US Dollar sinks to new low against Euro

[Mike Stringfellow]

The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down from its peak of
1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go even lower, with
some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar to the Euro).

This has pretty much put the kibosh on my goals of buying a new
European sailplane. A model at, say, Euro 85,000 cost around $70,000
a couple of years ago, is now around $110,000 and may soon be at
$120,000.

Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the numbers of potential
sales would justify this.

Any thoughts?

[Malcolm Austin]

Well based here in the UK, it looks like your going to get the sort of deal
we are used to over here.

Your prices are normally the same in dollars as they are to us in GBP, which
means at least a 50% increase. I see this in my Amateur radio equipment
as well.

May be the end of cheapness is on its way to you, welcome to the club!!

Malcolm...



"Mike Stringfellow" > wrote in message
om...
> The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down from its peak of
> 1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go even lower, with
> some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar to the Euro).
>
> This has pretty much put the kibosh on my goals of buying a new
> European sailplane. A model at, say, Euro 85,000 cost around $70,000
> a couple of years ago, is now around $110,000 and may soon be at
> $120,000.
>
> Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
> manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the numbers of potential
> sales would justify this.
>
> Any thoughts?

[Vorsanger1]

Mike,

Classic economic theory suggests that you are absolutely correct: the very weak
dollar would also lead to additional exports of US-manufactured sailplanes.
But by the time a manufacturer would have developed the plane, gone through all
the hoops for certification, etc...to satisfy a fairly small domestic demand,
who knows if the greenback will not have bounced back, and rendered the initial
plan moot and incorrect? Besides, given the flak which comes up everytime the
PW-5 is mentioned, who would risk come up with a "modern" sailplane design and
satisfy all the inevitable criticism. Few companies would be willing to invest
that much $$$ for a questionable return.

Cheers, Charles

[Stefan]

Mike Stringfellow wrote:

> The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down from its peak of
> 1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go even lower, with
> some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar to the Euro).
....
> Any thoughts?

The result of the economic politcs of the last four years. It was your
choice to continue like this for the next four years.

Stefan

[Stewart Kissel]

Hey, nobody said building a glider with 'moral values'
would be cheap :)

At 00:06 06 November 2004, Stefan wrote:
>Mike Stringfellow wrote:
>
>> The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down
>>from its peak of
>> 1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go
>>even lower, with
>> some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar
>>to the Euro).
>....
>> Any thoughts?
>
>The result of the economic politcs of the last four
>years. It was your
>choice to continue like this for the next four years.
>
>Stefan
>
>

[Shawn]

Stefan wrote:
> Mike Stringfellow wrote:
>
>> The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down from its peak of
>> 1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go even lower, with
>> some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar to the Euro).
>
> ...
>
>> Any thoughts?
>
>
> The result of the economic politcs of the last four years. It was your
> choice to continue like this for the next four years.
>
> Stefan
>
Not mine Bubba.

Shawn

[Vaughn]

"Mike Stringfellow" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
> manufacture in North America,

Like this? http://www.peregrinesailplane.com/

Vaughn

[Eric Greenwell]

Vaughn wrote:
> "Mike Stringfellow" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
>>manufacture in North America,
>
>
> Like this? http://www.peregrinesailplane.com/
>
> Vaughn

Or like this:

http://www.windward-performance.com/

And if the US$ continues to sink, maybe some of these will find their
way to Europe. We'll have to sell boatloads to make up for our trade
imbalance, though.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Vorsanger1" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
> Classic economic theory suggests that you are absolutely correct: the very
weak
> dollar would also lead to additional exports of US-manufactured
sailplanes.
> But by the time a manufacturer would have developed the plane, gone
through all
> the hoops for certification, etc...to satisfy a fairly small domestic
demand,
> who knows if the greenback will not have bounced back, and rendered the
initial
> plan moot and incorrect? Besides, given the flak which comes up
everytime the
> PW-5 is mentioned, who would risk come up with a "modern" sailplane design
and
> satisfy all the inevitable criticism. Few companies would be willing to
invest
> that much $$$ for a questionable return.
>
> Cheers, Charles

Ah shucks, I was figuring DG would outsource LS-4 production to US.

Frank

[Vorsanger1]

If the US$ continues to sink, the trade imbalance will correct itself: imports
of any type will be too expensive, and US exports will boom, sailplanes
included.
Cheers, Charles

[tango4]

"Vorsanger1" > wrote in message
...
> If the US$ continues to sink, the trade imbalance will correct itself:
> imports
> of any type will be too expensive, and US exports will boom, sailplanes
> included.
> Cheers, Charles


I don't know about that Charles.

If the Czechs and Poles can't match German build quality what hope have the
Yank's got?

Ian

( only slightly tounge in cheek )

[Bruce Greeff]

tango4 wrote:
> "Vorsanger1" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If the US$ continues to sink, the trade imbalance will correct itself:
>>imports
>>of any type will be too expensive, and US exports will boom, sailplanes
>>included.
>>Cheers, Charles
>
>
>
> I don't know about that Charles.
>
> If the Czechs and Poles can't match German build quality what hope have the
> Yank's got?
>
> Ian
>
> ( only slightly tounge in cheek )
>
>
One might say they went 'bossies' minimum 4 year recovery period. ;-)

As for matching build quality. It appears to be more the combination of price
and proximity to market that counts. Standards argument about "built to price"
and "value for money" - most people will buy what they can see and feel,
preferably from someone they can understand. Scary discovery to find that there
are less than 100 insured gliders in South Africa. Not going to get far
manufacturing them here no matter what the quality.

[Janusz Kesik]

> > If the Czechs and Poles can't match German build quality

Well... I would doubt that, but I am used to that stereotypes and urban
legends are very hard to remove over just fifteen years since we left
socialism.

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland

-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Vorsanger1]

Going back to German quality, vs that of Polish, Czech, etc... Not only are
some DGs built in Slovenia (and sold as German), but also sales of German cars
have dropped, particularly VW...because of QC problems. It is a myth that East
Europeans build shlock. It did not take that long for Japanese manufacturers
to improve the quality of their products (remember Alan Sherman?), nor for the
Chinese. So why not East Europeans?

After all, if the market is in the West -- Europe or Americas --, manufacturers
have to deliver a good product in line with its price.

Cheers, Charles

Cheers anyway, Charles

[Steve Bralla]

(Vorsanger1) writes:

>US exports will boom, sailplanes
>included.

This might be right, but I think it will be used sailplanes that return to the
continent of their birth.

Steve

[Eric Greenwell]

tango4 wrote:

> "Vorsanger1" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If the US$ continues to sink, the trade imbalance will correct itself:
>>imports
>>of any type will be too expensive, and US exports will boom, sailplanes
>>included.
>>Cheers, Charles
>
> I don't know about that Charles.
>
> If the Czechs and Poles can't match German build quality what hope have the
> Yank's got?

The US will be able to match German build quality in our exports,
because, unfortunately, most of the sailplanes we are likely to export
as the dollar weakens will be German sailplanes, which will become
attractively priced outside the US.

For any manufacturer, "build quality" is just one factor in a successful
product, as LS can tell you. Even the Germans don't all buy Mercedes or
BMWs. The US designed and manufactured SparrowHawk, for example, offers
offers features like none of the German manufacturers, along with good
quality construction.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (Mike Stringfellow) wrote:

> ...Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
> manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the numbers of potential
> sales would justify this.
>
> Any thoughts?

I have no particularly meaningful thoughts on whether it is
economically feasable, except that I intend to give it a try and see
how it goes.

However, one other thing I'll toss into this thread is that the
materials costs of building sailplanes is closely linked (at least,
more closely than I'd like) to the price of oil. I've been talking
with my suppliers, and _their_ suppliers have been seeing monthly and
sometimes weekly price increases on composite and plastic materials.
What with oil prices doubling since Y2K, it makes a big difference.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Janusz Kesik]

Uzytkownik "Bob Kuykendall" > napisal w wiadomosci
om...

> However, one other thing I'll toss into this thread is that the
> materials costs of building sailplanes is closely linked (at least,
> more closely than I'd like) to the price of oil. I've been talking
> with my suppliers, and _their_ suppliers have been seeing monthly and
> sometimes weekly price increases on composite and plastic materials.
> What with oil prices doubling since Y2K, it makes a big difference.

So what then? Back to the wood? At least in case of the 'sailplanes for the
beginners'?

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland

-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Herbert Kilian]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Vaughn wrote:
> > "Mike Stringfellow" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >>Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
> >>manufacture in North America,
> >
> >
> > Like this? http://www.peregrinesailplane.com/
> >
> > Vaughn
>
> Or like this:
>
> http://www.windward-performance.com/
>
> And if the US$ continues to sink, maybe some of these will find their
> way to Europe. We'll have to sell boatloads to make up for our trade
> imbalance, though.

Glider exports to Europe will have to deal with the airworthiness
issue. There is no "Experimental" category in Europe like the 'Racing
and Exhibition' niche that so many of us - including me - have
registered their gliders in. That may be the reason why I've never
come across a US made glider during my time in Germany, come to think
of it. Bureaucracy is still king, particularly in Germany.
Herb, J7

[Andreas Maurer]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:10:42 -0700, "F.L. Whiteley"
> wrote:


>Ah shucks, I was figuring DG would outsource LS-4 production to US.

Talking about the LS-4b: It's back in production (by Walter Eisele, a
well-known german glider pilot), now called LS-4/2005.

Price is 39.400 Euro, complete with retractable gear and water bags.
Winglets are optional.

Lots of bang for the buck if you ask me.



Bye
Andreas

[Gary Kemp]

What has happened to the U.S. Stock market since Bush's reelection??
> Not mine Bubba.
>
> Shawn

[Charles Yeates]

Good news -- but you could buy a PW-6U two-seater for 41,200 Euro and
have the pleasure of flying friends, eh?
>
> Talking about the LS-4b: It's back in production (by Walter Eisele, a
> well-known german glider pilot), now called LS-4/2005.
>
> Price is 39.400 Euro, complete with retractable gear and water bags.
> Winglets are optional.
>
> Lots of bang for the buck if you ask me.
>
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

[Vaughn]

"Herbert Kilian" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Glider exports to Europe will have to deal with the airworthiness
> issue. There is no "Experimental" category in Europe like the 'Racing
> and Exhibition' niche that so many of us - including me - have
> registered their gliders in. That may be the reason why I've never
> come across a US made glider during my time in Germany

I don't think that is the *only* reason you don't see US gliders in Europe,
but airworthiness should not be an issue for the Peregrine; it already has both
US and JAR-22 certification.

Vaughn

> come to think
> of it. Bureaucracy is still king, particularly in Germany.

Here in the good 'ole USA also!

Vaughn



> Herb, J7

[Paul]

or if you add winglets to the LS4 you would be only a few euro short of
buying a new LS8a.

"Charles Yeates" > wrote in message
...
> Good news -- but you could buy a PW-6U two-seater for 41,200 Euro and
> have the pleasure of flying friends, eh?
> >
> > Talking about the LS-4b: It's back in production (by Walter Eisele, a
> > well-known german glider pilot), now called LS-4/2005.
> >
> > Price is 39.400 Euro, complete with retractable gear and water bags.
> > Winglets are optional.
> >
> > Lots of bang for the buck if you ask me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bye
> > Andreas

[Stewart Kissel]

Actually, HAL has had a nice upward trend for the last
6 months...no surprise there I suppose :)


At 00:48 07 November 2004, Gary Kemp wrote:
>What has happened to the U.S. Stock market since Bush's
>reelection??
>> Not mine Bubba.
>>
>> Shawn
>

[G.Kurek]

(Vorsanger1) wrote in message >...
> Going back to German quality, vs that of Polish, Czech, etc... Not only are
> some DGs built in Slovenia (and sold as German), but also sales of German cars
> have dropped, particularly VW...because of QC problems. It is a myth that East
> Europeans build shlock. It did not take that long for Japanese manufacturers
> to improve the quality of their products (remember Alan Sherman?), nor for the
> Chinese. So why not East Europeans?
>
> After all, if the market is in the West -- Europe or Americas --, manufacturers
> have to deliver a good product in line with its price.
>
> Cheers, Charles
>
> Cheers anyway, Charles

Isn't the same forum where problems with Asw-27's wing waviness and
smoothing costs where published? And speaking of quality of German
cars look at the J.D. Power's association results- the only brand that
stands above the average in quality is BMW, yet still falls way short
of major Japanese brands.

[Steve Bralla]

In article >,
(Gary Kemp) writes:

>
>What has happened to the U.S. Stock market since Bush's reelection??
>

What is it, still down 20% since Bush "won" the 2000 election?

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
...
> > > If the Czechs and Poles can't match German build quality
>
> Well... I would doubt that, but I am used to that stereotypes and urban
> legends are very hard to remove over just fifteen years since we left
> socialism.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Janusz Kesik
> Poland

Well, there is a Duo in my neighborhood that I'd classify as an
embarrassment to the manufacturer, and it's only about two years old.
Before it could fly, it had to be inspected. Now there are numerous
'dimples' along the wings. I suppose this is simply post-curing. Odd the
older German built sample down the road doesn't show the same 'quality'. It
sure isn't a stereotype, neither is it Polish. Perhaps this golfball effect
is a secret improvement.

Frank Whiteley

[Shawn]

Gary Kemp wrote:
>
>>Not mine Bubba.
>>
>>Shawn
> What has happened to the U.S. Stock market since Bush's reelection??


Same thing as the national debt-gone up.

Shawn

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "F.L. Whiteley" > napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci ...

> Well, there is a Duo in my neighborhood that I'd classify as an
> embarrassment to the manufacturer, and it's only about two years old.
> Before it could fly, it had to be inspected. Now there are numerous
> 'dimples' along the wings. I suppose this is simply post-curing. Odd the
> older German built sample down the road doesn't show the same 'quality'.
It
> sure isn't a stereotype, neither is it Polish. Perhaps this golfball
effect
> is a secret improvement.

If I have understood You correctly, this particular Duo has been produced in
the Czech Republic (since it's not German built airframe). This may come
from a little thing that Czechs have almost no experience in building
glassfibre/carbon gliders. They have mostly built metal Blaniks, but no
glass. Opposite to that, people employed at building gliders in Poland have
often even 30 years of experience and surely can be considered as experts in
their profession. Just ask the users from the British clubs who repaired the
gliders in our workshops (including the reprofling the 'aging' LS-8s at
http://www.refinish.biz). These guys are just perfect, but their work is
affordable at the same time. Being at Your place, instead of mumbling about
the worse quality, I would start to think about how your company could
benefit from cooperating with the new EU members. :)

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland

-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Janusz Kesik]

Uzytkownik "Andreas Maurer" > napisal w wiadomosci
...
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:10:42 -0700, "F.L. Whiteley"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Ah shucks, I was figuring DG would outsource LS-4 production to US.
>
> Talking about the LS-4b: It's back in production (by Walter Eisele, a
> well-known german glider pilot), now called LS-4/2005.
>
> Price is 39.400 Euro, complete with retractable gear and water bags.
> Winglets are optional.

Well, if we talk about money...

SZD-55, also back in production, but much more modern design than LS-4 (some
ten years younger)
Price: 34.990 Euro, so the buyer still has 4.500Euro in his pocket, and a
more modern glider in the hangar.
I would just count if the 'LS' on the side of the cockpit is worth
4.500Euro. :)
The '55' price list: http://www.szd.com.pl/downloads/01-551.html

Lots of bang for a buck, isn't it? :)

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland

-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Michel Talon]

Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:10:42 -0700, "F.L. Whiteley"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Ah shucks, I was figuring DG would outsource LS-4 production to US.
>
> Talking about the LS-4b: It's back in production (by Walter Eisele, a
> well-known german glider pilot), now called LS-4/2005.
>
> Price is 39.400 Euro, complete with retractable gear and water bags.
> Winglets are optional.
>
> Lots of bang for the buck if you ask me.
>
>

Wow! This is the thing i hoped. Indeed i can only agree with you, this
is the best bang for the bug one can find at present.

>
> Bye
> Andreas

--

Michel TALON

[Michel Talon]

Janusz Kesik > wrote:
>
> SZD-55, also back in production, but much more modern design than LS-4 (some
> ten years younger)

Meaning what exactly in terms of L/D, ease of use, build quality etc.
Seriously, i have never seen a SZD-55 i have no a priori.

> Lots of bang for a buck, isn't it? :)
>

Depends on the answer to the above question. I know for sure the LS4
is an excellent glider. I know nothing about the polish one.

--

Michel TALON

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "Michel Talon" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

> > SZD-55, also back in production, but much more modern design than LS-4
(some
> > ten years younger)
>
> Meaning what exactly in terms of L/D, ease of use, build quality etc.
> Seriously, i have never seen a SZD-55 i have no a priori.
>
> > Lots of bang for a buck, isn't it? :)
> >
>
> Depends on the answer to the above question. I know for sure the LS4
> is an excellent glider. I know nothing about the polish one.

Yes, I supposed that, and that's why some people may be reluctant to
consider this glider.
But... it is really worth considering, as all the things you mentioned (L/D,
ease of use, build quality) are at least (if not better) equally good.

Here are some links on the '55' (including Flight Test Evaluation by Dock
Johnson)

http://www.piotrp.de/SZYBOWCE/dszd55.htm

http://www.ssa.org/Johnson/65-1992-03.pdf

http://www.szd.com.pl/downloads/szd55-1_data-.pdf

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland

-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "Janusz Kesik" > wrote:

> So what then? Back to the wood? At least in case of the 'sailplanes for the
> beginners'?

No, probably nothing like that, at least not in the way you'd expect.
Oil would probably have to get a lot more expensive before the many
more man-hours required for conventional wood construction becomes
more economically viable than composites.

Bob K.

[Michel Talon]

Janusz Kesik > wrote:
>
> http://www.ssa.org/Johnson/65-1992-03.pdf
>

Well according to Johnson, the SZD-55-1 seems to be an excellent glider.
It has certainly better performance than the LS4, and is very nice
looking. The only dubious commentary i have seen is
"In my opinion, its stall charcteristics are about equal to those of the
Ventus", which may mean that it is more difficult to fly than the LS4.
Clearly if gliders of this quality can be built at this price in Poland,
this may help solving the lost standing problem of exploding prices
in our sport.



--

Michel TALON

[Michel Talon]

Janusz Kesik > wrote:
>
> http://www.ssa.org/Johnson/65-1992-03.pdf
>

Well according to Johnson, the SZD-55-1 seems to be an excellent glider.
It has certainly better performance than the LS4, and is very nice
looking. The only dubious commentary i have seen is
"In my opinion, its stall charcteristics are about equal to those of the
Ventus", which may mean that it is more difficult to fly than the LS4.
Clearly if gliders of this quality can be built at this price in Poland,
this may help solving the long standing problem of exploding prices
in our sport.



--

Michel TALON

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Mike Stringfellow) wrote in message >...
>
> Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
> manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the numbers of potential
> sales would justify this.
>
> Any thoughts?

Designed, tested and developed in the US, then made in china with our
current management practices. Net gain = new market = 0. The only
things we make here are hamburgers.

[Chris OCallaghan]

"The U.S. has a current account deficit, a budget deficit and a
president who appears unconcerned about dollar weakness," said Shahab
Jalinoos, senior currency strategist at ABN AMRO. "No one can see any
reason to buy the dollar at the moment."

