
>> kids
>> onto an airfield are far too challenging for the average club. Health and
>> safety, child protection and the sheer responsibility of having someone
>> else's kids under the control of an unnofficial, untrained,
>> unsupported and
>> potentially 'dangerous' supervisor is enough to make this a non-starter!
>>
>
> Nah, its not so hard. Myself and a fellow clubie once flew with about
> 10 14 year olds. We were in the gliders most of the time. We gave them
> rules and instructions. Followed up between flights. No problems and
> no complaints.
>
> Shawn
Just ran a flying day for some scouts. 9 girls, one boy version turned up and we
had a really good day.
Started off with a safety lecture at the hangar.
Took them to the launch point and got them to follow around with a daily
inspection, and then made 30 flights, including taking some of their parents up.

The biggest problem we had safety wise was a club member having a senior moment
and sending the retrieve vehicle up the runway when we had a cable out. Slowed
things down a bit but our procedures worked and no danger incurred.
Experience has been similar to Shawn's - Have well thought out rule, explain the
rules, be alert to problems, enjoy a really rewarding day. Kids in the 10-16 age
group who come out to the field are generally no problem. They were safe, worked
hard and were a pleasure to have around, wish I could say the same of some of
the adult geniuses we occasionally get turning up for a flight.

It is a bit of work, and you have to have the right people on the field but is
is a great way to introduce people to the sport.

Have to ask yourself if this really is the kind of people you want to
involve in soaring... Fair-goers awaiting some new source of entertainment-

Admittedly, I want people interested in the sport that are willing to work
toward a goal, not be given something that is easily
obtained and cheaply advertised.

It's a great sport, an amazing gift-
I don't want it taken for granted by those seeking entertainment, I want it
enjoyed by those seeking joy-







"John" > wrote in message
om...
> Added a similar comment when I filled in the SSA soaring survey.
>
> Want to grow soaring? Market soaring as low-cost entertainment to
> generate mass appeal. Develop a commercial gliding site that focuses
> on giving rides only, quickly and cheaply.
>
> Look at all the teenagers spending $5-$15 to ride go-karts or roller
> coasters every Saturday at county fairs. Would they not also pay
> $5-15 for a quick 750-1000 foot winch or auto launch glider ride?
> Especially, if the gliders were launching right next to the county
> fair (airport was next door...or maybe launching right off the
> fairgrounds themselves). This is entertainment, not soaring. But
> from the launch to the high bank turn on final, along with the 750
> foot altitude, should be quite entertaining for the masses.
>
> Key is low cost and keeping the wait in line to less than 15 minutes.
> Might need several winches and several gliders. And maybe even drop
> the launch height to 600 feet. (Just want to be high enough to not
> create any landing pattern safety issues, but low enough to get on the
> ground as quick as possible for the next ride). Have to compete with
> other forms of low-cost entertainment, in terms of both time and
> money. This is how you develop mass appeal.
>
> How do these entertaining glides create a benefit for the larger sport
> of soaring? Thru numbers...throw enough people into the air, and some
> of them might develop an interest to become soaring pilots.

[Shawn Curry]

Bruce Greeff wrote:
> Shawn Curry wrote:
>
>> bt news wrote:
>>
>>> In the UK the problems associated with getting a bunch of high school
>>> kids
>>> onto an airfield are far too challenging for the average club. Health
>>> and
>>> safety, child protection and the sheer responsibility of having someone
>>> else's kids under the control of an unnofficial, untrained,
>>> unsupported and
>>> potentially 'dangerous' supervisor is enough to make this a non-starter!
>>>
>>
>> Nah, its not so hard. Myself and a fellow clubie once flew with about
>> 10 14 year olds. We were in the gliders most of the time. We gave
>> them rules and instructions. Followed up between flights. No
>> problems and no complaints.
>>
>> Shawn
>
> Just ran a flying day for some scouts. 9 girls, one boy version turned
> up and we had a really good day.
> Started off with a safety lecture at the hangar.
> Took them to the launch point and got them to follow around with a daily
> inspection, and then made 30 flights, including taking some of their
> parents up.
>
> The biggest problem we had safety wise was a club member having a senior
> moment and sending the retrieve vehicle up the runway when we had a
> cable out. Slowed things down a bit but our procedures worked and no
> danger incurred.
> Experience has been similar to Shawn's - Have well thought out rule,
> explain the rules, be alert to problems, enjoy a really rewarding day.
> Kids in the 10-16 age group who come out to the field are generally no
> problem. They were safe, worked hard and were a pleasure to have around,
> wish I could say the same of some of the adult geniuses we occasionally
> get turning up for a flight.
>
> It is a bit of work, and you have to have the right people on the field
> but is is a great way to introduce people to the sport.

Nice to hear, good job!

Shawn

[Robert Ehrlich]

John wrote:
>
> Added a similar comment when I filled in the SSA soaring survey.
>
> Want to grow soaring? Market soaring as low-cost entertainment to
> generate mass appeal. Develop a commercial gliding site that focuses
> on giving rides only, quickly and cheaply.
> ...