The president cost me nearly $15,000 last year when I purchased my
current glider with flip remarks about not caring and then retracting
his statements about the dollar's strength. It has become so weak now,
that gliders are priced beyond all reason... meaning even though new
ones cost more, used gliders are losing value because demand is
reduced (psychologically, it's tough to justify six figures for a
piece of plastic). Since I don't quite earn 7 figures yet, my tax
break in miniscule, and now GWB is spending three-day weekends at Camp
David, effectively barring us from our local ridges on NW days.

Four more years... sigh!

(Mike Stringfellow) wrote in message >...
> The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down from its peak of
> 1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go even lower, with
> some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar to the Euro).
>
> This has pretty much put the kibosh on my goals of buying a new
> European sailplane. A model at, say, Euro 85,000 cost around $70,000
> a couple of years ago, is now around $110,000 and may soon be at
> $120,000.
>
> Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
> manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the numbers of potential
> sales would justify this.
>
> Any thoughts?

[Stewart Kissel]

http://www.scaled.com/projects/globalflyer.html

Well if anyone out there in ras world is a buddy of
Rutan...I suspect he might make some terrific sailplanes
if he set his mind to it. For some reason I suspect
the very limited market would not be of much interest
to him :(

>>
>> Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for
>>sailplane
>> manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the
>>numbers of potential
>> sales would justify this.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Stewart Kissel wrote:

> http://www.scaled.com/projects/globalflyer.html
>
> Well if anyone out there in ras world is a buddy of
> Rutan...I suspect he might make some terrific sailplanes
> if he set his mind to it. For some reason I suspect
> the very limited market would not be of much interest
> to him :(

It's not that - he just isn't a production company. How many
round-the-world airplanes or Spaceship Ones do you think he expects to
sell? I suspect he wouldn't be interested in it, even if you brought a
pile of money to pay for a design, because it's not as interesting as
the stuff he's already working on.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bob Korves]

Actually, Burt Rutan already designed and marketed a self launching
sailplane called the Solitaire, 20 years or so ago.

http://www.rutanaircraft.com/htmlpages/orderform.html Photo, 2/3 down the
page.

I was quite excited about it at the time, but it did not turn out to be very
successful -- too short span, too high wing loading, optimized for higher
speeds, poor thermalling performance. It was quietly dropped from plans
sales by RAF.
-Bob Korves

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> http://www.scaled.com/projects/globalflyer.html
>
> Well if anyone out there in ras world is a buddy of
> Rutan...I suspect he might make some terrific sailplanes
> if he set his mind to it. For some reason I suspect
> the very limited market would not be of much interest
> to him :(
>
> >>
> >> Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for
> >>sailplane
> >> manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the
> >>numbers of potential
> >> sales would justify this.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts?
> >
>
>
>

[Mike Hessington]

You can't fly your friends in a PW6. They will be
to busy laughing at you.




At 01:06 07 November 2004, Charles Yeates wrote:
>Good news -- but you could buy a PW-6U two-seater for
>41,200 Euro and
>have the pleasure of flying friends, eh?
>>
>> Talking about the LS-4b: It's back in production (by
>>Walter Eisele, a
>> well-known german glider pilot), now called LS-4/2005.
>>
>> Price is 39.400 Euro, complete with retractable gear
>>and water bags.
>> Winglets are optional.
>>
>> Lots of bang for the buck if you ask me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bye
>> Andreas
>

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "Mike Hessington" >
napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ...
> You can't fly your friends in a PW6. They will be
> to busy laughing at you.

But You may leave them behind with an SZD-55 (and still with 4500Euro in
pocket to buy them an evening beer which will improve their mood). :P


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland

-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Mike Hessington]

The SZD55 is almost identical in performance to a Discus
1. Build quality on the originals was not as good
as the LS4 but perhaps the new builds are higher quality.

The handling was not as good as the LS4 (but nothing
touches an LS4 for handling) and the fuse looks like
it's been beaten with the Jantar ugly stick.

All in all, very good bang for buck. The only real
problem is that it isn't competitive in any competition
class right now. It's too hot for the club class and
can't quite foot it with LS8s and D2s. I guess that
will change over time.

Mike.


At 15:24 07 November 2004, Michel Talon wrote:
>Janusz Kesik wrote:
>>
>> SZD-55, also back in production, but much more modern
>>design than LS-4 (some
>> ten years younger)
>
>Meaning what exactly in terms of L/D, ease of use,
>build quality etc.
>Seriously, i have never seen a SZD-55 i have no a priori.
>
>> Lots of bang for a buck, isn't it? :)
>>
>
>Depends on the answer to the above question. I know
>for sure the LS4
>is an excellent glider. I know nothing about the polish
>one.
>
>--
>
>Michel TALON
>
>

[Jancsika]

Mike Hessington wrote:
> (but nothing touches an LS4 for handling)

Hmmm, Discus2?

/Jancsika

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Stewart Kissel >
wrote:

> ...I suspect he might make some terrific sailplanes
> if he set his mind to it...

Well, considering the Solitaire motorglider, his last contribution to
the world of soaring, I'd have to entertain some doubts.

Not that I don't think he could, as you say, make terrific sailplanes.
Just that I don't think he'd be inclined to play the incremental game
of quarter-percentages that modern sailplane development seems to have
become.

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24
*now under glass*

[Robert Ehrlich]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> ...
> And if the US$ continues to sink, maybe some of these will find their
> way to Europe. We'll have to sell boatloads to make up for our trade
> imbalance, though.
>

Nope, since they don't meet the criteria for being certified and there is
no category like "expereimental' in tha US, and anyway the cost and length
of the certification process would probably discourage the manufacturer to
attempt it.

[Bill Daniels]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
om...
> Earlier, Stewart Kissel >
> wrote:
>
> > ...I suspect he might make some terrific sailplanes
> > if he set his mind to it...
>
> Well, considering the Solitaire motorglider, his last contribution to
> the world of soaring, I'd have to entertain some doubts.
>
> Not that I don't think he could, as you say, make terrific sailplanes.
> Just that I don't think he'd be inclined to play the incremental game
> of quarter-percentages that modern sailplane development seems to have
> become.
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24
> *now under glass*

It seems the aerodynamics of gliders has reached a point of near perfection
where further performance increases are likely to be very small.

Where I wish the designers would concentrate now is in the area of processes
and materials where reductions in manufacturing costs might be realized. A
breakthrough here would have large impact on the sport.

Bill Daniels

[Kirk Stant]

Stewart Kissel > wrote in message >...
> http://www.scaled.com/projects/globalflyer.html
>
> Well if anyone out there in ras world is a buddy of
> Rutan...I suspect he might make some terrific sailplanes
> if he set his mind to it. For some reason I suspect
> the very limited market would not be of much interest
> to him :(

Actually, Rutan's track record for sailplanes is pretty bad - his
Solitaire self-launch glider won the SSA/SHA (?) contest, but turned
out to be a lousy sailplane due to it's canard configuration -
couldn't thermal slow enough (a simplification of the problem with
using canards at high Cls).

Butt-ugly, too; makes a PW-5 look beautiful in comparison!

I must be the only guy who thinks Rutan's designs are ugly and
over-optimized. But they do work exceptionally well at their design
missions, and one cannot argue with success!

Kirk

[Shawn]

Stewart Kissel wrote:
> http://www.scaled.com/projects/globalflyer.html

That's quite a beasty. I hope it has automated independent pitch
stabilization for each of the booms. I suspect they could get
oscillating relative to each other and cause some nasty problems.

Shawn

[Stewart Kissel]

Well our intrepid billionaire is going to try and solo
it around the world non-stop :)



At 00:00 10 November 2004, Shawn wrote:
>Stewart Kissel wrote:
>> http://www.scaled.com/projects/globalflyer.html
>
>That's quite a beasty. I hope it has automated independent
>pitch
>stabilization for each of the booms. I suspect they
>could get
>oscillating relative to each other and cause some nasty
>problems.
>
>Shawn
>

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "Bill Daniels" > wrote:

> It seems the aerodynamics of gliders has
> reached a point of near perfection where
> further performance increases are likely
> to be very small...

I believe that is true for span-limited performace.

There are probably substantial gains to be had by applying
technological advances to increase span, but at at rates that get very
steep when you look at the overall operational picture.

> Where I wish the designers would concentrate
> now is in the area of processes and materials
> where reductions in manufacturing costs might
> be realized. A breakthrough here would have
> large impact on the sport.

I think that is sort of a chicken-and-egg kind of thing.

At production run rates of several thousand gliders per manufacturer
per year, I would guess that it would be economically viable to apply
existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically reduce the
per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by drastically, I
mean between to between a quarter and a third of current prices.

The trouble is that without a huge demand for gliders there is no
incentive to spend the capital that it would take to build the
manufacturing infrastructure that it takes to make them inexpensively.
And without plentiful inexpensive gliders, soaring will continue to be
popular among only (relatively) affluent people.

I absolutely agree that it would be great if there were some sort of
breakthrough that would drastically lower the manufacturing costs of
conventional low-volume gliders. But even modest gains in that area
will help nudge us towards the popularity spiral that it will take to
attact real capital investment.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Bill Daniels]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
om...
> Earlier, "Bill Daniels" > wrote:
>
> > It seems the aerodynamics of gliders has
> > reached a point of near perfection where
> > further performance increases are likely
> > to be very small...
>
> I believe that is true for span-limited performace.
>
> There are probably substantial gains to be had by applying
> technological advances to increase span, but at at rates that get very
> steep when you look at the overall operational picture.
>
> > Where I wish the designers would concentrate
> > now is in the area of processes and materials
> > where reductions in manufacturing costs might
> > be realized. A breakthrough here would have
> > large impact on the sport.
>
> I think that is sort of a chicken-and-egg kind of thing.
>
> At production run rates of several thousand gliders per manufacturer
> per year, I would guess that it would be economically viable to apply
> existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically reduce the
> per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by drastically, I
> mean between to between a quarter and a third of current prices.
>
> The trouble is that without a huge demand for gliders there is no
> incentive to spend the capital that it would take to build the
> manufacturing infrastructure that it takes to make them inexpensively.
> And without plentiful inexpensive gliders, soaring will continue to be
> popular among only (relatively) affluent people.
>
> I absolutely agree that it would be great if there were some sort of
> breakthrough that would drastically lower the manufacturing costs of
> conventional low-volume gliders. But even modest gains in that area
> will help nudge us towards the popularity spiral that it will take to
> attact real capital investment.
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

I remember the first fiberglass gliders where huge effort was expended to
make the plugs from which the molds were made. All labor intensive hand
sculpture. Now CNC techniques can cut the plugs or even cut the molds
directly. Where we once used glass fiber we now use carbon/epoxy pultrusion
rods. Some progress is being made.

Recently, I've been playing with solid UHMWPE. I have no idea whether a
glider could be made of it but it's fascinating stuff - very light, strong,
slippery and with fantastic abraision resistance. I understand it can be
injection molded.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
om...
<snip>
> The trouble is that without a huge demand for gliders there is no
> incentive to spend the capital that it would take to build the
> manufacturing infrastructure that it takes to make them inexpensively.
> And without plentiful inexpensive gliders, soaring will continue to be
> popular among only (relatively) affluent people.
>
Partnerships have been popular in Europe. Quite easy to halve or quarter
the price of a glider when you realize you can't fly it yourself all the
time. Look at all the 10-25 year old gliders with 500-2500 hours on them.
At that rate you can afford both the glider and the greens fees.

Frank Whiteley

[Jim Vincent]

Also consider the actual number of flights. I think that's where most of the
wear and tear comes from. For instance, one of the ships my club imported from
Europe had almost 6,000 winch launches on it, 3,000 hours, and is pretty ratty.
But the myopic objective of going all glass was met.

>Look at all the 10-25 year old gliders with 500-2500 hours on them.
>At that rate you can afford both the glider and the greens fees.
>



Jim Vincent
N483SZ

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

>
> At production run rates of several thousand gliders per manufacturer
> per year, I would guess that it would be economically viable to apply
> existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically reduce the
> per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by drastically, I
> mean between to between a quarter and a third of current prices.

Many people say they would be delighted to have a glider with the
performance of an LS4. This performance can now be achieved with a
smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess at the cost reduction
that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider compared to the 15M
LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor (especially if hand
finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping costs (RO-RO is by
volume, I think).


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Charles Yeates]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
>>
>> At production run rates of several thousand gliders per manufacturer
>> per year, I would guess that it would be economically viable to apply
>> existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically reduce the
>> per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by drastically, I
>> mean between to between a quarter and a third of current prices.
>
>
> Many people say they would be delighted to have a glider with the
> performance of an LS4. This performance can now be achieved with a
> smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess at the cost reduction
> that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider compared to the 15M
> LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor (especially if hand
> finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping costs (RO-RO is by
> volume, I think).
>
>
Eric

You are joking --- right?

[Doug Taylor]

Windward Performance is hoping that the recommendation of the EASU for
an ultralight glider (80 kg empty) regulation is taken up by more
European countries. We have heard that Germany has adopted this rule
but haven't confirmed it yet. This combined with a base price of
$33,950 and performance very nearly that of a used LS4 should mean
that Europe as well as the U.S.A. will be a good market for the
SparrowHawk. (I flew closely with an LS4 for a couple hours on a
pretty weak day so can't comment on high speeds. At the speeds we
were flying, there was no difference) Not to mention extremely fun
handling qualities and very safe low speed handling. As more
SparrowHawks have been delivered (12 flying now), people are seeing
that it is not limited, but enhanced by being an ultralight and our
sales have been increasing in the U.S. A European dealer should be
available soon. This will open a MUCH bigger market than the U.S. and
hopefully increased volume will help off set some of the price
increases in materials that we have been suffering.

Best regards,
Doug Taylor
Windward Performance, LLC

> >
>
> Nope, since they don't meet the criteria for being certified and there is
> no category like "expereimental' in tha US, and anyway the cost and length
> of the certification process would probably discourage the manufacturer to
> attempt it.

[Robert Ehrlich]

Doug Taylor wrote:
>
> Windward Performance is hoping that the recommendation of the EASU for
> an ultralight glider (80 kg empty) regulation is taken up by more
> European countries. We have heard that Germany has adopted this rule
> but haven't confirmed it yet. This combined with a base price of
> $33,950 and performance very nearly that of a used LS4 should mean
> that Europe as well as the U.S.A. will be a good market for the
> SparrowHawk. (I flew closely with an LS4 for a couple hours on a
> pretty weak day so can't comment on high speeds. At the speeds we
> were flying, there was no difference) Not to mention extremely fun
> handling qualities and very safe low speed handling. As more
> SparrowHawks have been delivered (12 flying now), people are seeing
> that it is not limited, but enhanced by being an ultralight and our
> sales have been increasing in the U.S. A European dealer should be
> available soon. This will open a MUCH bigger market than the U.S. and
> hopefully increased volume will help off set some of the price
> increases in materials that we have been suffering.

Being classified as ultralight glider raises some other problems: it is
a different category. As a glider pilot and instructor, I am not allowed
to fly them, unless I get a new ultralight licence, for which I a have
to take dual instruction somewhere where it is available, and on an
aircraft which is probably fairly different from the intended ultralight glider.
Anyway I would never be able to fly it at my home field, since ultrlights
are not allowed at a distance under 50 km from Paris and my home field
is at 40 km. Beside that, most gliders in France are club gliders and most
pilots fly club gliders. In order for a club to propose ultralights, the
club has to first propose ultralight instruction, i.e. buy some ultralight
two-seater(s) and have ultralight instructors. This is a big change
involving majors investments and I think few clubs would be ready to do
that, as there is almost no demand for that now. So it seems that the
possible market for the SparrowHawk is rather in private owners. But the
2 most spread motivations of private owners to be private owners rather
than fly club gliders which are a lot less expensive are 1) competing in
the classical FAI classes with the last state of the art glider; 2) being
able to fly wihout being dependant of some help by using a motor glider,
and the SparrowHawk doesn't suit to any of these 2 needs.

[Ben Flewett]

What? I don't know of any 13 span glider that comes
close to an LS4.

Knocking a couple of meters off the wings doesn't reduce
your manufacturing costs much. If you're going to
build a glider it's worth the extra $$$ to make it
15M. Otherwise you end up with a PW5.

Ben.


>> Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> At production run rates of several thousand gliders
>>>per manufacturer
>>> per year, I would guess that it would be economically
>>>viable to apply
>>> existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically
>>>reduce the
>>> per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by
>>>drastically, I
>>> mean between to between a quarter and a third of current
>>>prices.
>>
>>
>> Many people say they would be delighted to have a
>>glider with the
>> performance of an LS4. This performance can now be
>>achieved with a
>> smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess
>>at the cost reduction
>> that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider
>>compared to the 15M
>> LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor (especially
>>if hand
>> finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping
>>costs (RO-RO is by
>> volume, I think).
>>
>>
>Eric
>

[Fred Mueller]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
>>
>> At production run rates of several thousand gliders per manufacturer
>> per year, I would guess that it would be economically viable to apply
>> existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically reduce the
>> per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by drastically, I
>> mean between to between a quarter and a third of current prices.
>
>
> Many people say they would be delighted to have a glider with the
> performance of an LS4. This performance can now be achieved with a
> smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess at the cost reduction
> that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider compared to the 15M
> LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor (especially if hand
> finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping costs (RO-RO is by
> volume, I think).
>
>

A 40:1 13 meter glider? Tell me about the wingloading.

Fred

[Michel Talon]

Fred Mueller > wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> At production run rates of several thousand gliders per manufacturer
>>> per year, I would guess that it would be economically viable to apply
>>> existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically reduce the
>>> per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by drastically, I
>>> mean between to between a quarter and a third of current prices.
>>
>>
>> Many people say they would be delighted to have a glider with the
>> performance of an LS4. This performance can now be achieved with a
>> smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess at the cost reduction
>> that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider compared to the 15M
>> LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor (especially if hand
>> finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping costs (RO-RO is by
>> volume, I think).
>>
>>
>
> A 40:1 13 meter glider? Tell me about the wingloading.

And by the way, tell us how reducing a 15 meters wing by 2 meters
will divide the price of the full glider by 2. If there is a 10%
decrease it is the great maximum, and 10% decrease is absolutely
insignificant. Any new design, by itself will generate costs that will
offset any economy that it is purported to produce. I cannot understand
how people still come with such poor ideas, when the PW affair has
proven without any reasonable doubt their ineptness. The only solution
to decrease the price of gliders is to *choose* one and only one model,
proven good, proven desirable to buyers, and produce it at large scale.
The LS4 is obviously a very good candidate. Apparently someone has
decided to produce it and we already see very significant reduction in
price.

>
> Fred
>

--

Michel TALON

[Bob Salvo]

Comes close:

http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent2.htm


"Ben Flewett" > wrote in message
...
> What? I don't know of any 13 span glider that comes
> close to an LS4.
>
> Knocking a couple of meters off the wings doesn't reduce
> your manufacturing costs much. If you're going to
> build a glider it's worth the extra $$$ to make it
> 15M. Otherwise you end up with a PW5.
>
> Ben.
>
>
> >> Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> At production run rates of several thousand gliders
> >>>per manufacturer
> >>> per year, I would guess that it would be economically
> >>>viable to apply
> >>> existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically
> >>>reduce the
> >>> per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by
> >>>drastically, I
> >>> mean between to between a quarter and a third of current
> >>>prices.
> >>
> >>
> >> Many people say they would be delighted to have a
> >>glider with the
> >> performance of an LS4. This performance can now be
> >>achieved with a
> >> smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess
> >>at the cost reduction
> >> that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider
> >>compared to the 15M
> >> LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor (especially
> >>if hand
> >> finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping
> >>costs (RO-RO is by
> >> volume, I think).
> >>
> >>
> >Eric
> >
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:14:10 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
wrote:

>

>
>Recently, I've been playing with solid UHMWPE. I have no idea whether a
>glider could be made of it but it's fascinating stuff - very light, strong,
>slippery and with fantastic abraision resistance. I understand it can be
>injection molded.
>
I have two pieces of this plastic in the shelf, one, 1 1/4" round that
is assumimg a C shape slowly, after about two years, the other is
3/16" sheet that is becoming a very interesting shape after roughly
four years. Tends to indicate that over a period of years it is not
dimensionally stable, but warps. Neither of these pieces is supported
over it's length, it's on racks with similarly shaped materials.