I was involved in something looking like this last summer. It was
not a commercial gliding site, just a little club that had a deal
with the local municipality. As this town organizes and sponsors
various summer (i.e. holidays) activities for teenagers, the club
proposed gliding rides. The deal was that the club proposed 16
flights per day during 4 days, 8 short flights (just gliding back
from winch launch height) in the morning and 8 longer flights (20 mn)
in the afternoon for 2 groups of 8 teenagers, each boy/girl having
in alternance a short flight in the morning one day and a long flight
in the afternoon the other day, other activities were proposed for
the non flying half day. Two 2-seaters were used, each one for the
half of the flights.

I am dubious about the impact of such an action for the growth of
soaring. Of course this makes that youngsters discover a sport
they would probably never heard of otherwise, but this would probably
not be followed by any personnal committment in this sport, for many
reasons. One of them is the age of participants, which implies that
they participation is probably not their own decsision (or not completely)
but rather the decision of their parents. As this is a sponsorized activity,
the youngs and parents interested are probably among those who would
never have the money for a continued practice of the sport. Although
some of the kids were really interested, the lack of interest of some
others was clearly demonstrated by the fact that on of them fell asleep
during a long flight.

However, as opposite to John's proposal, I think that a sufficiently
long flight is essential to the promotion of our sport, i.e. a flight
with a duration that clearly shows the ability of saiplanes to
stay in the air by they own means (or rather the combination of
the energy present in the air and the skills of the pilot).

[Michel Talon]

Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
> they participation is probably not their own decsision (or not completely)
> but rather the decision of their parents. As this is a sponsorized activity,
> the youngs and parents interested are probably among those who would
> never have the money for a continued practice of the sport. Although

Isn't it that the most obvious evidence that something is badly rotten
in the domain of soaring? You are here considering as a plain fact that
most of the population cannot practice soaring because it is too expensive
(which is in fact the case). My prediction is that soaring will die soon
is nothing is done so that "the masses" can afford practising it.
Because rich people are frequently old, and old people are not the best ones
to practice such a dangerous sport. They are not the best ones either to
enroll young people in the clubs. And most of the rich people are much
too busy running their businesses to afford spending days and days
at the airport, except retirees. There is a number one requirement to
halt the decline of soaring, drastically reduce costs, and in particular
drastically reduce price of gliders, which is the major factor in the
equation. It is not in the interest of glider factories, and it is not in the
interest of the second hand market. But there is not a single concurrential
industry that has not cut costs drastically in the last ten years. Only
glider factories allow themselves to regularly augment their prices
each year. This gives buyers the illusion that they fly cheap, since
they can resell their machines "the same price they bought it or more".
But the real price at the end is the decline of soaring.

> some of the kids were really interested, the lack of interest of some
> others was clearly demonstrated by the fact that on of them fell asleep
> during a long flight.

You cannot expect to have 100% success in any activity. But 100%
of currently practising pilots began once.

>
> However, as opposite to John's proposal, I think that a sufficiently
> long flight is essential to the promotion of our sport, i.e. a flight
> with a duration that clearly shows the ability of saiplanes to
> stay in the air by they own means (or rather the combination of
> the energy present in the air and the skills of the pilot).

I agree with you. You cannot expect to obtain a non vanishing percentage
of hooked young people without showing them the real beauties of soaring.
It is here that i disagree with Lennie. Having a good performing glider
40:1 allows to easily show what is really the beauty of gliding, in
particular going XC. With less performing gliders, only excellent pilots
can do the same. Hence, contrary to what he states and thinks, the real
elitism is in his position, thinking that one can have a lot of fun
with 30:1 gliders. Except excellent pilots, most of those who use such
gliders spend their time circling around the airport, and, as Lennie
has observed himself, this doesn't remain fun for very long. So, in my
opinion, the true problem is to build a good performing glider,
allowing to safely do XC, but not necessarily a top performer, at
very cheap prices, by whatever means necessary to achieve this aim
("outsourcing" comes to mind).


--

Michel TALON

[Bill Daniels]

The "Gliders have to be cheaper for soaring to grow" argument was raging 45
years ago when I first started soaring. It led to the Standard Class which
sought to simplify and standardize gliders so that they could be built in
greater numbers at lower costs. The problem is that the economies of scale
that would result in lower unit costs kick in at far larger production runs
that any design has ever achieved. No manufacturer is willing to bet the
farm by investing huge sums in production tooling until the demand is
established. Demand has to come first, THEN we might get cheaper gliders.

If we can't expect new cheaper gliders to stimulate demand, how do we attack
the remaining costs?

Looking hard at the yearly costs of participation, air tow looms large. The
50-75 flights required to attain a glider certificate will likely cost
something like $3000. Glider rental cost won't come down until the prices
do and I wouldn't ask the instructors to reduce their fees since we need
them badly. If 50 of the 75 flights were by winch instead of airtow, the
$3000 drops to $300. That's a pretty significant drop in up front cost for
a student pilot.

Another cost built into everything related to soaring is insurance.
Premiums are based on losses expected and losses are very large in the
landing phase. (I just completed Bob Wander's CFI-G Renewal course)

Why are losses very high in the landing phase? I think it may be that we
just don't do many landings so our landing skills get rusty. The average
glider pilot does maybe 10 to 20 landing a year? The average power pilot
does 100 to 200 landings a year - and if the power pilot screws up an
approach, he can go around.