[Robert Ehrlich]

Kirk Stant wrote:
> ...
> I must be the only guy who thinks Rutan's designs are ugly and
> over-optimized.
> ...

Certainly not, concerning the optimization.
See http://inter.action.free.fr/publications/canards/canards.htm
Sorry, it is in French.

[Bill Daniels]

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:14:10 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >Recently, I've been playing with solid UHMWPE. I have no idea whether a
> >glider could be made of it but it's fascinating stuff - very light,
strong,
> >slippery and with fantastic abraision resistance. I understand it can be
> >injection molded.
> >
> I have two pieces of this plastic in the shelf, one, 1 1/4" round that
> is assumimg a C shape slowly, after about two years, the other is
> 3/16" sheet that is becoming a very interesting shape after roughly
> four years. Tends to indicate that over a period of years it is not
> dimensionally stable, but warps. Neither of these pieces is supported
> over it's length, it's on racks with similarly shaped materials.
>

I suppose if you have a hip replacement joint made of UHMWPE you should be
concerned. Maybe the stuff the implants are made of is somehow different.

Bill Daniels

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:05:00 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:14:10 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >Recently, I've been playing with solid UHMWPE. I have no idea whether a
>> >glider could be made of it but it's fascinating stuff - very light,
>strong,
>> >slippery and with fantastic abraision resistance. I understand it can be
>> >injection molded.
>> >
>> I have two pieces of this plastic in the shelf, one, 1 1/4" round that
>> is assumimg a C shape slowly, after about two years, the other is
>> 3/16" sheet that is becoming a very interesting shape after roughly
>> four years. Tends to indicate that over a period of years it is not
>> dimensionally stable, but warps. Neither of these pieces is supported
>> over it's length, it's on racks with similarly shaped materials.
>>
>
>I suppose if you have a hip replacement joint made of UHMWPE you should be
>concerned. Maybe the stuff the implants are made of is somehow different.
>
>Bill Daniels

A hip replacement isn't sitting in one position for two years at a
time.

[Ben Flewett]

No it doesn't...

1. Wing loading is 34 kg.
2. No water
3. Polar curve is very steep at high speeds
4. It’s got a low VNE
5. It’s got flaps
6. And an engine!

It’s nothing like an LS4.

This actually looks like a good glider in it own right
but it's in a completely different category to LS4.



At 14:12 10 November 2004, Bob Salvo wrote:
>Comes close:
>
>http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent2.htm
>
>
>'Ben Flewett' wrote in message
...
>> What? I don't know of any 13 span glider that comes
>> close to an LS4.
>>
>> Knocking a couple of meters off the wings doesn't
>>reduce
>> your manufacturing costs much. If you're going to
>> build a glider it's worth the extra $$$ to make it
>> 15M. Otherwise you end up with a PW5.
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>>
>> >> Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> At production run rates of several thousand gliders
>> >>>per manufacturer
>> >>> per year, I would guess that it would be economically
>> >>>viable to apply
>> >>> existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically
>> >>>reduce the
>> >>> per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And
>>>>>by
>> >>>drastically, I
>> >>> mean between to between a quarter and a third of
>>>>>current
>> >>>prices.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Many people say they would be delighted to have a
>> >>glider with the
>> >> performance of an LS4. This performance can now be
>> >>achieved with a
>> >> smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess
>> >>at the cost reduction
>> >> that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider
>> >>compared to the 15M
>> >> LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor
>>>>(especially
>> >>if hand
>> >> finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping
>> >>costs (RO-RO is by
>> >> volume, I think).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Eric
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Jacek Kobiesa]

"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message >...
> U¿ytkownik "Mike Hessington" >
> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ...
> > You can't fly your friends in a PW6. They will be
> > to busy laughing at you.
>
> But You may leave them behind with an SZD-55 (and still with 4500Euro in
> pocket to buy them an evening beer which will improve their mood). :P

There is several problems with the SZD 55; the manufacturer has very
poor web site and the information contained on those couple of pages
is very limited, it lacks photo gallery for each of its products.
People like to see what they intend to buy. Next, the SZD rep is
located in Toronto, Canada....well, if the factory has any intention
of selling the SZD gliders here in the U.S.A. they need to have a rep
on the West Coast or Southern U.S. Do you really think that average
people in this country know anything about the SZD? I seriously doubt
it. Most of people who buy gliders buy them from friends, club
members, etc. So, the representation of the SZD gliders is almost non
existing in the Western and Southern U.S. Is the comparison between
LS4 and SZD 55 a valid one? I don't think so. LS4 is very docile...can
this be said about the 55? Would you like to compare a stall in LS4
and SZD55? How about SZD 55 being flown by low time pilot?!!!
Especially flying downwind to base or base to final?!!! SZD 55 is for
sure an excellent sailplane but for more seasoned pilots.
Now, if it comes to quality of Polish built gliders: THEY CAN BUILT
THEM AS NICE AS THE GERMAN MANUFACTURERS CAN. End of story. Some of
the German gliders are built in Czech Republic and Slovenia; that
means outside of Germany.
But most the people have legitimate concerns: price of the
gliders...and now the Euro and Dollar exchange. I want to buy a new
glider but simply put...I will delay my purchase until the dollar will
have more favorable exchange rate. Also, most the european
manufacturers will see a big impact, affecting their production,
because individuals in the U.S.A. were buying more new gliders then
any other countries. So, the European manufacturers can adjust their
prices for the U.S. market or...massive layoffs? to many built gliders
and no buyers? Well, time will show...

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> Many people say they would be delighted
> to have a glider with the performance of
> an LS4.

Yes, I'm trying to sell them on the HP-24 or its unflapped sister.

Also, it's worth considering that the nicest thing about the LS-4
isn't necessarily its very decent performance, but rather its very,
very sweet handling. The LS-4 is definitely the nicest-flying ship
I've ever flown to date. I think that that low-workload handling is
one of the things that helps bring out the best in pilots, and is the
greater part of what has made the LS-4 so good and so popular.

> This performance can now be achieved with
> a smaller span glider of 13 M or less.

I consider that an extremly debatable proposition. I'll wait to see a
stub ship consistently beat an LS-4 in unhandicapped, nationals-level
competition before I abandon my grain of salt.

There seems to be something about having a little span that always
makes you want a little more...

> Can you guess at the cost reduction that
> would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter
> glider compared to the 15M LS4?

My guess is "relatively small" in an overall sense.

> Smaller factory,

I think that facility size and overhead costs are more closely linked
to product complexity and throughput than to span.

The place where stubbies really shine is where people have to work on
them in their own garages. I've had many people ask about glider kits
that they can build in a 24-foot garage.

> less materials,

Theoretically so. But in order to bring that 13m ship closer to your
goal of 15m-type performance, you have to make it lighter per unit of
area than a 15m ship. And that means more costly materials and
processes. That's one of the reasons why Sparrowhawks go for $193 per
pound versus about $100 per pound for a new-run LS-4.

> less labor (especially if hand
> finishing is needed)

Yes, that's where there might be a direct area-balanced reduction
(It's also one of the big reasons I'm developing a "some assembly
required" glider). It's also the area where I think glider
manufacturing would benefit most from capital investment in tooling
and machinery that reduces the hand labor.

> smaller trailer, lower shipping costs (RO-RO is by
> volume, I think).

All good points as well. But they also might suggest that there might
be economic benefits to greater geographical diversity of
manufacturing.

In sum, I do think it would be great if there were more soaring pilots
and soaring clubs that were satisfied with the performance they can
get out of 13m or so. And I agree that, all things being equal,
smaller gliders are less expensive than large gliders to manufacture,
own, and operate. Unfortunately, all thing _aren't_ equal. I think
that the unscalable aspects (specifically the pilot and their
physiological requirements) will continue to drive a market that favor
gliders greater than 13m for the general market.

The one somewhat-troubling exception that occurs to me is full-on,
no-holds-barred competition. I believe that where the stakes are high,
there can be competitive advantage in a light, very small glider of
15m or slightly less. What we're talking about is a glider for a 5'2"
pilot of about 108 lbs who doesn't mind launching at 11 lbs/ft^2 in a
machine that provides about as much crash protection as a motorcycle
racing suit.

In the current market, where soaring competitors pay their own way, I
don't see a huge demand for a ship like that, simply because of the
self-selection of contest pilots, and their relatively strong interest
in their own health and well-being. But in some possible future, we
might encounter a market in which the driving economic force comes
from outside the ranks of pilots, and in which competition pilots are
specifically selected for their size as well as their skill,
determination, and risk adversity (or lack thereof). I think I won't
bet on it, but others might.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Erik mann]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
> Many people say they would be delighted to have a glider with the
> performance of an LS4. This performance can now be achieved with a
> smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess at the cost reduction
> that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider compared to the 15M
> LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor (especially if hand
> finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping costs (RO-RO is by
> volume, I think).

Eric,

I wonder about this cost issue. Having done some re-profiling and
re-finishing myself, I have to believe that the decrement in labor and
materials involved in a 2 meter reduction in span is insignifiant.
For instance, once you have the 600 grit on the sanding bar and you're
moving right along, the last one meter of a given wing is lost in the
overall effort of setup and cleanup. Although the materials are
clearly incremental, the percentage of material is certainly less than
10 percent since the surface area of the last two meters is likely
less than 10 percent of a modern wing (e.g. 115ft2 for a modern glass
bird vs about 15 ft2 for the outboard 1 meter on each side [3 feet x 2
feet mean chord]). So, maybe we could optimistically see a 5-7%
reduction in per unit construction cost. Throw in tooling and
development costs, and what's the real savings? That's at least how I
would view the numbers if I were setting up shop...

I think 13M is a legacy of the "build it in your garage" movement.
In that case, there was a very practical reason for a 13M span; the
half-span would fit in an average garage (aka "workshop"). But, since
the homebuilders movement is pretty much moribund except for a few
hearty soles, what's the magic about 13M?

Erik

[tango4]

> wrote in message
...
>
> A hip replacement isn't sitting in one position for two years at a
> time.
>

Oh, I don't know. You should see some of the layabouts in my houshold!

:-)

Ian

[Pete Reinhart]

Lighter wings?
Cain't lif' that heavy glass no more.
Cheers?


"Erik mann" > wrote in message
om...
> Eric Greenwell > wrote in message
>...
> > Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> >
> > Many people say they would be delighted to have a glider with the
> > performance of an LS4. This performance can now be achieved with a
> > smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess at the cost reduction
> > that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider compared to the 15M
> > LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor (especially if hand
> > finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping costs (RO-RO is by
> > volume, I think).
>
> Eric,
>
> I wonder about this cost issue. Having done some re-profiling and
> re-finishing myself, I have to believe that the decrement in labor and
> materials involved in a 2 meter reduction in span is insignifiant.
> For instance, once you have the 600 grit on the sanding bar and you're
> moving right along, the last one meter of a given wing is lost in the
> overall effort of setup and cleanup. Although the materials are
> clearly incremental, the percentage of material is certainly less than
> 10 percent since the surface area of the last two meters is likely
> less than 10 percent of a modern wing (e.g. 115ft2 for a modern glass
> bird vs about 15 ft2 for the outboard 1 meter on each side [3 feet x 2
> feet mean chord]). So, maybe we could optimistically see a 5-7%
> reduction in per unit construction cost. Throw in tooling and
> development costs, and what's the real savings? That's at least how I
> would view the numbers if I were setting up shop...
>
> I think 13M is a legacy of the "build it in your garage" movement.
> In that case, there was a very practical reason for a 13M span; the
> half-span would fit in an average garage (aka "workshop"). But, since
> the homebuilders movement is pretty much moribund except for a few
> hearty soles, what's the magic about 13M?
>
> Erik

[Paul]

"Jacek Kobiesa" > wrote in message
om...
> "Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
>...
> > U¿ytkownik "Mike Hessington" >
> > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ...
Also, most the european
> manufacturers will see a big impact, affecting their production,
> because individuals in the U.S.A. were buying more new gliders then
> any other countries. So, the European manufacturers can adjust their
> prices for the U.S. market or...massive layoffs? to many built gliders
> and no buyers? Well, time will show...

Thats not the impression I am getting. The drop off in new glider purchases
from America started 3 years ago. The dollar is only the latest thing to
affect that. The order books for the factory I represent have filled out
alot in the last year to my surprise and waiting times have increased
markedly.

[Eric Greenwell]

Fred Mueller wrote:

>
> A 40:1 13 meter glider?

Remember when we thought 15 meters would never exceed 40:1? Now they
exceed 45:1, so 40:1 in a 13 M glider designed today is quite practical.

> Tell me about the wingloading.

What would you like - more or less than the LS4? Either or both is
practical.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

>>This performance can now be achieved with
>>a smaller span glider of 13 M or less.
>
>
> I consider that an extremly debatable proposition. I'll wait to see a
> stub ship consistently beat an LS-4 in unhandicapped, nationals-level
> competition before I abandon my grain of salt.
>
> There seems to be something about having a little span that always
> makes you want a little more...

I think this is one big barrier to lower cost gliders, all right:
incremental additions seem like a good value, and after a few of them,
the complaints start coming about how much the glider costs! You know
how it goes: retractable gear doesn't add that much in cost; water
ballast is only a few layers of glass to stiffen the wings; winglets are
pretty cheap; another meter or two of span hardly adds to the price; and
so on. At the end of these "it doesn't cost much to ..." additions, we
have a significantly more expensive glider.

It's the same way we turn an $18,000 car into a $25,000 car, then
complain about how much cars cost.

>
snip
>
>>less materials,
>
>
> Theoretically so. But in order to bring that 13m ship closer to your
> goal of 15m-type performance, you have to make it lighter per unit of
> area than a 15m ship. And that means more costly materials and
> processes. That's one of the reasons why Sparrowhawks go for $193 per
> pound versus about $100 per pound for a new-run LS-4.

But, at 150 pounds versus 500 pounds, the SparrowHawk would still be
cheaper! I don't know what the economic comparison of pre-preg carbon
versus wet lay-up fiberglass construction is, but it would be an
interesting one to read. The pre-preg is more $ per pound, I'm sure, but
you need less pounds of it for the same strength, and laying up the
pre-preg is easier than wet lay-up.

In any case, a 13 meter ship would not necessarily need to be pre-preg.
THe SparrowHawk uses it to meet it's 150 pound weight goal.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Erik mann wrote:

> I wonder about this cost issue. Having done some re-profiling and
> re-finishing myself, I have to believe that the decrement in labor and
> materials involved in a 2 meter reduction in span is insignifiant.
> For instance, once you have the 600 grit on the sanding bar and you're
> moving right along, the last one meter of a given wing is lost in the
> overall effort of setup and cleanup. Although the materials are
> clearly incremental, the percentage of material is certainly less than
> 10 percent since the surface area of the last two meters is likely
> less than 10 percent of a modern wing (e.g. 115ft2 for a modern glass
> bird vs about 15 ft2 for the outboard 1 meter on each side [3 feet x 2
> feet mean chord]). So, maybe we could optimistically see a 5-7%
> reduction in per unit construction cost. Throw in tooling and
> development costs, and what's the real savings? That's at least how I
> would view the numbers if I were setting up shop...

Compare the 113 sq ft, 15 M, 513 pound LS4 with the 82 sq ft, 12.6 M,
290 pound AC4 Russia: that's a 27% reduction in wing area and a 43%
reduction in weight! The fuselage is smaller, too, but not as much a
reduction as the wing. That seems to me a significant reduction in
finishing is possible, and also in the construction. Of course, an
obvious difference in materials cost (these are both fiberglass gliders).

> But, since
> the homebuilders movement is pretty much moribund except for a few
> hearty soles, what's the magic about 13M?

Nothing magic about the 13 meters, except it's big enough that I think a
modern design can match the LS4 in performance (it IS a 24 year old
design, after all!), which has become the de facto "minimum acceptable
performance" for the more vocal on the newsgroup.

We know it no longer requires 15 meters to match LS4 performance. 13
meters seems likely to achieve that, and the overall size is enough
smaller to make real cost reduction possible.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

Does anyone have the name of the person or company that is planning to
produce the LS-4s?

Thanks,

Paul Remde

"Mike Hessington" > wrote in message
...
> You can't fly your friends in a PW6. They will be
> to busy laughing at you.
>
>
>
>
> At 01:06 07 November 2004, Charles Yeates wrote:
> >Good news -- but you could buy a PW-6U two-seater for
> >41,200 Euro and
> >have the pleasure of flying friends, eh?
> >>
> >> Talking about the LS-4b: It's back in production (by
> >>Walter Eisele, a
> >> well-known german glider pilot), now called LS-4/2005.
> >>
> >> Price is 39.400 Euro, complete with retractable gear
> >>and water bags.
> >> Winglets are optional.
> >>
> >> Lots of bang for the buck if you ask me.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Bye
> >> Andreas
> >
>
>
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:06:18 GMT, "Paul Remde" > wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Does anyone have the name of the person or company that is planning to
>produce the LS-4s?

Walter Eisele.



Bye
Andreas

[Greg Arnold]

He is the fellow who was suing DG over the LS purchase? Maybe the
resolution was that he got the LS-4, and DG got everything else?

In what country will the LS-4 be produced?


Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:06:18 GMT, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Does anyone have the name of the person or company that is planning to
>>produce the LS-4s?
>
>
> Walter Eisele.
>
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

[Mark James Boyd]

I would think that if the aspect ratio is the same, and the
wing is shorter, the wing must be thinner too.

Beyond that, if one makes a much lighter glider with the same stall speed,
one can use less wing.

Glider Span A/R Area sq ft Vs in mph

LS-4 15.0 21.4 113.0 40
AC-4 12.6 20.5 82.9 39
Sparwhwk 11.0 18.6 70.0 37
G-102 15.0 18.2 133.5 38

So one would need to add 36% more wing area to make an AC-4 into an LS-4.
And one would need to almost double the wing area to make a Sparrowhawk
into a G-102.

And this is just in two dimensions. I won't get into whether the
wing material is thinner (as I don't know).

Does adding 36% or doubling the wing area add significantly to
cost of building? I don't know. What I do know is that statements
claiming that lopping off 2-3 meters result in less than a 10% reduction
in wing area seem to not hold up to high school math applied to some common
gliders...

There are other factors here, though. Retract weighs a bit, and
so maybe justifies more span, to give the slightly improved polar.
Cockpit size is another factor: sure it's easy to make a light glider
with a midget cockpit.

So there are things other than just the wing to consider. I suspect that
builders spend a LOT more time with the detail finish work (and the
associated $$$ cost) on the fuselage/cockpit/empennage than on the wings...
So perhaps even halving the amount of material or work on wings
really has little effect on the total cost of the aircraft.

Other practical considerations:

Tow vehicle: Mazda Protege vs. Toyota 4 runner
Shipping from BFE: Two gliders vs. one in a container
Push it: Just me on rough ground vs. two of us

etc...