With winch launch costs so low, it's likely that many pilots would fly winch
launches just for the landing practice with the result that skills would
stay sharp and losses would go down.

Would expanded winch launch operations solve everything wrong with soaring?
Of course not, but it might address a few of them.

Bill Daniels

"Michel Talon" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
> > they participation is probably not their own decsision (or not
completely)
> > but rather the decision of their parents. As this is a sponsorized
activity,
> > the youngs and parents interested are probably among those who would
> > never have the money for a continued practice of the sport. Although
>
> Isn't it that the most obvious evidence that something is badly rotten
> in the domain of soaring? You are here considering as a plain fact that
> most of the population cannot practice soaring because it is too expensive
> (which is in fact the case). My prediction is that soaring will die soon
> is nothing is done so that "the masses" can afford practising it.
> Because rich people are frequently old, and old people are not the best
ones
> to practice such a dangerous sport. They are not the best ones either to
> enroll young people in the clubs. And most of the rich people are much
> too busy running their businesses to afford spending days and days
> at the airport, except retirees. There is a number one requirement to
> halt the decline of soaring, drastically reduce costs, and in particular
> drastically reduce price of gliders, which is the major factor in the
> equation. It is not in the interest of glider factories, and it is not in
the
> interest of the second hand market. But there is not a single
concurrential
> industry that has not cut costs drastically in the last ten years. Only
> glider factories allow themselves to regularly augment their prices
> each year. This gives buyers the illusion that they fly cheap, since
> they can resell their machines "the same price they bought it or more".
> But the real price at the end is the decline of soaring.
>
> > some of the kids were really interested, the lack of interest of some
> > others was clearly demonstrated by the fact that on of them fell asleep
> > during a long flight.
>
> You cannot expect to have 100% success in any activity. But 100%
> of currently practising pilots began once.
>
> >
> > However, as opposite to John's proposal, I think that a sufficiently
> > long flight is essential to the promotion of our sport, i.e. a flight
> > with a duration that clearly shows the ability of saiplanes to
> > stay in the air by they own means (or rather the combination of
> > the energy present in the air and the skills of the pilot).
>
> I agree with you. You cannot expect to obtain a non vanishing percentage
> of hooked young people without showing them the real beauties of soaring.
> It is here that i disagree with Lennie. Having a good performing glider
> 40:1 allows to easily show what is really the beauty of gliding, in
> particular going XC. With less performing gliders, only excellent pilots
> can do the same. Hence, contrary to what he states and thinks, the real
> elitism is in his position, thinking that one can have a lot of fun
> with 30:1 gliders. Except excellent pilots, most of those who use such
> gliders spend their time circling around the airport, and, as Lennie
> has observed himself, this doesn't remain fun for very long. So, in my
> opinion, the true problem is to build a good performing glider,
> allowing to safely do XC, but not necessarily a top performer, at
> very cheap prices, by whatever means necessary to achieve this aim
> ("outsourcing" comes to mind).
>
>
> --
>
> Michel TALON
>

[Michel Talon]

Bill Daniels > wrote:
>
> Looking hard at the yearly costs of participation, air tow looms large. The
> 50-75 flights required to attain a glider certificate will likely cost
> something like $3000. Glider rental cost won't come down until the prices
> do and I wouldn't ask the instructors to reduce their fees since we need
> them badly. If 50 of the 75 flights were by winch instead of airtow, the
> $3000 drops to $300. That's a pretty significant drop in up front cost for
> a student pilot.
>

From what i can see here, winch launches don't make a big difference in the
total cost. Maybe you can hope a 20% gain in the total cost, which is good
but not sufficient. Fortunately in our country instructors instruct
for free ... Airports are more or less subsidized, hence don't cost much.
The real burden is the cost of new gliders if you want to maintain your fleet
current. You all assume that it is impossible to cut on glider prices. In
my opinion it is false. Let me just mention the Pegase which has been built
in France approximately at the same time as the German LS4 and with basically
the same performances. The Pegase was 1/3 cheaper, and you can be sure that
the factory was extremely far from efficient. Now where Lennie is perfectly
right, the snobism and elitism occurring in the soaring community was such
that the Pegase has always been badmouthed compared to the LS4, while
they are both excellent gliders. The clubs which have bought a large
quantity of Pegase have been able to offer modern gliders to their members
(Buno-Bonnevaux is an example) at reasonable price, and the result has
been excellent soaring performance for these clubs. Now wonder the price at
which a glider could be built in India, for example!


--

Michel TALON

[Michel Talon]

Asbjorn Hojmark > wrote:
>
> I'd say anyone can afford the above prices.
>

I agree, these prices are very correct. Now my point is that, even in the
cheapest clubs in France, even when absolutely everyone works for free,
prices are closer to the double of what you mention. So i would like to
understand ... I would like also to understand why a lot of people from Nordic
countries, Germany and England come flying in France or in Spain when they can
fly for half the price staying at home (and as far as i know prices in Spain
and Italy are *not* cheaper than in France). When a convincing explanation is
given for these discrepancies, then perhaps i can agree that the prices of
gliders are not killing the sport. At present i still consider that a glider
which is sold the price of a house is purely and simply a scandal, and a
complete waste of money except for the very rich ones.