I think the most compelling reasons for 15m have less to do
with apples to apples comparisons, and more to do with
ballast, overbuilding, heavy pilots, and girth ;P


In article >,
Pete Reinhart > wrote:
>Lighter wings?
>Cain't lif' that heavy glass no more.
>Cheers?
>
>
>"Erik mann" > wrote in message
om...
>> Eric Greenwell > wrote in message
>...
>> > Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>> >
>> > Many people say they would be delighted to have a glider with the
>> > performance of an LS4. This performance can now be achieved with a
>> > smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess at the cost reduction
>> > that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider compared to the 15M
>> > LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor (especially if hand
>> > finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping costs (RO-RO is by
>> > volume, I think).
>>
>> Eric,
>>
>> I wonder about this cost issue. Having done some re-profiling and
>> re-finishing myself, I have to believe that the decrement in labor and
>> materials involved in a 2 meter reduction in span is insignifiant.
>> For instance, once you have the 600 grit on the sanding bar and you're
>> moving right along, the last one meter of a given wing is lost in the
>> overall effort of setup and cleanup. Although the materials are
>> clearly incremental, the percentage of material is certainly less than
>> 10 percent since the surface area of the last two meters is likely
>> less than 10 percent of a modern wing (e.g. 115ft2 for a modern glass
>> bird vs about 15 ft2 for the outboard 1 meter on each side [3 feet x 2
>> feet mean chord]). So, maybe we could optimistically see a 5-7%
>> reduction in per unit construction cost. Throw in tooling and
>> development costs, and what's the real savings? That's at least how I
>> would view the numbers if I were setting up shop...
>>
>> I think 13M is a legacy of the "build it in your garage" movement.
>> In that case, there was a very practical reason for a 13M span; the
>> half-span would fit in an average garage (aka "workshop"). But, since
>> the homebuilders movement is pretty much moribund except for a few
>> hearty soles, what's the magic about 13M?
>>
>> Erik
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
>>>This performance can now be achieved with
>>>a smaller span glider of 13 M or less.
>>
>> Theoretically so. But in order to bring that 13m ship closer to your
>> goal of 15m-type performance, you have to make it lighter per unit of
>> area than a 15m ship. And that means more costly materials and
>> processes. That's one of the reasons why Sparrowhawks go for $193 per
>> pound versus about $100 per pound for a new-run LS-4.
>
>But, at 150 pounds versus 500 pounds, the SparrowHawk would still be
>cheaper! I don't know what the economic comparison of pre-preg carbon

Aren't you glad we don't buy gliders like lettuce, by the pound?
I'd pay $20k for a one pound glider is a heartbeat if it had a
polar better than the AC-4 and provided all the other amenities!
Hehe. C'mon Bob, per pound costs don't seem to mean much...


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (Jacek Kobiesa) wrote:

> ... Also, most the european manufacturers
> will see a big impact, affecting their
> production, because individuals in the
> U.S.A. were buying more new gliders then
> any other countries...

My understanding is that the US market typically accounts for about
15% of manufactured soaring articles including sailplanes. I haven't
heard of anything about that changing lately.

Bob K.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> ...Nothing magic about the 13 meters, except it's
> big enough that I think a modern design can match
> the LS4 in performance (it IS a 24 year old
> design, after all!), which has become the de
> facto "minimum acceptable performance" for the
> more vocal on the newsgroup...

If you think that a modern 13m design can match the LS4 in
performance, then by all means I think you should go on out there and
develop that glider! I know that it can be done; I'm just somewhat
skeptical that the result would be a viable commercial product.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> Earlier, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>
>>...Nothing magic about the 13 meters, except it's
>>big enough that I think a modern design can match
>>the LS4 in performance (it IS a 24 year old
>>design, after all!), which has become the de
>>facto "minimum acceptable performance" for the
>>more vocal on the newsgroup...
>
>
> If you think that a modern 13m design can match the LS4 in
> performance, then by all means I think you should go on out there and
> develop that glider! I know that it can be done; I'm just somewhat
> skeptical that the result would be a viable commercial product.

Me, too, but not because it couldn't match the LS4 in performance. While
it's per-unit costs would be lower, the start-up costs wouldn't be, and
it would have to compete with all the used gliders plus, apparently, new
LS4s. Currency risks, and a market that seems to be growing slowly (if
at all), and all those skeptics that think 15 meters is a absolute
requirement, regardless of the performance, and it'd take a brave
manufacturer to risk it.

But here's question: we know a modern glider can be smaller than the 24
year old LS4 design and have the same performance. I suggest 13 meters
would do it without heroic efforts by the designer, but what do the
citizens of RAS think is the minimum?


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Waduino]

Looks to me like an APIS 15 polar is pretty much identical to the LS4. The
APIS 13 has a slightly better L/D at lower speeds and slightly worse in the
60-100 mph range. So the 13 is awfully close, but the cost is not much less
than a 15, i.e. 8% less.

Don't know how the price compares to a new or used LS4 or how the APIS
actually flies, but on paper it looks very good. Polar is waay better than
the SparrowHawk, based on the info I've seen.
Wad.


>> If you think that a modern 13m design can match the LS4 in
>> performance, then by all means I think you should go on out there and
>> develop that glider! I know that it can be done; I'm just somewhat
>> skeptical that the result would be a viable commercial product.
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:17:01 -0800, Greg Arnold >
wrote:

>He is the fellow who was suing DG over the LS purchase? Maybe the
>resolution was that he got the LS-4, and DG got everything else?

I think so... but I'm not the one to answer this question. :)


>In what country will the LS-4 be produced?
I think it's going to be produced by AMS in Slowenia.. This is the
company that has produced the DG gliders in the past and that also
produces and markets the DG-303 and 505 now.

Here's the website: http://www.ams-flight.si/





Bye
Andreas

[Andreas Maurer]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:57:27 -0800, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:


>But here's question: we know a modern glider can be smaller than the 24
>year old LS4 design and have the same performance.

Do we really know that?

I believe it when I see one. Frankly spoken, I doubt that this is
possible without major compromises concerning cockpit size and crash
protection.

I need a certain cockpit cross-section to be able to sit comfortably,
so the cross-section of the fuselage (which defines most of its drag)
is fixed, independent of the wing span. Fuselage surface area is also
fixed (apart from the fact that the fuselage will be a little
shorter), so there is very little potential to reduce the fuselage
weight compared to a current glider (say, ASW-28). Proof is the PW-5
which is only slightly lighter than an ASW-28 despite the fact that it
has much lower Vne and maximum weight.


Fixed fuselage cross-section with a smaller wing means that the
fraction of fuselage drag on total drag is going to be greater. As a
consequence the wing needs to save drag - and the only chance to do
this is increased aspect ratio... which will lead to wing loading
problems.

One solution could be to build the whole glider extremely light (like
the Apis or Sparrowhawk) to get normal wing loadings of about 33
kg/m^2 at a high aspect ratio, but this is going to result in the
inability to carry water, low Vne (hence the comparably bad
penetration of the Apis compared to club class gliders with similar
L/D and wing loading) and questionable crash protection.

The Sparrowhawk and Apis look really good and are definitely state of
the art - but to be honest, I would not like to rely on their cockpit
shell strength when I impact at 50 kts or above.



>I suggest 13 meters
>would do it without heroic efforts by the designer, but what do the
>citizens of RAS think is the minimum?

It's not the wing span or weight, its acceptance. And I think history
has shown what kind of glider will be accepted (and bought) and which
not.
How many LS-4 have been sold? 1.400? :)


Let's face it:
At the moment the Sparrowhaw is sold for $33,950, the LS-4 for 39.500
EUR (VAT not included).
The Sparrowhawk is not that much cheaper, especially if we consider
the fact that it is much smaller and much simpler (no retractable
gear). And, of course, it's not certified (the certification alone is
the major part of the development costs - this is what makes an
aircraft so expensive). Shall we bet that if it was certified the
Sparrowhawk would be at least as expensive as an LS-4?


If we had an exchange rate of 1:1 as we had two years ago, you'd get a
lot more bang per buck with an LS-4, wouldn't you?







Bye
Andreas

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> But here's question: we know a modern glider can be smaller than the 24
> year old LS4 design and have the same performance. I suggest 13 meters
> would do it without heroic efforts by the designer, but what do the
> citizens of RAS think is the minimum?

I dunno about the others, but I'm betting on the range of about 14.3m
to 14.6m for normal sized US pilots. And that the very first guy who
buys one will ask "So, when will I be able to get 15m tips for it?"

I tend to believe that the legacy of span-limited competition classes
is such that sailplane buyers will tend to gravitate towards
competition spans, even those with very weak inclination to ever
compete. That's one of the reasons I'd like to see a distinct
competition class for sub-15m ships; and I think that 13m would be a
perfectly good place to draw the line.

A 13-meter class would collect all the Russias, Apii (Apia?), PW5s,
and Sparrowhawks, though sadly leave the 14m L33 (TG-10D for
USAFAians) out in the cold. It would give people at least a plausable
excuse to buy these little gliders, and give developers an economic
basis for developing them. And I think that it would be a kick-ass fun
class to fly in, since I'm just the right size for it and I'm used to
flying a few points short of a Libelle.

Thanks again, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Shawn]

Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:57:27 -0800, Eric Greenwell
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>But here's question: we know a modern glider can be smaller than the 24
>>year old LS4 design and have the same performance.
>
>
> Do we really know that?
>
> I believe it when I see one. Frankly spoken, I doubt that this is
> possible without major compromises concerning cockpit size and crash
> protection.
>
> I need a certain cockpit cross-section to be able to sit comfortably,
> so the cross-section of the fuselage (which defines most of its drag)
> is fixed, independent of the wing span. Fuselage surface area is also
> fixed (apart from the fact that the fuselage will be a little
> shorter), so there is very little potential to reduce the fuselage
> weight compared to a current glider (say, ASW-28). Proof is the PW-5
> which is only slightly lighter than an ASW-28 despite the fact that it
> has much lower Vne and maximum weight.
>
>
> Fixed fuselage cross-section with a smaller wing means that the
> fraction of fuselage drag on total drag is going to be greater. As a
> consequence the wing needs to save drag - and the only chance to do
> this is increased aspect ratio... which will lead to wing loading
> problems.
>
> One solution could be to build the whole glider extremely light (like
> the Apis or Sparrowhawk) to get normal wing loadings of about 33
> kg/m^2 at a high aspect ratio, but this is going to result in the
> inability to carry water, low Vne (hence the comparably bad
> penetration of the Apis compared to club class gliders with similar
> L/D and wing loading) and questionable crash protection.
>
> The Sparrowhawk and Apis look really good and are definitely state of
> the art - but to be honest, I would not like to rely on their cockpit
> shell strength when I impact at 50 kts or above.
>
>
>
>
>>I suggest 13 meters
>>would do it without heroic efforts by the designer, but what do the
>>citizens of RAS think is the minimum?
>
>
> It's not the wing span or weight, its acceptance. And I think history
> has shown what kind of glider will be accepted (and bought) and which
> not.
> How many LS-4 have been sold? 1.400? :)
>
>
> Let's face it:
> At the moment the Sparrowhaw is sold for $33,950, the LS-4 for 39.500
> EUR (VAT not included).
> The Sparrowhawk is not that much cheaper, especially if we consider
> the fact that it is much smaller and much simpler (no retractable
> gear). And, of course, it's not certified (the certification alone is
> the major part of the development costs - this is what makes an
> aircraft so expensive). Shall we bet that if it was certified the
> Sparrowhawk would be at least as expensive as an LS-4?
>
>
> If we had an exchange rate of 1:1 as we had two years ago, you'd get a
> lot more bang per buck with an LS-4, wouldn't you?

Have you looked at the exchange rate lately?

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:22:39 -0700, Shawn
> wrote:


>Have you looked at the exchange rate lately?

Sure I did - but the exchange rate neither reflects the real
production cost nor is it a fixed value. Two years ago the exchange
was 1:1.

Unfortunately it's not the mistake of the European glider
manufacturers that the $ has lost 30 percent of its value compared to
the Euro.



Bye
Andreas

[Bert Willing]

You hopefully don't expect sailplane designers to fix your economy, don't
you? I thought that's what you have a President for...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Shawn" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
>> If we had an exchange rate of 1:1 as we had two years ago, you'd get a
>> lot more bang per buck with an LS-4, wouldn't you?
>
> Have you looked at the exchange rate lately?

[Eric Greenwell]

Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:57:27 -0800, Eric Greenwell

>>But here's question: we know a modern glider can be smaller than the 24
>>year old LS4 design and have the same performance.
>
>
> Do we really know that?

YES! With the newer 15 meter size gliders moving close to or even above
50:1 (like the Diana), there should be no question that 40:1 can be
achieved with less than 15 meters. It might take more than 13 m, maybe
13.5 or 14 meters - I don't know where the limit is.

>
> I believe it when I see one. Frankly spoken, I doubt that this is
> possible without major compromises concerning cockpit size and crash
> protection.

No compromises are needed to achieve this, and I don't want any
compromises to be made. A crash-worthy cockpit is not an option, in my mind.

>
> I need a certain cockpit cross-section to be able to sit comfortably,
> so the cross-section of the fuselage (which defines most of its drag)
> is fixed, independent of the wing span. Fuselage surface area is also
> fixed (apart from the fact that the fuselage will be a little
> shorter), so there is very little potential to reduce the fuselage
> weight compared to a current glider (say, ASW-28). Proof is the PW-5
> which is only slightly lighter than an ASW-28 despite the fact that it
> has much lower Vne and maximum weight.

I agree in concept, but the details are important; for example, my
proposal was to match the LS4, not an ASW 28! THe PW5 is not a good
example: it is not a modern design and is made of fiberglass; the ASW 28
is carbon fiber.

> Fixed fuselage cross-section with a smaller wing means that the
> fraction of fuselage drag on total drag is going to be greater. As a
> consequence the wing needs to save drag - and the only chance to do
> this is increased aspect ratio... which will lead to wing loading
> problems.

What kind of problems? The modern gliders show a trend to smaller and
smaller wing area. A SparrowHawk is the extreme example, with only 11
meter span and 70 sq ft, yet has a wing loading of only 5 to 5.5
pounds/sq ft (24 to 27 kg/m2).

>
> One solution could be to build the whole glider extremely light (like
> the Apis or Sparrowhawk) to get normal wing loadings of about 33
> kg/m^2 at a high aspect ratio, but this is going to result in the
> inability to carry water, low Vne (hence the comparably bad
> penetration of the Apis compared to club class gliders with similar
> L/D and wing loading) and questionable crash protection.

These are all design choices to be made by the designer. Today's
designers know more than they did 25 years ago when the LS4 was
designed, and they now have a broader range of materials to choose from.
Of course they can match the LS4 with a smaller span!

This is not the same as saying it would be a commercially viable product.

>
> The Sparrowhawk and Apis look really good and are definitely state of
> the art - but to be honest, I would not like to rely on their cockpit
> shell strength when I impact at 50 kts or above.

Without crash tests or a review by people that are knowledgeable in
glider cockpit design, I can not compare the Apis, LS4, or SparrowHawk
objectively. I would be guessing, just like you.

One factor in favor of the Apis and Sparrowhawk is their lower speeds
will mean they crash more slowly than an LS4, which is a very important
feature for crash safety.

snip

> Let's face it:
> At the moment the Sparrowhaw is sold for $33,950, the LS-4 for 39.500
> EUR (VAT not included).
> The Sparrowhawk is not that much cheaper, especially if we consider
> the fact that it is much smaller and much simpler (no retractable
> gear). And, of course, it's not certified (the certification alone is
> the major part of the development costs - this is what makes an
> aircraft so expensive). Shall we bet that if it was certified the
> Sparrowhawk would be at least as expensive as an LS-4?

These comparisons are irrelevant for several reasons: The SparrowHawk is
not intended to compete with the LS4; currency issues make price
comparisons change year-to-year; Windward Performance (SparrowHawk
manufacturer) is a new company with a much different situation than an
established one. To talk about the cost of two different _designs_
sensibly means we must eliminate these other factors and consider what
it would cost to build them in the same factory.

THe problem of commercial success is a much more complex problem: you
must determine a particular design, how to build it, and where to build
it. These and other factors besides the effect of span on the cost
become more important and are very difficult to resolve.

> If we had an exchange rate of 1:1 as we had two years ago, you'd get a
> lot more bang per buck with an LS-4, wouldn't you?

They are two very different gliders, so you can only guess at what the
"bang" is for each pilot. All the people that have purchased a
SparrowHawk could have just as easily bought a used LS4, but chose not to.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Shawn]

Bert Willing wrote:
> You hopefully don't expect sailplane designers to fix your economy, don't
> you? I thought that's what you have a President for...
>

Bert, Bert, don't you know Real Americans (tm) elect a president for the
same reason they buy big SUVs, to stroke their egos.
Also, our economic problems are always someone else's fault.
As for gliders, the Sparrowhawk should be priced very attractively for
Euro holders.

Shawn

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

> Earlier, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>
>>But here's question: we know a modern glider can be smaller than the 24
>>year old LS4 design and have the same performance. I suggest 13 meters
>>would do it without heroic efforts by the designer, but what do the
>>citizens of RAS think is the minimum?
>
>
> I dunno about the others, but I'm betting on the range of about 14.3m
> to 14.6m for normal sized US pilots. And that the very first guy who
> buys one will ask "So, when will I be able to get 15m tips for it?"

I agree. I've noticed when the conversation turns lamenting the cost of
new gliders, someone suggests achieving this goal with sub-15 meter
ships, and the very next posting is "well, it doesn't cost THAT much
more to make it 15 meter...". Certainly for RAS, there is strong bias
for 15 meter span, even though people claim they would be quite happy
with LS4 performance. I am beginning to think a lot of people don't want
a cheap glider with LS4 performance; they want a cheap LS4.

Maybe outside of RAS, there is a good market for a sub-15 meter LS4
equivalent. Certainly some are trying, like the AC4, Apis, Silent, and
the SparrowHawk. Though these are not the same as an LS4, it does give
some idea of the market potential.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Erik mann]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message > Compare the 113 sq ft, 15 M, 513 pound LS4 with the 82 sq ft, 12.6 M,
> 290 pound AC4 Russia: that's a 27% reduction in wing area and a 43%
> reduction in weight! The fuselage is smaller, too, but not as much a
> reduction as the wing. That seems to me a significant reduction in
> finishing is possible, and also in the construction. Of course, an
> obvious difference in materials cost (these are both fiberglass gliders).
>

What is it that economists always throw out... ceteris paribus...

I agree that if one started with a clean sheet of paper, then maybe
you can lop off a few pounds on the fuselage, change the planform,
etc. (though, having looked at the structure of some of these ships,
I'm not so sure I would want to fly them or land them off-field... but
I digress). Keeping everthing else equal, is the "best" use of
engineering to start with a shorter span as a design goal? Maybe it
is, as the weight savings on the spar and carry-through structure
allows for a good range of wingloading while bringing along the other
benefits mentioned elswhere (ease of assembly, transport, etc.)? Or,
maybe the design goal should be 40:1 performance at the lowest cost,
irrespective of span?

[Mark James Boyd]

The use of flaps (somewhat) mitigates the need for water. Only time
will tell if the flaps increase the insurance rates.

I really like the fixed gear, and suspect the insurance rates of the
LS-4 vs. Apis will reflect this.

Beyond that, as I am not so girthy as some americans, I fit in even quite
small cockpits. The larger cockpits are simply a waste for me.