> -A

--

Michel TALON

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Michel Talon) wrote in message >...
>
> > It is here that i disagree with Lennie. Having a good performing glider
> 40:1 allows to easily show what is really the beauty of gliding, in
> particular going XC.

Tsk,Tsk. Michel, the last part of that statement is not a universal
truth, only your personal opinion


> Hence, contrary to what he states and thinks, the real
> elitism is in his position, thinking that one can have a lot of fun
> with 30:1 gliders.

Here is what we call, in metalworking, "blaming the machine."
Meaning, blame the machine for the shortcomings of the man. If you
cannot find a way to have fun in any glider, it's a tunnel vision of
what you personally perceive as "fun". To suggest that because you
can't, nobody else can, is only an attempt to hide the fact that you
have only a single interest.

Except excellent pilots, most of those who use such
> gliders spend their time circling around the airport, and, as Lennie
> has observed himself, this doesn't remain fun for very long.

MIchel, nothing will make me angry any faster than someone twisting my
words to mean something I did not say. I plainly stated from the
beginning, that flying local in a 1-26 was the total extent of what I
intended to do. That NEVER changed. There was a short time that I
considered using the glider to save myself a little footwork, but a
few minutes with the "State sized maps" showed me that it would have
been foolhardy on most days, even though possible. I do not like
people that manipulate my words to seemingly support a position that,
in this case, I do not agree with.

Higher performance and lower cost do not go together, one forbids the
other unless you want to sacrifice something like structural integrity
to reach it. In which case, you shouldn't be building airplanes,
maybe lawn chairs.

[Liam Finley]

(Michel Talon) wrote in message >...
> gliders are not killing the sport. At present i still consider that a glider
> which is sold the price of a house is purely and simply a scandal, and a
> complete waste of money except for the very rich ones.
>

I don't know much about real estate in France, but here in California
the price of a brand new Stemme S10 wouldn't buy you a 1 bedroom condo
in a bad neighborhood.

[Craig Freeman]

(Michel Talon) wrote in message >...
> Asbjorn Hojmark > wrote:
> >
> > I'd say anyone can afford the above prices.
> >
>
> I agree, these prices are very correct. Now my point is that, even in the
> cheapest clubs in France, even when absolutely everyone works for free,
> prices are closer to the double of what you mention. So i would like to
> understand ... I would like also to understand why a lot of people from Nordic
> countries, Germany and England come flying in France or in Spain when they can
> fly for half the price staying at home (and as far as i know prices in Spain
> and Italy are *not* cheaper than in France). When a convincing explanation is
> given for these discrepancies, then perhaps i can agree that the prices of
> gliders are not killing the sport. At present i still consider that a glider
> which is sold the price of a house is purely and simply a scandal

Yes, yes a scandal it is and all those glider company CEO's are
getting filthy rich. Makes you wonder why glider manufacturers are
not popping up all over.

> complete waste of money except for the very rich ones.

If it's a waste, it's a waste. It does not matter how much money
you have. If soaring were free it still would not take over the
world. ITS TO HARD!! The average Joe will not put out the effort
it takes to learn. That's why you don't see many dropout's at
the airfield. The soaring community's job is just to make it
available to those who are willing to pay the price. Money, time,
and effort. I've decided to accept that soaring does not have the
great appeal to most that it has for me. And that is OK. Soaring
is not going to die because there are plenty of people like me who
are going to soar period.
So just keep being friendly at the airfield and do what you can
do to promote the sport and leave the results to the individual.

Craig-

>
>
> > -A

[Nyal Williams]

California can't be worth all that; sell your house,
buy a Stemme with a tank full of gas, and LEAVE!

At 02:30 20 April 2004, Liam Finley wrote:
(Michel Talon) wrote in message
>news:...
>> gliders are not killing the sport. At present i still
>>consider that a glider
>> which is sold the price of a house is purely and simply
>>a scandal, and a
>> complete waste of money except for the very rich ones.
>>
>
>I don't know much about real estate in France, but
>here in California
>the price of a brand new Stemme S10 wouldn't buy you
>a 1 bedroom condo
>in a bad neighborhood.
>

[tango4]

We ( I'm in England ) come and fly in France (and Spain) because the
conditions are so much better!

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

We put up with you making us take new medicals,
We put up with you making us have secondary CofA approvals
We put up with having to have a check ride every time we want to fly
We put up with having to talk in French when everyone else in the world of
aviation talks English
And still we come to fly!