If one wants water, retract, and no flaps, and doesn't mind the
extra weight of ground handling, the LS-4 may be a better choice for
some people.

Of more interest to me, however, is the insurance rates for these
gliders. This is something I'd really like to see a comparison of...

Andreas Maurer > wrote:
>
>One solution could be to build the whole glider extremely light (like
>the Apis or Sparrowhawk) to get normal wing loadings of about 33
>kg/m^2 at a high aspect ratio, but this is going to result in the
>inability to carry water, low Vne (hence the comparably bad
>penetration of the Apis compared to club class gliders with similar
>L/D and wing loading) and questionable crash protection.
>
>The Sparrowhawk and Apis look really good and are definitely state of
>the art - but to be honest, I would not like to rely on their cockpit
>shell strength when I impact at 50 kts or above.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Brad]

While I am an advocate of the "short span" sailplane, I also realize
that what I truly want is the ability to self launch. Unfortunatley,
in my opinion, the short span gliders do not have adequate wing area
to allow for the additional weight a power plant will add.

Since I am 3-d modeler by trade I have been designing up my "dream"
sailplane that would probably end up with a 15m span, but it would be
built using Apis/Russia/TST-10 technolgy, thus would have a empty
weight around 450 pounds or so.

I believe that 40:1 would be easily achieved, my mission goals would
be a ship that would excel in a climate typical of western Washington,
not looking for a flat out racer, but would rather tailor towards what
I am used to with my Apis 13 while having the ability to self-launch
and retrieve.

What I find encouraging and at the same time deceiving, is that
designing in solids produces very exciting results in a relatively
short time.....but to get from what is on the computer screen to
something you can sit in on the shop floor is another matter entirely!
However that being said.....I do have the ability to create just about
everything required to get the project underway in terms of templates,
parts, etc.......

Cheers,
Brad
N199AK

[Eric Greenwell]

Erik mann wrote:
>
> What is it that economists always throw out... ceteris paribus...
>
> I agree that if one started with a clean sheet of paper, then maybe
> you can lop off a few pounds on the fuselage, change the planform,
> etc. (though, having looked at the structure of some of these ships,
> I'm not so sure I would want to fly them or land them off-field...
> but I digress). Keeping everthing else equal, is the "best" use of
> engineering to start with a shorter span as a design goal? Maybe it
> is, as the weight savings on the spar and carry-through structure
> allows for a good range of wingloading while bringing along the other
> benefits mentioned elswhere (ease of assembly, transport, etc.)?
> Or, maybe the design goal should be 40:1 performance at the lowest
> cost, irrespective of span?

That was my proposed goal: LS4 performance at the lowest manufacturing
cost. The obvious solution will be a smaller glider, made possible by
the improved aerodynamics, design, and materials that became available
in the 24 years since the LS4 was designed.

A few have suggested 40:1 is not possible at less than 15 meter span,
but when 15 meter spans can now do 48:1 or better, this is not sensible.

Most people that have objected to this smaller span solution have done
so mainly on the "it doesn't cost THAT much more to ..." grounds; i.e.,
proposing a more expensive glider than one that will just match the LS4.
This might indeed yield a more viable product, but it doesn't meet the
goal of a "cheaper LS4".

Which would you prefer, at the same price: a new LS4, or an new 13 meter
with identical performance, handling, and safety? I would choose the 13
meter glider, but many/most would not, even though it's smaller size and
lighter weight would make it easier to rig, to push around, to retrieve,
to tow (in it's trailer or behind a tow plane), even to wax!

Old habits and dreams die slowly, I think. Glider pilots are mostly a
very conservative bunch.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

> I tend to believe that the legacy of span-limited competition classes
> is such that sailplane buyers will tend to gravitate towards
> competition spans, even those with very weak inclination to ever
> compete. That's one of the reasons I'd like to see a distinct
> competition class for sub-15m ships; and I think that 13m would be a
> perfectly good place to draw the line.

This effect should not be an issue here, since we are talking about
performance identical to an LS4. So, it would do exactly as well in any
contest as an LS4. I don't know if it would be immediately accepted into
the club class since I'm not familiar with the rules, but if has the
same performance as an LS4 and the same price, why not?
>
> A 13-meter class would collect all the Russias, Apii (Apia?), PW5s,
> and Sparrowhawks, though sadly leave the 14m L33 (TG-10D for
> USAFAians) out in the cold. It would give people at least a plausable
> excuse to buy these little gliders, and give developers an economic
> basis for developing them. And I think that it would be a kick-ass fun
> class to fly in, since I'm just the right size for it and I'm used to
> flying a few points short of a Libelle.

I like the idea of encouraging smaller gliders with a class, but I'm
more in favor of "performance bracket" classes than span classes. THe
European club class is such a class. By handicapping over a small range
of performance, say 10%, it's easier to accommodate performance
differences fairly.

Instead of the Sports Class we have in the US, I'd like to see something
like "Sports A" (handicaps from 1.05 and up), and "Sports B" (handicaps
from 1.04 and lower). Or maybe 3 classes?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Kirk Stant]

Robert Ehrlich > wrote in message >...
> Kirk Stant wrote:
> > ...
> > I must be the only guy who thinks Rutan's designs are ugly and
> > over-optimized.
> > ...
>
> Certainly not, concerning the optimization.
> See http://inter.action.free.fr/publications/canards/canards.htm
> Sorry, it is in French.

Merci, c'est interessant!

Eh oui, un amerloque qui parle Francais...et qui a vote pour W.

Kirk

[Mike Ziaskas]

At 15:36 11 November 2004, Andreas Maurer wrote:

<<Frankly spoken, I doubt that this is possible without
major compromises concerning cockpit size and crash
protection. I need a certain cockpit cross-section
to be able to sit comfortably, so the cross-section
of the fuselage (which defines most of its drag) is
fixed, independent of the wing span. Fuselage surface
area is also fixed.... One solution could be to build
the whole glider extremely light (like the Apis or
Sparrowhawk) to get normal wing loadings of about 33
kg/m^2 at a high aspect ratio, but this is going to
result in the inability to carry water, low Vne (hence
the comparably bad penetration of the Apis compared
to club class gliders with similar L/D and wing loading)
and questionable crash protection. The Sparrowhawk
and Apis look really good and are definitely state
of the art - but to be honest, I would not like to
rely on their cockpit shell strength when I impact
at 50 kts or above.
>

As to the question of fuselage integrety in smaller,
lighter gliders the Apis manufactures seem to have
given this some thought. See: http://www.albastar.si/
and look under construction on the menu bar

Mike

[Mike Ziaskas]

At 02:12 12 November 2004, Mike Ziaskas wrote:
>At 15:36 11 November 2004, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
> Well, Andreas wrote to the effect that he did not
>want compromise in fuselage crashworthyness in the
lightweight gliders (MZ)
>
>As to the question of fuselage integrety in smaller,
>lighter gliders the Apis manufactures seem to have
>given this some thought. See: http://www.albastar.si/
>and look under construction on the menu bar
>
>Mike
>
>
>
Mike Z

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
(Erik mann) wrote:
> Or, maybe the design goal should be 40:1 performance at the lowest cost,
> irrespective of span?

40:1 isn't actually what people want, otherwise the Phoebus would be a
lot more popular than it is.

What is the reason for more span? It decreases induced drag at high
angles of attack. So less span is worse because it means you won't be
able to thermal slowly and efficiently, right? Just like the PW-5.
Well, no, the PW5 thermals beautifully. The problem with it is that it
needs very thick wings to do that, and this actually penalises it at
*high* speed, not low speed. A glider similar to the PW-5 could easily
have thinner wings, a better best L/D and *much* better high speed
performance. It just wouldn't be able to fly as slowly for thermalling
and -- perhaps more importantly for low time pilots -- for landing.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Chris Rollings]

For what it is worth, I offer you 'Rollings Law of
Price and Performance'. 'For a given state of the
art, performance increases with the square root of
wingspan; price increases with the square of wing span.'

At 07:36 12 November 2004, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>In article ,
> (Erik mann) wrote:
>> Or, maybe the design goal should be 40:1 performance
>>at the lowest cost,
>> irrespective of span?
>
>40:1 isn't actually what people want, otherwise the
>Phoebus would be a
>lot more popular than it is.
>
>What is the reason for more span? It decreases induced
>drag at high
>angles of attack. So less span is worse because it
>means you won't be
>able to thermal slowly and efficiently, right? Just
>like the PW-5.
>Well, no, the PW5 thermals beautifully. The problem
>with it is that it
>needs very thick wings to do that, and this actually
>penalises it at
>*high* speed, not low speed. A glider similar to the
>PW-5 could easily
>have thinner wings, a better best L/D and *much* better
>high speed
>performance. It just wouldn't be able to fly as slowly
>for thermalling
>and -- perhaps more importantly for low time pilots
>-- for landing.
>
>--
>Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
>Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
>

[Tim Mara]

I would always choose the 15 meter glider.......following what you have been
saying the 15 meter would then not be the "same" performance as the 13 meter
glider.....but better!
Also.having flown a lot of different types of glider and airplanes over
several years, including some ultra-lite or 'lite" types there is still no
way to compare these with the extra mass and groovy feeling of the (for the
lack of a better word) real sailplanes.....
tim

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Erik mann wrote:
>>
>> What is it that economists always throw out... ceteris paribus...
>>
>> I agree that if one started with a clean sheet of paper, then maybe you
>> can lop off a few pounds on the fuselage, change the planform, etc.
>> (though, having looked at the structure of some of these ships,
>> I'm not so sure I would want to fly them or land them off-field...
>> but I digress). Keeping everthing else equal, is the "best" use of
>> engineering to start with a shorter span as a design goal? Maybe it
>> is, as the weight savings on the spar and carry-through structure allows
>> for a good range of wingloading while bringing along the other
>> benefits mentioned elswhere (ease of assembly, transport, etc.)?
>> Or, maybe the design goal should be 40:1 performance at the lowest
>> cost, irrespective of span?
>
> That was my proposed goal: LS4 performance at the lowest manufacturing
> cost. The obvious solution will be a smaller glider, made possible by
> the improved aerodynamics, design, and materials that became available in
> the 24 years since the LS4 was designed.
>
> A few have suggested 40:1 is not possible at less than 15 meter span, but
> when 15 meter spans can now do 48:1 or better, this is not sensible.
>
> Most people that have objected to this smaller span solution have done so
> mainly on the "it doesn't cost THAT much more to ..." grounds; i.e.,
> proposing a more expensive glider than one that will just match the LS4.
> This might indeed yield a more viable product, but it doesn't meet the
> goal of a "cheaper LS4".
>
> Which would you prefer, at the same price: a new LS4, or an new 13 meter
> with identical performance, handling, and safety? I would choose the 13
> meter glider, but many/most would not, even though it's smaller size and
> lighter weight would make it easier to rig, to push around, to retrieve,
> to tow (in it's trailer or behind a tow plane), even to wax!
>
> Old habits and dreams die slowly, I think. Glider pilots are mostly a very
> conservative bunch.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[Andreas Maurer]

On 11 Nov 2004 12:10:00 -0800, (Brad) wrote:


>Since I am 3-d modeler by trade I have been designing up my "dream"
>sailplane that would probably end up with a 15m span, but it would be
>built using Apis/Russia/TST-10 technolgy, thus would have a empty
>weight around 450 pounds or so.

You can already buy this - it's the Apis 2 ultralight motorglider,
certified according to the German ultralight regulations.

Price: 60.000 Euro.
Not quite a bargain, isn't it?



Bye
Andreas

[Bob Kuykendall]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> A few have suggested 40:1 is not possible at less than 15 meter span,
> but when 15 meter spans can now do 48:1 or better, this is not sensible.

Now we're getting to the crux of the matter. In order to continue this
discussion, we need to avoid comparing apples to oranges.

The 40:1 best L/D performance that you're seeking to match for an LS4
equivalent is the actual Johnson-tested and verified best glide
performance of the LS4. It really does go 40:1 at best glide. I can't
remember what the factory claimed for it, but it is probably on the
close order of 43:1, right in the ballpark of what I'm claiming for
the HP-24.

The 48:1 best L/D performance that you say that 15m ships can do or
better is just a claim. It is salesspeak. It is not verified by any
impartial body. It is, in my mind at least, false until demonstrated
true. When a well-designed 18 meter ship like your ASH-26E can barely
hit 50:1, even when you feather in the squeakiest data points, you
just have to wonder how good you really can do with three whole meters
less.

Now, I'm not going to say that I think that 48:1 or 50:1 is outside
the realm of possibility for a 15m ship. But I will say that I don't
see it in the impartial test reports that I have read.

And I will note that this is a pretty sore topic with me. I'm
developing a 15/18m sailplane for which I have released what I think
is a reasonable best L/D claim. It has a well-designed wing, courtesy
of my Stanford phd friend who does low-speed aero engineering for NASA
Ames and campaigns in 15m national competition. So I think I have good
reason to believe that my ship will meet my claims. And I also have a
pretty good idea that there's no magic out there that is going to let
you pull 50:1 out of 15 meters like you'd extract a rabbit from the
eye of a needle.

As for real, tested best glide performance available from a 15m ship,
a good example is the Ventus. When Johnson tested the Ventus A in
1981, he got 45:1 out of it. Just incredible. Not many people were
particularly enamored of its handling characteristics, but it went
like stink.

And after 15 years of evolution that produced a new fuselage and a new
wing, Johnson tested the Ventus again in 1996 - this time the 2B
model. His results show that the best L/D increased an entire negative
1 to 44:1. It was definitely a nicer glider, with the auto-connects
and nicer cockpit and other improvements, but somehow the best L/D
didn't go up.

Going forward, I propose that if we're going to be tossing a lot of
best L/D claims around, that we restrict ourselves to tested, verified
best L/D performance values, for example the idaflieg or Johnson
results. Otherwise I'm just going to have to join the Liar's Dice game
and claim a patently unobtainable 50:1 for the HP-24. And I'd like to
think of myself as a more honest person than that.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Mark James Boyd]

Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>
>Going forward, I propose that if we're going to be tossing a lot of
>best L/D claims around, that we restrict ourselves to tested, verified
>best L/D performance values, for example the idaflieg or Johnson
>results. Otherwise I'm just going to have to join the Liar's Dice game
>and claim a patently unobtainable 50:1 for the HP-24. And I'd like to
>think of myself as a more honest person than that.

How about the L/D ten years later after 1000 hours of exposure in the
sun, 300 assemblys by trained monkeys, blowing dust and sand over the wings,
and repeatedly forcing the canopy and gear up and down?

I think there are more interesting questions than just some L/D figure.
Does polyurethane keep airflow better after years of the conditions
I just described than other finishes? How about wing flexing causing
cracks? Do longer wings inevitably mean more cracks unless they get
another $10k worth of finishing?

Is a side opening canopy going to deform (like our L-13 canopy)
over the course of many years? How heavy/sturdy does a canopy
frame need to be to maintain it's shape (I remember watching Bob
look at the HP canopy frame matching to the body with a careful eye)?

And who sells a glider that has parts that don't fit flush with
the disclaimer "in a year or two the parts will stretch and fit perfectly"?

So I personally don't look too hard at the L/D by itself.
The stall speed, the 80 knot sink speed, the possibility of ballast,
and the tradeoffs of flaps vs. no flaps and how this is integrated,
and retract gear, seem to be better indicators than some number.

A glider with 1000+ hours, no refinish or new parts since manufacture,
and then a flight test, is what I'm talking about. If it beats
350 fpm sink at 80kts, and stalls under 35kts at MGW, then it's
time to move on and ask about other flight characteristics
(stall/spin like SZD 50-3 and tricky takeoffs like PIK-20).

In this sense the World Class concept I think was apt, because
the goal was not L/D (perhaps with the knowledge that
waviness and rough handling would negate the cost put into a
high L/D anyway).

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Bill Daniels]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
om...
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> > A few have suggested 40:1 is not possible at less than 15 meter span,
> > but when 15 meter spans can now do 48:1 or better, this is not sensible.
>
> Now we're getting to the crux of the matter. In order to continue this
> discussion, we need to avoid comparing apples to oranges.
>
> The 40:1 best L/D performance that you're seeking to match for an LS4
> equivalent is the actual Johnson-tested and verified best glide
> performance of the LS4. It really does go 40:1 at best glide. I can't
> remember what the factory claimed for it, but it is probably on the
> close order of 43:1, right in the ballpark of what I'm claiming for
> the HP-24.
>
> The 48:1 best L/D performance that you say that 15m ships can do or
> better is just a claim. It is salesspeak. It is not verified by any
> impartial body. It is, in my mind at least, false until demonstrated
> true. When a well-designed 18 meter ship like your ASH-26E can barely
> hit 50:1, even when you feather in the squeakiest data points, you
> just have to wonder how good you really can do with three whole meters
> less.
>
> Now, I'm not going to say that I think that 48:1 or 50:1 is outside
> the realm of possibility for a 15m ship. But I will say that I don't
> see it in the impartial test reports that I have read.
>
> And I will note that this is a pretty sore topic with me. I'm
> developing a 15/18m sailplane for which I have released what I think
> is a reasonable best L/D claim. It has a well-designed wing, courtesy
> of my Stanford phd friend who does low-speed aero engineering for NASA
> Ames and campaigns in 15m national competition. So I think I have good
> reason to believe that my ship will meet my claims. And I also have a
> pretty good idea that there's no magic out there that is going to let
> you pull 50:1 out of 15 meters like you'd extract a rabbit from the
> eye of a needle.
>
> As for real, tested best glide performance available from a 15m ship,
> a good example is the Ventus. When Johnson tested the Ventus A in
> 1981, he got 45:1 out of it. Just incredible. Not many people were
> particularly enamored of its handling characteristics, but it went
> like stink.
>
> And after 15 years of evolution that produced a new fuselage and a new
> wing, Johnson tested the Ventus again in 1996 - this time the 2B
> model. His results show that the best L/D increased an entire negative
> 1 to 44:1. It was definitely a nicer glider, with the auto-connects
> and nicer cockpit and other improvements, but somehow the best L/D
> didn't go up.
>
> Going forward, I propose that if we're going to be tossing a lot of
> best L/D claims around, that we restrict ourselves to tested, verified
> best L/D performance values, for example the idaflieg or Johnson
> results. Otherwise I'm just going to have to join the Liar's Dice game
> and claim a patently unobtainable 50:1 for the HP-24. And I'd like to
> think of myself as a more honest person than that.
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com

Well said, Bob.

All else equal, span determines performance. Clearly performance is a
highly desired quality for the buyers of new sailplanes. I think is true
that any cost savings due to a shorter span will not offset the lesser
performance with the majority of buyers.

If you really want a short span glider, wait until the first generation of
owners dump them on the used market when they move up to larger spans.
Then, short span gliders will be really cheap.

15 meter gliders are popular for a reason. They are still small enough to
be easy to assemble while delivering excellent performance. However, I
suspect that if costs were equal, 18 meters would be still more popular.

Bill Daniels
(20 meter driver)

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Erik mann) wrote:
> > Or, maybe the design goal should be 40:1 performance at the lowest cost,
> > irrespective of span?
>
> 40:1 isn't actually what people want, otherwise the Phoebus would be a
> lot more popular than it is.
>
They seem to churn through the market slowly, but are a little more
difficult to sell than more modern gliders. There are 2-3 things about the
Phoebus that are not popular. It's performance is at low speed and it falls
off pretty quickly as the speed builds. Age and balsa sandwich, including
fuselage. Repairable, but a few had some real rot problems even years ago,
suffering from neglected maintenance. Rigging is a bit tedious, especially
if you are vertically challenged, due to the high wing position. Many feel
that they should not be winch launched due to the moment between the CG hook
and high wing position and all flying tail. Of the 250 ( or 267?) built, I
wonder how many remain in an airworthy condition, some now 40 years later?
Is there a Phoebus groups lurking around?