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

( PS: It might also have something to do with beautiful mountains, wide open
spaces, cheap petrol, good food, passable wine, reasonably priced
accomodation, lots more sunshine and really nice people )

Ian



"Michel Talon" > wrote in message
...
> Asbjorn Hojmark > wrote:
> >
> > I'd say anyone can afford the above prices.
> >
>
> I agree, these prices are very correct. Now my point is that, even in the
> cheapest clubs in France, even when absolutely everyone works for free,
> prices are closer to the double of what you mention. So i would like to
> understand ... I would like also to understand why a lot of people from
Nordic
> countries, Germany and England come flying in France or in Spain when they
can
> fly for half the price staying at home (and as far as i know prices in
Spain
> and Italy are *not* cheaper than in France). When a convincing explanation
is
> given for these discrepancies, then perhaps i can agree that the prices
of
> gliders are not killing the sport. At present i still consider that a
glider
> which is sold the price of a house is purely and simply a scandal, and a
> complete waste of money except for the very rich ones.
>
>
>
> > -A
>
> --
>
> Michel TALON
>

[Marcel Duenner]

> wrote in message >...
> Have to ask yourself if this really is the kind of people you want to
> involve in soaring... Fair-goers awaiting some new source of entertainment-
>
> Admittedly, I want people interested in the sport that are willing to work
> toward a goal, not be given something that is easily
> obtained and cheaply advertised.
>
> It's a great sport, an amazing gift-
> I don't want it taken for granted by those seeking entertainment, I want it
> enjoyed by those seeking joy-
>

Of course we don't really want that kind of people. But don't worry -
they won't stay. And don't forget that not all fair-goers are soaring
pilots but some might be if you give them the opportunity.
I think the idea was to get lots more people to know about our sport
and have a little taste of it. As John said: throw enough people into
the air, and some of them might stay up.
As a side effect we get positive publicity which is another thing the
sport needs desperately.

Not exactly the same audience but with a higher success rate:
At our club we offer an introduction to soaring for about 80US$ three
to five times a year, depending on demand. It includes an evening of
theory and a day of gliding. One aerotow and one or two winch launches
per person. Depends on weather and on how long the flights turn out to
be. We take 6 to 10 people a time and require a minimum age of 14 so
if they like it they can start next year. We get about 1 or 2 new
members each time.

Marcel

Why walk when you can soar?

[Bert Willing]

I think you're quite wrong on this, Michel. The cost of a glider is mainly
man hours and development; materials count for something like a third. And
it's fairly easy to sell a glider 1/3 cheaper than competing models if you
take the design and the structure from a competitor and build it with a
different airfoil... although I must admit that I'll prefer the Pégase over
the LS4 anytime.
DG and others already switched the man hours to the cheaper countries like
Slovenia, but it's still hard to make a profit in this small market even
though price tags are high. And the reality is: if there is no profit to be
made, nobody will manufacture any gliders.
And no, Michel, instruction is not for free in France. Most medium and large
clubs in France have one or more instructors which are payed (and numerous
instructors who are not payed) - and even though the student doesn't pay a
fee by the hour, where do you think do the salaries come from ?!

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Michel Talon" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Bill Daniels > wrote:
> >
> > Looking hard at the yearly costs of participation, air tow looms large.
The
> > 50-75 flights required to attain a glider certificate will likely cost
> > something like $3000. Glider rental cost won't come down until the
prices
> > do and I wouldn't ask the instructors to reduce their fees since we need
> > them badly. If 50 of the 75 flights were by winch instead of airtow,
the
> > $3000 drops to $300. That's a pretty significant drop in up front cost
for
> > a student pilot.
> >
>
> From what i can see here, winch launches don't make a big difference in
the
> total cost. Maybe you can hope a 20% gain in the total cost, which is good
> but not sufficient. Fortunately in our country instructors instruct
> for free ... Airports are more or less subsidized, hence don't cost much.
> The real burden is the cost of new gliders if you want to maintain your
fleet
> current. You all assume that it is impossible to cut on glider prices. In
> my opinion it is false. Let me just mention the Pegase which has been
built
> in France approximately at the same time as the German LS4 and with
basically
> the same performances. The Pegase was 1/3 cheaper, and you can be sure
that
> the factory was extremely far from efficient. Now where Lennie is
perfectly
> right, the snobism and elitism occurring in the soaring community was such
> that the Pegase has always been badmouthed compared to the LS4, while
> they are both excellent gliders. The clubs which have bought a large
> quantity of Pegase have been able to offer modern gliders to their members
> (Buno-Bonnevaux is an example) at reasonable price, and the result has
> been excellent soaring performance for these clubs. Now wonder the price
at
> which a glider could be built in India, for example!
>
>
> --
>
> Michel TALON
>

[Bert Willing]

There are still hundreds of gliders sold at reasonable prices. You can also
buy a car for the price of a house if you want, but you can go for a Golf
(or a Peugeot 307 :-) which does a fairly good job.

Why do the Germans and all the Nordics come to the South?? Wheather
conditions. It's that simple - I've been living and flying in Germany, and
I'm VERY happy to live and fly in the Alpine region.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Michel Talon" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Asbjorn Hojmark > wrote:
> >
> > I'd say anyone can afford the above prices.
> >
>
> I agree, these prices are very correct. Now my point is that, even in the
> cheapest clubs in France, even when absolutely everyone works for free,
> prices are closer to the double of what you mention. So i would like to
> understand ... I would like also to understand why a lot of people from
Nordic
> countries, Germany and England come flying in France or in Spain when they
can
> fly for half the price staying at home (and as far as i know prices in
Spain
> and Italy are *not* cheaper than in France). When a convincing explanation
is
> given for these discrepancies, then perhaps i can agree that the prices
of
> gliders are not killing the sport. At present i still consider that a
glider
> which is sold the price of a house is purely and simply a scandal, and a
> complete waste of money except for the very rich ones.
>
>
>
> > -A
>
> --
>
> Michel TALON
>

[Michel Talon]

tango4 > wrote:
>
> ( PS: It might also have something to do with beautiful mountains, wide open
> spaces, cheap petrol, good food, passable wine, reasonably priced
> accomodation, lots more sunshine and really nice people )
>

Please, i didn't want to be provocative, i sincerely try to find an
explanation why prices seem to be half in some German clubs that in
France. Since i am convinced of the perfect honesty of the people
managing all these clubs, and they do it for free, the only explanation
i have found, and that you seem to confirm, is that the soaring
conditions are better, hence the average flight is longer, so that you
need more gliders per member of the club. In my experience, you can
count on only one person using a glider in a good day, and average
flights during >= 5 hours, whence you are entitled to flying LS4,
Pegase or similar. Obviously if you count 2 people for glider for day,
you can divide price by 2, but this is completely fallacious.

As you can see from many other answers a lot of people think that
"evrything goes well in the best of worlds", that soaring is a sport
for the happy few who want to dedicate a lot of time and money to
the activity, etc. etc. Be sure that with such arguments you will
observe less and less midairs in the future...



--

Michel TALON

[Michel Talon]

Lennie the Lurker > wrote:
>
> Higher performance and lower cost do not go together, one forbids the
> other unless you want to sacrifice something like structural integrity
> to reach it. In which case, you shouldn't be building airplanes,
> maybe lawn chairs.

I don't agree with that. It doesn't cost one further cent to build a
wing with good aerodynamical qualities, as with poor qualities.
Here clubs have bought large quantities of ASK23 which are
flying bricks compared to LS4s and at similar prices. But i agree
with you if you are speaking of top performance gliders, since then you
need to be absolutely perfect everywhere, and this costs much. Hence
i was advocating a very good, but not top class glider. Other people
have mentioned the possibility to build a large quantity of cheap LS4
for example, this fits perfectly.



--

Michel TALON

[Michel Talon]

Bert Willing > wrote:
> And no, Michel, instruction is not for free in France. Most medium and large
> clubs in France have one or more instructors which are payed (and numerous
> instructors who are not payed) - and even though the student doesn't pay a
> fee by the hour, where do you think do the salaries come from ?!
>

This is perhaps the case of the clubs you are used to, but not the clubs
i am used to. Of those only Buno-Bonnevaux has payed personel, but who
does many other things besides instruction, such as taking care of
gliders in winter, reparations on broken gliders, etc. Most of the
instruction is delivered by people who do it for free. At the nearby
club of Moret, which is also a quite large club, absolutely nobody is
paid, and in my experience the prices are basically similar as those in
Buno, if you fly a reasonable number of hours per year. I also flied at
Montpellier when there was no paid personel, and in the Pyrenees, the
same. I suppose that the situation is different in the Alps, where there
are huge clubs, but i don't know them.


--

Michel TALON

[Bert Willing]

Yes the situation is very different in the Alps - there are a lot of clubs,
few habitants so these clubs (especially in the South) rely on foreigners
coming for visits - and that's only possible with payed staff.

Even if you take French prices, I still think that soaring is not more
expensive than a season of skiing or whatever. Only, people rather tend to
want all of it...
What also drives prices high is a bit the attitude of club members which I
sometime observe. People look at a Pégase and say "not very exciting, I'd
prefer a LS8"... whereas they come nowhere towards the performance limit of
a Pégase. I certainly don't advocate Fauconnets or Wassmer gliders, but you
can buy a second hand Pégase for about 1/5th of the cash you have to put
down for a LS8, and you still have a L/D of 40+.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Michel Talon" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Bert Willing > wrote:
> > And no, Michel, instruction is not for free in France. Most medium and
large
> > clubs in France have one or more instructors which are payed (and
numerous
> > instructors who are not payed) - and even though the student doesn't pay
a
> > fee by the hour, where do you think do the salaries come from ?!
> >
>
> This is perhaps the case of the clubs you are used to, but not the clubs
> i am used to. Of those only Buno-Bonnevaux has payed personel, but who
> does many other things besides instruction, such as taking care of
> gliders in winter, reparations on broken gliders, etc. Most of the
> instruction is delivered by people who do it for free. At the nearby
> club of Moret, which is also a quite large club, absolutely nobody is
> paid, and in my experience the prices are basically similar as those in
> Buno, if you fly a reasonable number of hours per year. I also flied at
> Montpellier when there was no paid personel, and in the Pyrenees, the
> same. I suppose that the situation is different in the Alps, where there
> are huge clubs, but i don't know them.
>
>
> --
>
> Michel TALON
>

[Michel Talon]

Bert Willing > wrote:
> Yes the situation is very different in the Alps - there are a lot of clubs,
> few habitants so these clubs (especially in the South) rely on foreigners
> coming for visits - and that's only possible with payed staff.
>

Yes, i understand.