Frank Whiteley

[Shawn]

> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message

>>A few have suggested 40:1 is not possible at less than 15 meter span, but
>>when 15 meter spans can now do 48:1 or better, this is not sensible.
>>
>>Most people that have objected to this smaller span solution have done so
>>mainly on the "it doesn't cost THAT much more to ..." grounds; i.e.,
>>proposing a more expensive glider than one that will just match the LS4.
>>This might indeed yield a more viable product, but it doesn't meet the
>>goal of a "cheaper LS4".
>>
>>Which would you prefer, at the same price: a new LS4, or an new 13 meter
>>with identical performance, handling, and safety? I would choose the 13
>>meter glider, but many/most would not, even though it's smaller size and
>>lighter weight would make it easier to rig, to push around, to retrieve,
>>to tow (in it's trailer or behind a tow plane), even to wax!
>>
>>Old habits and dreams die slowly, I think. Glider pilots are mostly a very
>>conservative bunch.

Tim Mara wrote:
> I would always choose the 15 meter glider.......following what you
have been
> saying the 15 meter would then not be the "same" performance as the
13 meter
> glider.....but better!
> Also.having flown a lot of different types of glider and airplanes over
> several years, including some ultra-lite or 'lite" types there is
still no
> way to compare these with the extra mass and groovy feeling of the
(for the
> lack of a better word) real sailplanes.....
> tim

This thread is reminding me of a Monty Python skit:

Span span span span
Span span span span
Lovely span! Wonderful span!*

The message I'm getting is that the market (us) wants LS-4 like
performance for a lot less money. A number of manufacturers are putting
out gliders that are close, but miss the mark in one way or another. I
suspect they, with good intentions, say to themselves in that self
assured glider pilot kind of way,
"I know what will fix this sport. I'm going to build it, people will
fly it, and I will be their savior."
OK, maybe not the savior part, but I'm sure each of them thinks they've
got the solution.
Or worse, a committee gets together and designs something (nearly) no
one wants.
Do these guys ever do extensive, international, market research that
asks the one true question (that Tim alludes to above)?
"What will YOU buy?" "When push comes to dollars and you picture
yourself in a new glider, what is it like?" Asking participants at the
latest Worlds isn't enough.
From what I read, what we *Really* want to fly sounds like "A big shiny
high performance gliders for half as much money." Is that what you
really want? Works for me.
The price of Russias and PW-5s has dropped over recent years because
IMHO they don't fit into this picture. I think SparrowHawks are very
cool but I won't give up my Mosquito for one.
The whole hand made glider industry is a dead end anachronism and the
end is approaching (see the ASW-28 wing shrinkage, Discus CS AD, sale of
RS threads for recent examples). High tech ultralights, minigliders and
old designs built with cheap labor nibble at the edges, but don't break
down the central dogma of the big manufacturers.

The manufacturers should be asking owners, clubs, students etc. what
they *Really want to buy*, not just "We build these gliders for these
prices. Which do you want?" Then apply some well established material
and manufacturing technology as well as marketing, and try to build it.
At worst they'll end up where they're headed anyway.

Shawn


* http://www.mailmsg.com/sounds/spam-song.wav for the original

[Kirk Stant]

(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message >...
> Earlier, Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> The one somewhat-troubling exception that occurs to me is full-on,
> no-holds-barred competition. I believe that where the stakes are high,
> there can be competitive advantage in a light, very small glider of
> 15m or slightly less. What we're talking about is a glider for a 5'2"
> pilot of about 108 lbs who doesn't mind launching at 11 lbs/ft^2 in a
> machine that provides about as much crash protection as a motorcycle
> racing suit.
>

George Moffat was way ahead of you; he brings up this exact subject in
"Winning on the Wind"! His instant solution? Woman contest pilots!

He also had an interesting discussion about the potential of a 13
meter racing class, but unlike the current emphasis on handicapping,
he wanted a really strict one-class ship (much like the theory behind
the PW-5). This came from his experience in sailboat racing.

I think all this discussion about exporting Sparrowhawks to Europe
misses a huge point - European (and probably the rest of the non-US
gliding community) has a strong XC and racing bias. So a glider that
doesn't fit into an existing racing category, or has less XC
capability, will be a tough sell. Club class perhaps, but then you
are competing against much less expensive used ships.

The US on the other hand, seems (IMHO) to have a substantial anti-XC /
racing majority - which would explain the "success" (?) of the
Sparrowhawk and PW-5 over here.

Finally - To me the argument is backwards: I don't want a 13 meter
ship that has the performance of an LS4, I want an LS4 (size, comfort,
handling, cost) that has the performance of an LS6!

Kirk
Ex-partner in an LS4, currently flying an LS6 (and missing the -4s
huge cockpit and wonderful ailerons)

[Eric Greenwell]

Tim Mara wrote:
> I would always choose the 15 meter glider.......following what you have been
> saying the 15 meter would then not be the "same" performance as the 13 meter
> glider.....but better!

Tim, you completely missed the point: the choice was between gliders of
IDENTICAL performance. Even so, you made my point: a lot of RAS pilots
have a bias to 15 meters, REGARDLESS of the performance!

> Also.having flown a lot of different types of glider and airplanes over
> several years, including some ultra-lite or 'lite" types there is still no
> way to compare these with the extra mass and groovy feeling of the (for the
> lack of a better word) real sailplanes.....

And yet, one of the elements cited most by the people that own the
shorter span sailplanes is the improved response of the glider, so you
can "feel the air" better and maneuver more quickly while thermalling.
Your preference might just be habit and lack of exposure to the modern
small span gliders, like the SparrowHawk, Apis, Silent, etc. These are
not your father's 1-26! (This is not disparagement of the 1-26, but a
recognition of how different the new gliders are).

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Kirk Stant wrote:

>
> The US on the other hand, seems (IMHO) to have a substantial anti-XC /
> racing majority - which would explain the "success" (?) of the
> Sparrowhawk and PW-5 over here.

(Sound of loud buzzer for wrong answer) The people buying and flying the
SparrowHawk are most definitely cross-country pilots! You don't buy a
glider like that to float around the airport. It'd be a heck of fun ship
for that purpose, but the people that want to do that seem to buy
cheaper gliders or use the club ships.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Fred Mueller]

Tim Mara wrote:
>.. there is still no
> way to compare these with the extra mass and groovy feeling of the (for the
> lack of a better word) real sailplanes.....
> tim


Groovy. That is the perfect word.

Fred

[Steve Hill]

It seems to me that as long as there is such a disparity amongst the ranks
of sailplane enthusiasts financially, we'll never really be able to reach
any meaningful solution...I for one wouldn't consider a sailplane that
didn't have the ability to self launch and then turn into a pretty high
performance soaring machine, simply because it suits my goals...There's lots
of 1-26's and many other veritable gliders in the under 10k price range that
there should always be a home for...If it seems one thing is missing, it
seems like that is a self launched kit sailplane, for the enthusiast who
truly wants to be free of the encumbrance of waiting in line for tows...and
all the associated headaches of retrieves...it would seem to me that the
HP-24 project could place itself into being one of a kind in that regard,
instead of simply another nice sailplane...for the money the LAK-12 and
numerous other longer winged mounts seem to be plentiful and I agree with
Bob Kuykendal about L/D claims being largely over-rated...

the one thing I notice more and more, is that self launchers are turning up
on the State records and badge flights more and more...and I think it will
continue...I don't think the overall performance is near as much an issue,
as the convenience and ability to go...when the weather is good...I started
in hang gliders and have owned wood, aluminum and glass...I don't want to go
back in performance any more than anyone...a less expensive self launcher
would seem to me to be much more meaningful for growing our sport...than
just another sailplane to add to the long and confusing list that is already
out there...



Steve.

[Eric Greenwell]

Steve Hill wrote:

> the one thing I notice more and more, is that self launchers are turning up
> on the State records and badge flights more and more...and I think it will
> continue...I don't think the overall performance is near as much an issue,
> as the convenience and ability to go...when the weather is good...I started
> in hang gliders and have owned wood, aluminum and glass...I don't want to go
> back in performance any more than anyone...a less expensive self launcher
> would seem to me to be much more meaningful for growing our sport...than
> just another sailplane to add to the long and confusing list that is already
> out there...

I agree with Steve. As an example, the Russia AC-5 sold very well
because it had a good price and decent performance. It has about 70% of
the L/D of ASH 26 E, but was about 40% of the price, and 30+ pilots
found that very attractive. Unfortunately, it's not available new now,
and the manufacturer's intentions aren't known.

L/D is somewhat overrated as Bob K and others point out, especially for
a motorglider. A Russia pilot might have to use his engine more often
than I do in my ASH 26, but what's an extra 10-15 minutes of engine, 5
or 6 times a year? Nothing really, but it sure can expand your soaring
options.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Robertmudd1u]

>..If it seems one thing is missing, it
>seems like that is a self launched kit sailplane, for the enthusiast who
>truly wants to be free of the encumbrance of waiting in line for >tows...and
all the associated headaches of retrieves.

It is not missing it already exists, the Apis M is a selflaunch 15meter span
glider available in kit form. It uses modern design concepts and materials. The
39hp. engine assures good climb rates even at high density altitudes.

Visit the web site for more information. www.apisgliders.com

In all fairness I must mention that the Silent selflaunch is also available in
kit form but is 13meters in span.

Robert Mudd
Apis Sailplanes Inc.

[Tim Traynor]

> I agree with Steve. As an example, the Russia AC-5 sold very well because
> it had a good price and decent performance. It has about 70% of the L/D of
> ASH 26 E, but was about 40% of the price, and 30+ pilots found that very
> attractive. Unfortunately, it's not available new now, and the
> manufacturer's intentions aren't known.
>
> L/D is somewhat overrated as Bob K and others point out, especially for a
> motorglider. A Russia pilot might have to use his engine more often than I
> do in my ASH 26, but what's an extra 10-15 minutes of engine, 5 or 6 times
> a year? Nothing really, but it sure can expand your soaring options.


I can attest to Eric's statement about the ability of the Russia 5M to
expand your soaring options. While it seems to me the LS-4 is a great
glider, I bought a 5M this last spring for roughly the amount of money that
would get me an LS-4. However, the 5M allowed me to fly twice the hours of
my previous high hour season because I could fly from an airport 10 minutes
from my house as opposed to 2 or 2.5 hours from home. For me, the increased
number of hours greatly makes up for the relatively small performance
reduction because I feel I am making more rapid progression in my quest to
be a soaring pilot.

Tim

[Andreas Maurer]

On 13 Nov 2004 01:51:12 GMT, (Robertmudd1u)
wrote:

>It is not missing it already exists, the Apis M is a selflaunch 15meter span
>glider available in kit form. It uses modern design concepts and materials. The
>39hp. engine assures good climb rates even at high density altitudes.

Unfortunately that Apis is anything but cheap... :(

>Visit the web site for more information. www.apisgliders.com
>
>In all fairness I must mention that the Silent selflaunch is also available in
>kit form but is 13meters in span.

..... and it's electric!
This is what I regard as the future of gliding.


Bye
Andreas

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Kirk Stant wrote:
>
> >
> > The US on the other hand, seems (IMHO) to have a substantial anti-XC /
> > racing majority - which would explain the "success" (?) of the
> > Sparrowhawk and PW-5 over here.
>
> (Sound of loud buzzer for wrong answer) The people buying and flying the
> SparrowHawk are most definitely cross-country pilots! You don't buy a
> glider like that to float around the airport. It'd be a heck of fun ship
> for that purpose, but the people that want to do that seem to buy
> cheaper gliders or use the club ships.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

I still don't think the question of repairability has been adequately
addressed by the producer. If you ding a wing, a factory repair may be
required. Same as the Diana 2.

This may ultimately impact your insure charges. If I were your underwriter,
I'd certainly be looking at this. This, of course, is strictly conjecture
based on what I know of pre-preg composite construction and what was stated
by the Diana 2 design team at Atlanta.

Frank Whtieley

[Eric Greenwell]

F.L. Whiteley wrote:

>
> I still don't think the question of repairability has been adequately
> addressed by the producer. If you ding a wing, a factory repair may be
> required. Same as the Diana 2.
>
> This may ultimately impact your insure charges. If I were your underwriter,
> I'd certainly be looking at this. This, of course, is strictly conjecture
> based on what I know of pre-preg composite construction and what was stated
> by the Diana 2 design team at Atlanta.

Anyone with a serious interest in the SparrowHawk doesn't have to rely
on conjecture, but can discuss things like this directly with the
designer, Greg Cole. I don't own one, and I don't have the answers.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Brad]

(Andreas Maurer) wrote in message >...
> On 11 Nov 2004 12:10:00 -0800, (Brad) wrote:
>
>
> >Since I am 3-d modeler by trade I have been designing up my "dream"
> >sailplane that would probably end up with a 15m span, but it would be
> >built using Apis/Russia/TST-10 technolgy, thus would have a empty
> >weight around 450 pounds or so.
>
> You can already buy this - it's the Apis 2 ultralight motorglider,
> certified according to the German ultralight regulations.

I have a 13m Apis and a 1/2 share in a 15m Apis.......they are great
gliders! my partner is putting an MZ-35 in the 15m and I am putting a
MZ-100 in the 13m.
>
> Price: 60.000 Euro.

see above...:o)


> Not quite a bargain, isn't it?

heck.......everytime I see gas go down a penny I feel richer.

Brad

[Robertmudd1u]

>Unfortunately that Apis is anything but cheap... :(

Andreas,

"Cheap" is a relative term. the Apis M is less than half the price of a DG 800
or ASW-26. If you have a partner it is even better.

In a "cheap" motorglider you will mostly likely get what you pay for.

Robert Mudd

[Andreas Maurer]

On 14 Nov 2004 00:24:35 GMT, (Robertmudd1u)
wrote:


>"Cheap" is a relative term. the Apis M is less than half the price of a DG 800
>or ASW-26. If you have a partner it is even better.

You are completely correect here - here in Germany a partnership is
the preferred way to own a glider.

But reading RAS I got the impression that partnerships are not common
in the US (hence the interest of many US pilots in cheap - or shall I
say low-budget? - gliders). Is my impression correct?



Bye
Andreas

[Robertmudd1u]

>But reading RAS I got the impression that partnerships are not common
>in the US (hence the interest of many US pilots in cheap - or shall I
>say low-budget? - gliders). Is my impression correct?
>Bye
>Andreas

Andreas,
From my experience it think that is correct. Many is the time I have talked
with pilots who wants to own a glider but can't afford it. I mention a
partnership and they say " Oh I could never be in a partnership"

I am always tempted to ask then just what personality defect they have that
will not allow them to get along with someone else and share the fun and cost
of a flying machine.

Well thought out partnerships are a great way to lower your flying costs and
have a glider of your choice to fly.

Robert Mudd

[Chip Bearden]

Andreas,

Partnerships are still common, although less so for the competitive
crowd. I believe the majority of gliders at my home airport are owned
in partnership but relatively few of them are campaigned regularly in
contests.

I do agree, however, that most U.S. pilots would rather own a glider
alone. Many of them probably dismiss the alternative of acquiring a
newer, better-equipped, and/or higher-performance glider by partnering
with another pilot or pilots.

Back in 1996, I posted on RAS about this:

"Affordable gliders" --
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=partnership+group:rec.aviation.soaring+au thor:jnbearden%40aol.com&hl=en&lr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=11&as_maxy=1997&selm=4o238b%24d9v%40newsbf02.news.aol.com&rnum=1



I won't repeat the same stuff here except to say that partnerships,
like marriage, can be difficult and demanding but also very rewarding.
If money is what is holding someone back from acquiring the sailplane
of his or her dreams, winning the lottery or robbing a bank need not
be the only ways to realize that goal. :)

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
[i]
> But reading RAS I got the impression that partnerships are not common
> in the US (hence the interest of many US pilots in cheap - or shall I
> say low-budget? - gliders). Is my impression correct?
>
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

[Kirk Stant]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Kirk Stant wrote:
>
> >
> > The US on the other hand, seems (IMHO) to have a substantial anti-XC /
> > racing majority - which would explain the "success" (?) of the
> > Sparrowhawk and PW-5 over here.
>
> (Sound of loud buzzer for wrong answer) The people buying and flying the
> SparrowHawk are most definitely cross-country pilots! You don't buy a
> glider like that to float around the airport. It'd be a heck of fun ship
> for that purpose, but the people that want to do that seem to buy
> cheaper gliders or use the club ships.

Sorry, Eric, I disagree. The US soaring scene is unfortunately biased
by the prevalence of commerial operations - "show up, fly a 1-26 for
an hour, then go home and pull out the honey-do list".

XC is the most fun (to me and my friends, at least), when done in
company with friends, in similar performing ships. With most of the
established 15m and Standard ships, that works well. Somehow, I don't
see a Sparrowhawk keeping up with a V2, ASW-27, or LS8. And if you go
for the Sparrowhawk option, you are opting out of most racing -
unless you go for sports class.

I've seen several people out here buy PW-5s (all enthusiastic), do a
little XC, then give it up and sell them because everybody else leaves
them behind.

I see the Sparrowhawk as a typical US "we do it different here"
approach. I'm sure it's a nice little glider, but not sure where it
fits in the big picture. I know I have no desire to trade my ship for
it - it's easy to get addicted to high performance!

Kirk

[Ruud]

(Mike Stringfellow) wrote in message >...
> The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down from its peak of
> 1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go even lower, with
> some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar to the Euro).


You ain't seen nothing yet!
With the current financial state of the US the real bottom of the US
dollar is still far away.
The 1.4 dollar to the Euro is just a matter of weeks.

[Ruud]

(Gary Kemp) wrote in message >...
> What has happened to the U.S. Stock market since Bush's reelection??

That kind of reaction is usually called a "dead cat bounce".

[Shawn]

Ruud wrote:
> (Gary Kemp) wrote in message >...
>
>>What has happened to the U.S. Stock market since Bush's reelection??
>
>
> That kind of reaction is usually called a "dead cat bounce".

To laugh? To cry? Laugh now, cry when the cat starts stinking. Yeah,
that's it.

Shawn, Sure as hell won't be buying a D2 any time soon.

[Eric Greenwell]

Kirk Stant wrote:

>>>The US on the other hand, seems (IMHO) to have a substantial anti-XC /
>>>racing majority - which would explain the "success" (?) of the
>>>Sparrowhawk and PW-5 over here.
>>
>>(Sound of loud buzzer for wrong answer) The people buying and flying the
>>SparrowHawk are most definitely cross-country pilots! You don't buy a
>>glider like that to float around the airport. It'd be a heck of fun ship
>>for that purpose, but the people that want to do that seem to buy
>>cheaper gliders or use the club ships.
>
>
> Sorry, Eric, I disagree. The US soaring scene is unfortunately biased
> by the prevalence of commerial operations - "show up, fly a 1-26 for
> an hour, then go home and pull out the honey-do list".

This might be true, but is irrelevant when discussing SparrowHawk owners.
>
> XC is the most fun (to me and my friends, at least), when done in
> company with friends, in similar performing ships. With most of the
> established 15m and Standard ships, that works well. Somehow, I don't
> see a Sparrowhawk keeping up with a V2, ASW-27, or LS8. And if you go
> for the Sparrowhawk option, you are opting out of most racing -
> unless you go for sports class.