> Even if you take French prices, I still think that soaring is not more
> expensive than a season of skiing or whatever. Only, people rather tend to
> want all of it...

You know, there are less and less people who can afford skiing. I am
a researcher in Paris University, and with this sort of salary it is out
of question to go skiing a lot, or buy an expensive glider or similar
things. The little money i can put aside, has been diverted into buying
a house, and it would be completely irresponsible doing otherwise.


> What also drives prices high is a bit the attitude of club members which I
> sometime observe. People look at a Pégase and say "not very exciting, I'd
> prefer a LS8"... whereas they come nowhere towards the performance limit of
> a Pégase. I certainly don't advocate Fauconnets or Wassmer gliders, but you
> can buy a second hand Pégase for about 1/5th of the cash you have to put
> down for a LS8, and you still have a L/D of 40+.
>

Your comments are completely coherent with what i have heard many times.
And it is more justified to prefer flying an LS8 than a Pegase, compared
to an LS4. This is exactly the form of badmouthing and snobbiness Lennie
was speaking about and which is so prevalent in the people practising
this sport. With any glider of the class of LS4 or Pegase, almost
anybody with reasonable training can do very nice flies, XC, etc.
I think it is the aim when thinking about a widely available and cheap
glider (or a good second hand one).




--

Michel TALON

[Robert Ehrlich]

Michel Talon wrote:
> ...
> Here clubs have bought large quantities of ASK23 which are
> flying bricks compared to LS4s and at similar prices.
> ...

This is not the exact reality. The total number of ASK23
registered in France is 6, 3 of them (F-CGCV, F-CGCZ and
F-CHAS) are in my club (Centre Aéronautique de Beynes),
the 3 others are at Moret/Episy. Of coures their performance
is not competitive compared to LS4s or any other standard
ship of the same generation with retracting gear. But calling
it a flying brick is execessive. The performance is similar
to the ASK21 (I agree the ASK21 is a little better), the problem
is mainly in their low wing loading, which is also one of
the purpose of their design, in order to make them easy to
handle and very similar to the ASK21. I agree that the price
is excessive, as almost everybody probably does, this is
what made Schleicher stop the production. However this is a
good illustration of the fact that the price is not directly
related to performance. These gliders are very well built,
with expensive materials (honeycomb sandwich), in order to
withstand to the mishandling of beginners, and this has a cost
that can't be reduced.

[Robert Ehrlich]

tango4 wrote:
> ...
> We put up with having to talk in French when everyone else in the world of
> aviation talks English
> ...

Everyone in the world of aviation talks his native language and in some
cases English is also used as an international language. France is not
an exception, I remember when I spent a few days flying in Spain I had
to learn how to make my downwind radio call in Spanish. As you have the
chance that your native language was choosen as the international one,
you should not complain about it.

[Michel Talon]

Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
> Michel Talon wrote:
>> ...
>> Here clubs have bought large quantities of ASK23 which are
>> flying bricks compared to LS4s and at similar prices.
>> ...
>
> This is not the exact reality. The total number of ASK23
> registered in France is 6, 3 of them (F-CGCV, F-CGCZ and
> F-CHAS) are in my club (Centre Aéronautique de Beynes),

Well i have just taken a look at Beynes site. It appears that all
beginner gliders are ASK23, this is quite a lot. I also see you have
21 gliders and the flat tarif is 1700 euros per year, that is more than
Buno. But the range of your gliders is very nice, indeed!

> the 3 others are at Moret/Episy.

Moret was proud of having very affordable conditions. With their 3
ASK23, a serious hole had been digged in the budget. Since the chief
was an horrible snob (*), he also sold the Pegases and bought as many
LS4, a second occasion to throw money by the windows.


> Of coures their performance
> is not competitive compared to LS4s or any other standard

This is an understatement.

> However this is a
> good illustration of the fact that the price is not directly
> related to performance.

Perfectly right, hence my assertion that for the same price
it is best to have good performance.


> These gliders are very well built,
> with expensive materials (honeycomb sandwich), in order to
> withstand to the mishandling of beginners, and this has a cost
> that can't be reduced.

Come on, "prices cannot be reduced" is a petition of principle. I am
sure that your salary, and mine, has been reduced very effectively
in the last ten years, in absolute value. And you can build a glider as
a bulldozer, it will crash exactly the same if you spin when landing.