I made no mention of racing or keeping up with an LS8. I was indicating
the people buying the SparrowHawk are very much interested in
cross-country flying. I don't think they are "anti-racing", just not
especially interested in it. Racing and keeping up with an LS8 are YOUR
priorities, not theirs.

> I've seen several people out here buy PW-5s (all enthusiastic), do a
> little XC, then give it up and sell them because everybody else leaves
> them behind.

And I've seen people get that high performance ship, scare themselves
with a high speed landing in a field, and go back to floating around the
airport in it. The glider and the pilot need to be matched to the
situation; it's not one size fits all, for sure.

>
> I see the Sparrowhawk as a typical US "we do it different here"
> approach.

Are you saying more choices are problem? I don't think so. We already
have a lot of companies "doing it the same". The people I've seen buying
the SparrowHawk are not dewy-eyed newcomers to soaring, but serious
pilots looking for something different.

> I'm sure it's a nice little glider, but not sure where it
> fits in the big picture.

You have a lot company, as there are lots of pilots can't see past their
habits and preferences to that big picture.

> I know I have no desire to trade my ship for
> it - it's easy to get addicted to high performance!

And I wouldn't have your glider - no motor - it's easy to get addicted
to flying when you want to, where you want to, the whole convenience and
independence bit! I can see why you like it, however.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Ray Lovinggood]

One reason I prefer to own outright: The possible
partners in a glider ownership are my friends with
whom I want to fly. How do you reconcile this?

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
LS1-d, 'W8'

At 16:54 14 November 2004, Robertmudd1u wrote:
>>But reading RAS I got the impression that partnerships
>>are not common
>>in the US (hence the interest of many US pilots in
>>cheap - or shall I
>>say low-budget? - gliders). Is my impression correct?
>>Bye
>>Andreas
>
>Andreas,
>From my experience it think that is correct. Many is
>the time I have talked
>with pilots who wants to own a glider but can't afford
>it. I mention a
>partnership and they say ' Oh I could never be in a
>partnership'
>
>I am always tempted to ask then just what personality
>defect they have that
>will not allow them to get along with someone else
>and share the fun and cost
>of a flying machine.
>
>Well thought out partnerships are a great way to lower
>your flying costs and
>have a glider of your choice to fly.
>
>Robert Mudd
>
>
>
>

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Ray Lovinggood > wrote:

> One reason I prefer to own outright: The possible
> partners in a glider ownership are my friends with
> whom I want to fly. How do you reconcile this?

More than one seat?

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[goneill]

In reality partnerships work well ,I have been in a number of
syndicates and I averaged over 200 hrs a year.
The rules we used were simple, each partner had their own day "but"
if the person was not there the other/s rigged at 10:30-11:00am
if more than one of the partners was present the one with the longest
time since flown was 1st ,if the partner still had not shown up by
12:00 take the glider to the flight line and put it on the launch list.
12:30 was deadline time ,if the correct day partner still had not shown
you launched.If the correct partner arrived late he got the base radio
to put out a call and you came back to give him his turn.
Even 3 man syndicates really had few time clashes because family or
business reasons always kept interfering so with a little good will
the partnership florishes.
The comment about wanting to go with your friends is deceptive because
a performance glider just begs to be taken x/c and you find your circle of
friends just gets bigger as more of the various partnership members go
out with you.
There is one partnership variation done at a field south of me.
5 partners own 3 gliders between them.
The comments made are that virtually never does one partner come to
the airfield and not get at least one of the gliders, I think they had
ASW27 a Discus and an ASW20
gary

"Ray Lovinggood" > wrote in message
...
> One reason I prefer to own outright: The possible
> partners in a glider ownership are my friends with
> whom I want to fly. How do you reconcile this?
>
> Ray Lovinggood
> Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
> LS1-d, 'W8'
>
> At 16:54 14 November 2004, Robertmudd1u wrote:
>>>But reading RAS I got the impression that partnerships
>>>are not common
>>>in the US (hence the interest of many US pilots in
>>>cheap - or shall I
>>>say low-budget? - gliders). Is my impression correct?
>>>Bye
>>>Andreas
>>
>>Andreas,
>>From my experience it think that is correct. Many is
>>the time I have talked
>>with pilots who wants to own a glider but can't afford
>>it. I mention a
>>partnership and they say ' Oh I could never be in a
>>partnership'
>>
>>I am always tempted to ask then just what personality
>>defect they have that
>>will not allow them to get along with someone else
>>and share the fun and cost
>>of a flying machine.
>>
>>Well thought out partnerships are a great way to lower
>>your flying costs and
>>have a glider of your choice to fly.
>>
>>Robert Mudd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[F.L. Whiteley]

I've also had partnerships that agreed we should not let lack of crew
prevent us from going cross country on a good day, but call and a retrieve
would be made if we got stuck. Reciprocity is the key. Never had a formal
agreement and only a minor hiccup or two. Never a problem. Not so
structured. If scheduled pilot wasn't there by noon, lost place.
Generally, the other pilot would bring the glider back after a couple of
hours unless working a declared flight.

Frank

"goneill" > wrote in message
...
> In reality partnerships work well ,I have been in a number of
> syndicates and I averaged over 200 hrs a year.
> The rules we used were simple, each partner had their own day "but"
> if the person was not there the other/s rigged at 10:30-11:00am
> if more than one of the partners was present the one with the longest
> time since flown was 1st ,if the partner still had not shown up by
> 12:00 take the glider to the flight line and put it on the launch list.
> 12:30 was deadline time ,if the correct day partner still had not shown
> you launched.If the correct partner arrived late he got the base radio
> to put out a call and you came back to give him his turn.
> Even 3 man syndicates really had few time clashes because family or
> business reasons always kept interfering so with a little good will
> the partnership florishes.
> The comment about wanting to go with your friends is deceptive because
> a performance glider just begs to be taken x/c and you find your circle of
> friends just gets bigger as more of the various partnership members go
> out with you.
> There is one partnership variation done at a field south of me.
> 5 partners own 3 gliders between them.
> The comments made are that virtually never does one partner come to
> the airfield and not get at least one of the gliders, I think they had
> ASW27 a Discus and an ASW20
> gary
>
> "Ray Lovinggood" > wrote in message
> ...
> > One reason I prefer to own outright: The possible
> > partners in a glider ownership are my friends with
> > whom I want to fly. How do you reconcile this?
> >
> > Ray Lovinggood
> > Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
> > LS1-d, 'W8'
> >
> > At 16:54 14 November 2004, Robertmudd1u wrote:
> >>>But reading RAS I got the impression that partnerships
> >>>are not common
> >>>in the US (hence the interest of many US pilots in
> >>>cheap - or shall I
> >>>say low-budget? - gliders). Is my impression correct?
> >>>Bye
> >>>Andreas
> >>
> >>Andreas,
> >>From my experience it think that is correct. Many is
> >>the time I have talked
> >>with pilots who wants to own a glider but can't afford
> >>it. I mention a
> >>partnership and they say ' Oh I could never be in a
> >>partnership'
> >>
> >>I am always tempted to ask then just what personality
> >>defect they have that
> >>will not allow them to get along with someone else
> >>and share the fun and cost
> >>of a flying machine.
> >>
> >>Well thought out partnerships are a great way to lower
> >>your flying costs and
> >>have a glider of your choice to fly.
> >>
> >>Robert Mudd
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Tony Verhulst]

> .....I bought a 5M this last spring for roughly the amount of money that
> would get me an LS-4. However, the 5M allowed me to fly twice the hours of
> my previous high hour season because I could fly from an airport 10 minutes
> from my house as opposed to 2 or 2.5 hours from home. For me, the increased
> number of hours greatly makes up for the relatively small performance
> reduction because I feel I am making more rapid progression in my quest to
> be a soaring pilot.


What's missing here is the camaraderie and sharing your passion with
like-minded individuals at the gliderport. This is important for some,
and less so for others. I admit that I would find a 2.5 hour drive "a
haul".

Tony V. "6N"

[Tony Verhulst]

> But reading RAS I got the impression that partnerships are not common
> in the US (hence the interest of many US pilots in cheap - or shall I
> say low-budget? - gliders). Is my impression correct?

A club member put it to me like this recently: "In this part of the
country (Northeast US) there are only a handful of truly great soaring
days per year. When those days arrive, you don't want to be sitting on
the ground while your partner flies".

Tony V.

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
>
> > But reading RAS I got the impression that partnerships are not common
> > in the US (hence the interest of many US pilots in cheap - or shall I
> > say low-budget? - gliders). Is my impression correct?
>
> A club member put it to me like this recently: "In this part of the
> country (Northeast US) there are only a handful of truly great soaring
> days per year. When those days arrive, you don't want to be sitting on
> the ground while your partner flies".
>
> Tony V.
>
Flying more on the not so great days might make one the greater pilot;^)

[Kirk Stant]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
>
> This might be true, but is irrelevant when discussing SparrowHawk owners.


Tangential, perhaps, but not irrelevant in the overall picture?


> I made no mention of racing or keeping up with an LS8. I was indicating
> the people buying the SparrowHawk are very much interested in
> cross-country flying. I don't think they are "anti-racing", just not
> especially interested in it. Racing and keeping up with an LS8 are YOUR
> priorities, not theirs.

True. But based on what I have seen out here, unless you have a group
flying similar performance gliders, you will lose some (a lot?) of the
"individualist" beginning XC pilots. If you are lucky enough to have
a critical mass of Sparrowawk (or similar) ships, then those lucky
pilots will have a lot of fun, no doubt about it.

>
> And I've seen people get that high performance ship, scare themselves
> with a high speed landing in a field, and go back to floating around the
> airport in it. The glider and the pilot need to be matched to the
> situation; it's not one size fits all, for sure.


I've seen that here several times - with such docile ships as ASW-19s!
I suspect the problem is training - the curse of the 2-33 strikes
again! Anyone who says a modern Std ship (which includes the LS4) is
any harder to fly than a 1-26 is delusional and/or poorly trained.
But it is true that all some people want (or can handle )is a simple
floater to putt around the glider port.


> Are you saying more choices are problem? I don't think so. We already
> have a lot of companies "doing it the same". The people I've seen buying
> the SparrowHawk are not dewy-eyed newcomers to soaring, but serious
> pilots looking for something different.

No, more choices are fine if the market can support it. I'm not sure
the Sparrowhawh adds much new to the equation, however - it has a high
enough wingloading that it is more of a "small, light, regular glider"
than a different approach to soaring. I would like to see something
along the lines of the Carbon Dragon that could really use microlift -
that would fill a hole in the current range of gliders, IMHO.
>
>
> You have a lot company, as there are lots of pilots can't see past their
> habits and preferences to that big picture.

True, but that knife cuts both ways - there are a lot of "advocates"
of specific ships/classes/types of flying that think that there way is
the only way.
>

> And I wouldn't have your glider - no motor - it's easy to get addicted
> to flying when you want to, where you want to, the whole convenience and
> independence bit! I can see why you like it, however.

I would love to have a self-launch, as long as I didn't give up any
performance - when I win the lottery I'm buying an Antares! But it
would be in addition to my pure glider - I love the whole routine of
soaring - arriving early, rigging, waiting for the best time to
launch, the tow (or winch launch), getting home or landing out (and
the adventure that ensues), then putting everything away in the
evening. Self launch seems to me to trade convenience for solitude -
I like the company of other gliders! Again, thats a typical US
"lonesome cowboy" attitude (and there is nothing wrong with that!) -
unlike the european social approach to soaring. I've done it both
ways, and much prefer doing it with friends!

Kirk

[Eric Greenwell]

Kirk Stant wrote:

>
> True. But based on what I have seen out here, unless you have a group
> flying similar performance gliders, you will lose some (a lot?) of the
> "individualist" beginning XC pilots. If you are lucky enough to have
> a critical mass of Sparrowawk (or similar) ships, then those lucky
> pilots will have a lot of fun, no doubt about it.

It depends on the person and culture of organization, I think. Thirty
years ago, I learned in and flew with a club where even pilots of
similar skill and gliders did not fly "together" (meaning in sight of
each other, or within a mile or two), but with radio contact as they
scattered in different directions to explore on their own.

We still fly this way: individuals doing their own thing in the company
of friends. This kind of social flying doesn't require the pilots have
the same abilities or similar gliders, so the pilot in the Ka-6
participates just as well as the pilot in 18 meter motorglider.

>>And I've seen people get that high performance ship, scare themselves
>>with a high speed landing in a field, and go back to floating around the
>>airport in it. The glider and the pilot need to be matched to the
>>situation; it's not one size fits all, for sure.
>
> I've seen that here several times - with such docile ships as ASW-19s!
> I suspect the problem is training - the curse of the 2-33 strikes
> again! Anyone who says a modern Std ship (which includes the LS4) is
> any harder to fly than a 1-26 is delusional and/or poorly trained.

The LS4 isn't harder to fly, I'm sure, but a landing it in a farmer's
field is more difficult and intimidating the new pilot. The larger size
and especially the higher landing speed are the cause. Every time I've
landed our club's Blanik, I would think "this is SO easy compared to a
glass ship!". And that's from a pilot with 2000+ hours in glass ships.

snip

>>You have a lot company, as there are lots of pilots can't see past their
>>habits and preferences to that big picture.
>
>
> True, but that knife cuts both ways - there are a lot of "advocates"
> of specific ships/classes/types of flying that think that there way is
> the only way.

These pilots are included in my "lots of pilots can't see past their
habits and preferences to that big picture" remark.

snip

> Self launch seems to me to trade convenience for solitude -


It's not a trade - options are increased, none are removed. Fly from the
glider port at the same time as your friends, fly from airports where
the soaring is great but there are no tows, fly with other motorglider
pilots: it's the pilot's choice if he flies alone.

> I like the company of other gliders!

So do I, and as do most of the motorglider pilots I know. I know one
that gives tows mid-week when there aren't any other towpilots, then
self-launches when the tow line is empty!

> Again, thats a typical US
> "lonesome cowboy" attitude (and there is nothing wrong with that!) -
> unlike the european social approach to soaring.

With over half the German manufacturers' production being motorgliders,
the Europeans must be buying a lot of them!

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> F.L. Whiteley" > wrote:
>
> >Flying more on the not so great days might make one the greater pilot;
>
> Struggling around a course in four hours that you can fly in
> two hours on a good day is great fun and good for the soul,
> as well as a good learning experience that improves your
> flying skill.
>
> However, there's also something to be learned on the 2 or 3
> good New England days each year that overlap the weekends.
> Cruising 10 knots faster than usual when interthermal and
> making that perfect pullup transition into the exact core of
> a strong thermal are hard to practice on weak days.
> Moreover, there's a thrill it's hard to match when you're 50
> to 100 miles farther out than you can get on a normal 2-3
> knot day where you're limited to the well-traveled terrain.
>
> Either way, there are *still* not enough soarable weekend
> days for me to split them in half with a partner. Of
> course, if you can find a partner who flies only on
> weekdays, I might be amenable :-)
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
The British have two national ladders. One weekdays, one weekends.
Such partners may certainly exist, but you might not find them around the
launch point at the weekends;^)
If the North Atlantic continues to cool, you may need to relocate to fly at
all in a few years.

Frank

[Steve Hill]

Kirk Wrote:

I would love to have a self-launch, as long as I didn't give up any
performance - when I win the lottery I'm buying an Antares! But it
would be in addition to my pure glider - I love the whole routine of
soaring - arriving early, rigging, waiting for the best time to
launch, the tow (or winch launch), getting home or landing out (and
the adventure that ensues), then putting everything away in the
evening. Self launch seems to me to trade convenience for solitude -
I like the company of other gliders! Again, thats a typical US
"lonesome cowboy" attitude (and there is nothing wrong with that!) -
unlike the european social approach to soaring. I've done it both
ways, and much prefer doing it with friends!

Well Kirk,
sometimes you feel like a nut...sometimes you don't. For me, self
launch has been amazingly good. I have managed to fly on the average of 140
hours a year since starting flying else launchers. This I've managed 168
hours and I'm not done yet. It has provided me the opportunity to fly when
the weather is okay, good or flat out amazing, as well as to try things when
the weather is poor but you are just curios if there's any way you might
actually be able to get somewhere...I do find that the comraderie issue is
different. While everyone else is driving to get somewhere, I am able to
wait and check Dr. Jacks and then actually see if things do what they are
supposed to, before comitting to spend a few hours on a maybe. What I feel
it really does though, is on those nice mid-week days...when you just look
out the window before lunch and you think..."ya know...I should skip out of
here and go fly..." in the winter it's magic, simply because in most cases
there's simply no other option if you are reliant upon a tow plane. I still
love flying with other sailplanes, and I really enjoy being in a position to
help others coming along try to put the nose out there and go
somewhere...wherever you find self launchers, you will always find a willing
sniffer or a guy who'll be willing to go first in most any endeavor.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am suggesting that if soaring is
to grow again and begin to flourish, I believe it will be in conjunction
with self launching being a substantial role, based in no small part be
simply alleviating hassle on the retrieve side additional to the flexibility
of trying new things without quite the same level of orchestration required
to run a pure soaring operation. My comments were mainly intended to
hopefully stimulate a couple of the guys who are working towards producing
new sailplanes for homebuilders, to consider offering self launchers...

I think perhaps the thing that I see with self launching is basd on my own
experience. I feel that I have been able to accelerate my learning curve, by
using my self launcher to simply gather different experiences and even to
mitigate certain risks and allow myself to move forward to continue learning
and get to where I want to go. There are plenty of people like me, who fly
sailplanes and seldom hang out with clubs. When I had pure sailplanes I had
a towplane as well and one of my buddies would launch me. I know several
people who do just that, there are folks that like to sit and chat and there
are others that like to help, and there are plenty like me...that like to
fly. The mechanism doesn't alter those issues at all in my humble opinion.
I'd guess if/when you get that Antares, you'll find whatever you fly now,
collecting dust. Besides, if you get bored of self launching, you can show
up early...rig...BS...wait in line and take a tow...and be just one of the
guys...


Respectfully,



Steve.

[Stewart Kissel]

>XC is the most fun (to me and my friends, at least),
>when done in
>company with friends, in similar performing ships.
> With most of the
>established 15m and Standard ships, that works well.
> Somehow, I don't
>see a Sparrowhawk keeping up with a V2, ASW-27, or
>LS8.

Well I would hope not...who would want to get beat
by something that costs one-third the price :)


And if you go
>for the Sparrowhawk option, you are opting out of most
>racing -
>unless you go for sports class.

???? Last time I checked...sports class was going
gang-busters. And for that matter, looking at Sports
Class results I sure see a lot of the latest ships
racing in that class. Does that mmean they are having
less fun then if they went Open/Standard/15m?


Using this logic Kirk...sounds like you need to move
up to open class.
>
>I've seen several people out here buy PW-5s (all enthusiastic),
>do a
>little XC, then give it up and sell them because everybody
>else leaves
>them behind.

If they thought otherwise...they did not do their homework.
>
>I see the Sparrowhawk as a typical US 'we do it different
>here'
>approach. I'm sure it's a nice little glider, but
>not sure where it
>fits in the big picture. I know I have no desire to
>trade my ship for
>it - it's easy to get addicted to high performance!

High performance or high dollars? Nothing wrong with
promoting flying new ships...that now go for $100K+,
but in theory soaring has not quite become America's
Cup yacht racing yet.
>
>Kirk
>

[Tom Seim]

(Mike Stringfellow) wrote in message >...
> The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down from its peak of
> 1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go even lower, with
> some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar to the Euro).
>
> This has pretty much put the kibosh on my goals of buying a new
> European sailplane. A model at, say, Euro 85,000 cost around $70,000
> a couple of years ago, is now around $110,000 and may soon be at
> $120,000.
>
> Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
> manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the numbers of potential
> sales would justify this.
>
> Any thoughts?