--

Michel TALON

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Bruce Greeff" > wrote in message
...
> Shawn Curry wrote:
> > bt news wrote:
> >
> >> In the UK the problems associated with getting a bunch of high school
> >> kids
> >> onto an airfield are far too challenging for the average club. Health
and
> >> safety, child protection and the sheer responsibility of having someone
> >> else's kids under the control of an unnofficial, untrained,
> >> unsupported and
> >> potentially 'dangerous' supervisor is enough to make this a
non-starter!
> >>
> >
> > Nah, its not so hard. Myself and a fellow clubie once flew with about
> > 10 14 year olds. We were in the gliders most of the time. We gave them
> > rules and instructions. Followed up between flights. No problems and
> > no complaints.
> >
> > Shawn
> Just ran a flying day for some scouts. 9 girls, one boy version turned up
and we
> had a really good day.
> Started off with a safety lecture at the hangar.
> Took them to the launch point and got them to follow around with a daily
> inspection, and then made 30 flights, including taking some of their
parents up.
>
> The biggest problem we had safety wise was a club member having a senior
moment
> and sending the retrieve vehicle up the runway when we had a cable out.
Slowed
> things down a bit but our procedures worked and no danger incurred.
> Experience has been similar to Shawn's - Have well thought out rule,
explain the
> rules, be alert to problems, enjoy a really rewarding day. Kids in the
10-16 age
> group who come out to the field are generally no problem. They were safe,
worked
> hard and were a pleasure to have around, wish I could say the same of some
of
> the adult geniuses we occasionally get turning up for a flight.
>
> It is a bit of work, and you have to have the right people on the field
but is
> is a great way to introduce people to the sport.

Will be doing this with my scout troop in a few weeks.

In the US Boy Scouts there are some permit (two-week lead time) and consent
(two signatures for most) requirements
Permit http://www.longspeakbsa.org/forms/flight.pdf
Consent http://www.scouting.org/pubs/gss/forms/23-673.pdf

Plus your local release. You might add a Young Eagles recognition also.

Frank Whiteley

[Vorsanger1]

At the site where I am a part-time instructor, we give rides to troops of boy
scouts perhpas twice a year. They come in troops of 15 - 20 kids, plus adult
supervisors. They each get a ride from a 2500-ft tow. To my knowledge, not one
of the literally hundreds of kids who were given intros to soaring has ever
come back for instruction.

Cheers anyhow, Charles

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Vorsanger1" > wrote in message
...
> At the site where I am a part-time instructor, we give rides to troops of
boy
> scouts perhpas twice a year. They come in troops of 15 - 20 kids, plus
adult
> supervisors. They each get a ride from a 2500-ft tow. To my knowledge,
not one
> of the literally hundreds of kids who were given intros to soaring has
ever
> come back for instruction.
>
> Cheers anyhow, Charles

I don't disagree with your sentiment at all. I've promoted soaring at EAA
regionals, airport open houses, at school days, shopping malls, and
universities. By far the best results have come from universities and
several clubs near major universities have been successful at this. Other
clubs, with historical roots in university clubs, have distanced themselves
somewhat.

That being said, most new members in our gaggle have been walk-ons with 2-3
coming in as acquaintances of members. More than half have come with
private power tickets and a couple with commercial or higher ratings.
Soaring still belongs to the seeker. Most of the churn this past year has
been due to work re-location and lay-offs.

The only reason I'm organizing my Scout troop is for continuing troop
activity through the summer months. The past two Scoutmasters didn't want
to meet during the summer months and our troop has dwindled to about half
it's original size as a result. A few of these current scouts will make
Eagle some day and may find that Scouting, like soaring, is an activity one
can be involved with for life if you're willing to stay fit and enjoy the
rigors. Plus it dovetails with the Aviation and Bird Study Merit Badges (to
be conducted by a locally well-known and world traveled Audobon Society
member who has a recognized bird sanctuary in his garden). Perhaps one of
these Scouts will get to soar with a hawk, or even a bald eagle. The winch
launch will grab their attention anyway.

Frank

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Marcel Duenner" > wrote in message
m...
> > wrote in message >...
> > Have to ask yourself if this really is the kind of people you want to
> > involve in soaring... Fair-goers awaiting some new source of
entertainment-
> >
> > Admittedly, I want people interested in the sport that are willing to
work
> > toward a goal, not be given something that is easily
> > obtained and cheaply advertised.
> >
> > It's a great sport, an amazing gift-
> > I don't want it taken for granted by those seeking entertainment, I want
it
> > enjoyed by those seeking joy-
> >
>
> Of course we don't really want that kind of people. But don't worry -
> they won't stay. And don't forget that not all fair-goers are soaring
> pilots but some might be if you give them the opportunity.
> I think the idea was to get lots more people to know about our sport
> and have a little taste of it. As John said: throw enough people into
> the air, and some of them might stay up.
> As a side effect we get positive publicity which is another thing the
> sport needs desperately.
>
> Not exactly the same audience but with a higher success rate:
> At our club we offer an introduction to soaring for about 80US$ three
> to five times a year, depending on demand. It includes an evening of
> theory and a day of gliding. One aerotow and one or two winch launches
> per person. Depends on weather and on how long the flights turn out to
> be. We take 6 to 10 people a time and require a minimum age of 14 so
> if they like it they can start next year. We get about 1 or 2 new
> members each time.
>
> Marcel
>
> Why walk when you can soar?

We offer a three flight mini-course, $200US, which has been a reasonably
successful recruitment tool. I can't recall anyone taking a scenic flight
that's ever returned for instruction.

At one of my former UK civil clubs, we used the longest day of the year for
fund-raising by offering an Air Experience Flight (1500ft winch launch) for
14UKP. We did 130 between 7AM and about 8PM on a two drum winch run. It
was a lot of effort and generated no members, but that wasn't the goal
either.

Frank