Yes, invest your money and wait. For instance, if you put your money
in a high quality mutual fund you will begin accumulating principal.
Take your $70,000 and put in a Morningstar 5-star fund (i.e. Fidelity
Contrafund). If you average 15% return the numbers are:
Year Amount
0 $70000
1 80500
2 92575
3 106461
4 122430
5 140795
6 161914
etc.

At some point the price of the glider, converted from euros, is going
to be less than your investment. BUY THE GLIDER! This is, simply, the
power of compounded interest.

Don't agree with my numbers? Then put your damn money into a mattress
and see what happens!

The moral of the story is that patience is on the side of the buyer.

[Tom Seim]

(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message >...
> (Mike Stringfellow) wrote in message >...
> >
> > Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
> > manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the numbers of potential
> > sales would justify this.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Designed, tested and developed in the US, then made in china with our
> current management practices. Net gain = new market = 0. The only
> things we make here are hamburgers.

Why don't you drive your China-produced car into the lake!

[Dave Nadler YO]

Tony Verhulst > wrote in message >...
> A club member put it to me like this recently: "In this part of the
> country (Northeast US) there are only a handful of truly great soaring
> days per year. When those days arrive, you don't want to be sitting on
> the ground while your partner flies".
>
> Tony V.

Right ! Buy a Duo !
Best Regards, Dave

[Ruud]

(Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
> (Mike Stringfellow) wrote in message >...
> > The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down from its peak of
> > 1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go even lower, with
> > some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar to the Euro).
> >
> > This has pretty much put the kibosh on my goals of buying a new
> > European sailplane. A model at, say, Euro 85,000 cost around $70,000
> > a couple of years ago, is now around $110,000 and may soon be at
> > $120,000.
> >
> > Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
> > manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the numbers of potential
> > sales would justify this.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Yes, invest your money and wait. For instance, if you put your money
> in a high quality mutual fund you will begin accumulating principal.
> Take your $70,000 and put in a Morningstar 5-star fund (i.e. Fidelity
> Contrafund). If you average 15% return the numbers are:
> Year Amount
> 0 $70000
> 1 80500
> 2 92575
> 3 106461
> 4 122430
> 5 140795
> 6 161914
> etc.
>
> At some point the price of the glider, converted from euros, is going
> to be less than your investment. BUY THE GLIDER! This is, simply, the
> power of compounded interest.
>
> Don't agree with my numbers? Then put your damn money into a mattress
> and see what happens!
>
> The moral of the story is that patience is on the side of the buyer.

Interesting story.
The only trouble with it is that an average return of 15% on your
investment is not enough to keep up with the free fall of the US
dollar.

[Waduino]

Interesting post Steve.
As an over 50 newbie to soaring flying out of a club that operates 7 days a
week during the soaring season, I thought a self launcher was only useful on
days when the flight line gets long. Hearing horror stories about increased
fatalities when landing out associated with the motor (waiting too long,
failing to start, etc.) I didn't think there was a whole lot of value for
the extra $. Your post puts a different spin on it - accelerated learning,
safely exploring marginal conditions, etc. When you consider the cost of 100
tows a year, and SLs (an Apis anyway) running about an extra $20K USD, you
can amortize the motor over ten years or so with saved tow fees (which keep
going up). Sure, maintenance will cost more, but life is short.

Wad

> It has provided me the opportunity to fly when
> the weather is okay, good or flat out amazing, as well as to try things
> when
> the weather is poor but you are just curios if there's any way you might
> actually be able to get somewhere... I feel that I have been able to
> accelerate my learning curve, by
> using my self launcher to simply gather different experiences and even to
> mitigate certain risks and allow myself to move forward to continue
> learning
> and get to where I want to go.

[Kirk Stant]

Steve Hill > wrote in message >...

> I'd guess if/when you get that Antares, you'll find whatever you fly now,
> collecting dust.

Good point (and all of this discussion is fun - "devil's advocate"
stuff at times.

You may be right that if I had a self launch my pure glider would
gather dust - I would probably trade it for a really nice 1-26 (with
an open canopy) and a Swift for acro. Different tools for different
jobs.

But I'm not sure about self-launching being the way to grow the sport,
purely on a cost basis. I could afford half of a cherry LS6, and have
flown it about 200 hours a year ever since I got it. There is
absolutely no way I can pony up to the equivalent self launcher
(lottery excepted, of course!). How many newbies are going to take
that first jump?

Cheers,

Kirk

[Bruce Greeff]

Ruud wrote:
> (Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
>
(Mike Stringfellow) wrote in message >...
>>
>>>The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down from its peak of
>>>1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go even lower, with
>>>some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar to the Euro).
>>>
>>>This has pretty much put the kibosh on my goals of buying a new
>>>European sailplane. A model at, say, Euro 85,000 cost around $70,000
>>>a couple of years ago, is now around $110,000 and may soon be at
>>>$120,000.
>>>
>>>Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
>>>manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the numbers of potential
>>>sales would justify this.
>>>
>>>Any thoughts?
>>
>>Yes, invest your money and wait. For instance, if you put your money
>>in a high quality mutual fund you will begin accumulating principal.
>>Take your $70,000 and put in a Morningstar 5-star fund (i.e. Fidelity
>>Contrafund). If you average 15% return the numbers are:
>>Year Amount
>>0 $70000
>>1 80500
>>2 92575
>>3 106461
>>4 122430
>>5 140795
>>6 161914
>>etc.
>>
>>At some point the price of the glider, converted from euros, is going
>>to be less than your investment. BUY THE GLIDER! This is, simply, the
>>power of compounded interest.
>>
>>Don't agree with my numbers? Then put your damn money into a mattress
>>and see what happens!
>>
>>The moral of the story is that patience is on the side of the buyer.
>
>
> Interesting story.
> The only trouble with it is that an average return of 15% on your
> investment is not enough to keep up with the free fall of the US
> dollar.
You can also try a different strategy - If you have the cash, or can borrow it
at nominal interest. Order the most expensive European glider you can afford and
pay upfront. Delivery is at least one year, some as much as two.

When the glider ships you can afford to offer immediate delivery of a brand new
glider at the factory price. You may even be in a position to be generous and
offer a slight discount in dollar terms. Your rate of return on the investment
will be the depreciation rate of the Dollar against the Euro, compounded over
the period.

This works as long as the dollar is on a one way ticket against the Euro.
Probably a good bet until the US deficit is wound down a bit and messers Bush
and co stop throwing money at Iraquis.

Lots of folk made money this way in South Africa betting against the first world
currencies. Rand went one way, with minor reversals from R2/USD mid 1970s. That
is, until 2002 when the rand was at >12 / USD - before retracing to its current
R6/USD. The guys who bought big two years ago are hurting a little at present.

Arbitrage is always risky, but sometimes it pays off.

[Bill Daniels]

"Ruud" > wrote in message
om...
> (Tom Seim) wrote in message
>...
> > (Mike Stringfellow) wrote in message
>...
> > > The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down from its peak of
> > > 1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go even lower, with
> > > some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar to the Euro).
> > >
> > > This has pretty much put the kibosh on my goals of buying a new
> > > European sailplane. A model at, say, Euro 85,000 cost around $70,000
> > > a couple of years ago, is now around $110,000 and may soon be at
> > > $120,000.
> > >
> > > Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
> > > manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the numbers of potential
> > > sales would justify this.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Yes, invest your money and wait. For instance, if you put your money
> > in a high quality mutual fund you will begin accumulating principal.
> > Take your $70,000 and put in a Morningstar 5-star fund (i.e. Fidelity
> > Contrafund). If you average 15% return the numbers are:
> > Year Amount
> > 0 $70000
> > 1 80500
> > 2 92575
> > 3 106461
> > 4 122430
> > 5 140795
> > 6 161914
> > etc.
> >
> > At some point the price of the glider, converted from euros, is going
> > to be less than your investment. BUY THE GLIDER! This is, simply, the
> > power of compounded interest.
> >
> > Don't agree with my numbers? Then put your damn money into a mattress
> > and see what happens!
> >
> > The moral of the story is that patience is on the side of the buyer.
>
> Interesting story.
> The only trouble with it is that an average return of 15% on your
> investment is not enough to keep up with the free fall of the US
> dollar.

It's time to drag out the old quote spoken by JP Morgan, "The market will
fluctuate". That's true of exchange rates as well as stocks. Economic
forces are largely self correcting especially in the international economy -
although the time scale of the correction may be long. The US economy has a
lot of problems but then so does all other world economies.

The low value of the US Dollar is largely due to the US central banks
interest rate cuts post "Dot Bomb" and 9/11. US interest rates are now on
an upward trajectory and that will raise the value of the US Dollar over the
next few years. International money fund managers know this and will be
slowly moving money into the US economy which will amplify the effect.

The advice to sit tight and invest is a good one. Maybe buy an old glider
and enjoy flying it while the exchange rate corrects.

Bill Daniels

[Kirk Stant]

Stewart Kissel > wrote in message >...

> Well I would hope not...who would want to get beat
> by something that costs one-third the price :)

Yes, if new is the object; but an older used std or 15m will run about
the same as a new Sparrowhawk and have significant performance
advantages - granted with some disadvantges. Depends what you want.

> ???? Last time I checked...sports class was going
> gang-busters. And for that matter, looking at Sports
> Class results I sure see a lot of the latest ships
> racing in that class. Does that mmean they are having
> less fun then if they went Open/Standard/15m?

I'll concede this point - although for some sports class doesn't have
a lot of appeal, judging by the group I race with (myself included).
Sorry, I want to race, not just fly around on my own (my own biased
preference, I dislike PST intensely so will no even consider Sports
class - but no criticism of Sports class advocates intended).

> Using this logic Kirk...sounds like you need to move
> up to open class.

I've flown some XC in a Lak-12 and enjoyed it, but prefer 15M. That
may change as I move East; I sure wish I could get some 18M tips for
my LS6!


> If they thought otherwise...they did not do their homework.

I totally agree.

>
> High performance or high dollars? Nothing wrong with
> promoting flying new ships...that now go for $100K+,
> but in theory soaring has not quite become America's
> Cup yacht racing yet.

High performance + new = high dollars
High performance + used = less dollars
High performance + syndicate = less dollars
Medium performance + new = less dollars
Medium performance + used = even less dollars.

Take your pick. And as you said, do your homework!

Kirk

[Vaughn]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
news:Yapmd.46422$5K2.25371@attbi_s03...
>
> The low value of the US Dollar is largely due to the US central banks
> interest rate cuts post "Dot Bomb" and 9/11.

The record US budget deficit also has a bit to do with it.

Vaughn

[Greg Arnold]

The dollar will really be low if foreign countries stop financing our
budget deficit.


Vaughn wrote:
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> news:Yapmd.46422$5K2.25371@attbi_s03...
>
>>The low value of the US Dollar is largely due to the US central banks
>>interest rate cuts post "Dot Bomb" and 9/11.
>
>
> The record US budget deficit also has a bit to do with it.
>
> Vaughn
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

I recently read about a turbine engine that puts out 160-260 hp and weighs
180lbs with only 18 moving parts!

As I read further about this $30k or so engine, it became clear that the
prop for it was "extra." And it was quite noisy. And fuel
consumption was close, but over a third more than
piston aircraft.

For powered planes, this is an issue, but for gliders?

I'm still interested in the idea of a turbine powered sailplane
without a propeller. Sure, very inefficient (it looks like
about 3-4 times as much fuel consumed), but gliders seem about the
ONLY place where this may be a good tradeoff, since the time of
engine running is so short.

A low weight, fuel inefficient engine with no prop, a low weight glider,
and a medium performance L/D (meaning a low stall speed so
reasonable acceleration to takeoff). Must be a single engine,
otherwise it would likely be uninsurable (as if
insuring a glider with ONE turbine wasn't bad enough :)

Other than a lightweight, inefficient turbine, I don't see
any other "revolutionary" powerplants for gliders which might
bring the cost down and create more widespread interest.

In article >,
Bob Korves <bkorves@winfirstDECIMALcom> wrote:
>I have always thought that self launchers were cool, in a intellectual
>daydream world that is. My feeling has been "If only I would win the
>lottery...". I'll bet a lot of us have said this.
>
>After being around self launchers for many years, however, I mostly remember
>watching the owners fiddle with them, and then send the prop in for an AD,
>wait 3 months, then fiddle some more, and then send the engine in for an AD,
>wait another 3 months, and then fiddle some more.
>
>Well, maybe I am exaggerating at little. The other issue is that for the
>extra cost of the engine I could buy a Pawnee and have enough left over to
>hire a cute tow pilot on the interest it earned.
>
>Maybe a bit more exaggeration. I suppose if you are antisocial or live in a
>part of the country where there are no tow planes, have time only during the
>week when the club is closed, or whatever, and have lots of money, and time
>for fiddling, then a self launcher would be dandy.
>
>I happen to like the people in this sport at least as well as I like the
>flying. I sometimes actually enjoy waiting in a tow line telling war
>stories with my buddies. Nothing beats the Saturday night barbecue at the
>gliderport. Not that having a self launcher excludes you from any of this,
>of course.
>
>Another reason I don't seek self launchers is that I am not really good at
>complexity. I have enough trouble with the few levers and knobs is a pure
>glider. While learning to use flaps I did just about every dumb thing one
>can do with that single additional handle. A little voice in my head tells
>me that the complexity of a self launcher is not a good thing for me,
>personally. You may be different.
>
>I think I am usually immune to peer pressure and my perceived standing in
>the gliding community. Somehow, though, after I completed a long and
>difficult flight in trying conditions, and somebody said "But you have an
>engine" -- I might have a problem with that!
>
>I am having a lot of fun with this post and I'm sure I have raised Eric
>Greenwell's blood pressure by now. I guess I need to tell the other side of
>the story. Last summer I met a pilot from Denmark, Francis, several times
>who was in the U.S. flying his DG-400 all around the western part of the
>country. And I mean all around. He started in Texas, worked his way up to
>Washington state, and was on his way back to Texas. He had done this sort
>of thing many times, in Europe, Morocco, etc. He does this every year. He
>lives out of a plastic grocery sack stuffed into the tiny luggage shelf of
>the glider. We took him to motels and to dinner since we had cars. This
>guy was living my daydream!
>
>Eric is also a pilot that really uses his self launcher well and often. He
>is a great guy, sociable, and fun to fly with. I'm sure that there are many
>others out there, too. So a self launcher can be a wonderful thing.
>
>I would rather spend my meager gliding money buying more L/D with several
>wonderful partners in really nice ships than buying a stinky, noisy engine
>and propeller to fiddle with. If I won that lottery today, I don't think I
>would change what I am doing now. As always, YMMV.
>
>Flame suit on, Eric... :-)
>
>-Bob Korves
>Duo Discus 5H
>LAK-17a 5K
>
>"Waduino" > wrote in message
...
>> Interesting post Steve.
>> As an over 50 newbie to soaring flying out of a club that operates 7 days
>a
>> week during the soaring season, I thought a self launcher was only useful
>on
>> days when the flight line gets long. Hearing horror stories about
>increased
>> fatalities when landing out associated with the motor (waiting too long,
>> failing to start, etc.) I didn't think there was a whole lot of value for
>> the extra $. Your post puts a different spin on it - accelerated learning,
>> safely exploring marginal conditions, etc. When you consider the cost of
>100
>> tows a year, and SLs (an Apis anyway) running about an extra $20K USD, you
>> can amortize the motor over ten years or so with saved tow fees (which
>keep
>> going up). Sure, maintenance will cost more, but life is short.
>>
>> Wad
>>
>> > It has provided me the opportunity to fly when
>> > the weather is okay, good or flat out amazing, as well as to try things
>> > when
>> > the weather is poor but you are just curios if there's any way you might
>> > actually be able to get somewhere... I feel that I have been able to
>> > accelerate my learning curve, by
>> > using my self launcher to simply gather different experiences and even
>to
>> > mitigate certain risks and allow myself to move forward to continue
>> > learning
>> > and get to where I want to go.
>>
>>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Chris OCallaghan]

I'd have guessed record deficits had something to do with it as well,
but maybe I'm confusing concurrency with cause.

Yup, it's a pun.


"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message news:<Yapmd.46422$5K2.25371@attbi_s03>...
> "Ruud" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Tom Seim) wrote in message
> >...
> > > (Mike Stringfellow) wrote in message
> >...
> > > > The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down from its peak of
> > > > 1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go even lower, with
> > > > some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar to the Euro).
> > > >
> > > > This has pretty much put the kibosh on my goals of buying a new
> > > > European sailplane. A model at, say, Euro 85,000 cost around $70,000
> > > > a couple of years ago, is now around $110,000 and may soon be at
> > > > $120,000.
> > > >
> > > > Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
> > > > manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the numbers of potential
> > > > sales would justify this.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Yes, invest your money and wait. For instance, if you put your money
> > > in a high quality mutual fund you will begin accumulating principal.
> > > Take your $70,000 and put in a Morningstar 5-star fund (i.e. Fidelity
> > > Contrafund). If you average 15% return the numbers are:
> > > Year Amount
> > > 0 $70000
> > > 1 80500
> > > 2 92575
> > > 3 106461
> > > 4 122430
> > > 5 140795
> > > 6 161914
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > At some point the price of the glider, converted from euros, is going
> > > to be less than your investment. BUY THE GLIDER! This is, simply, the
> > > power of compounded interest.
> > >
> > > Don't agree with my numbers? Then put your damn money into a mattress
> > > and see what happens!
> > >
> > > The moral of the story is that patience is on the side of the buyer.
> >
> > Interesting story.
> > The only trouble with it is that an average return of 15% on your
> > investment is not enough to keep up with the free fall of the US
> > dollar.
>
> It's time to drag out the old quote spoken by JP Morgan, "The market will
> fluctuate". That's true of exchange rates as well as stocks. Economic
> forces are largely self correcting especially in the international economy -
> although the time scale of the correction may be long. The US economy has a
> lot of problems but then so does all other world economies.
>
> The low value of the US Dollar is largely due to the US central banks
> interest rate cuts post "Dot Bomb" and 9/11. US interest rates are now on
> an upward trajectory and that will raise the value of the US Dollar over the
> next few years. International money fund managers know this and will be
> slowly moving money into the US economy which will amplify the effect.
>
> The advice to sit tight and invest is a good one. Maybe buy an old glider
> and enjoy flying it while the exchange rate corrects.
>
> Bill Daniels

[Bob Korves]

I have always thought that self launchers were cool, in a intellectual
daydream world that is. My feeling has been "If only I would win the
lottery...". I'll bet a lot of us have said this.

After being around self launchers for many years, however, I mostly remember
watching the owners fiddle with them, and then send the prop in for an AD,
wait 3 months, then fiddle some more, and then send the engine in for an AD,
wait another 3 months, and then fiddle some more.

Well, maybe I am exaggerating at little. The other issue is that for the
extra cost of the engine I could buy a Pawnee and have enough left over to
hire a cute tow pilot on the interest it earned.

Maybe a bit more exaggeration. I suppose if you are antisocial or live in a
part of the country where there are no tow planes, have time only during the
week when the club is closed, or whatever, and have lots of money, and time
for fiddling, then a self launcher would be dandy.

I happen to like the people in this sport at least as well as I like the
flying. I sometimes actually enjoy waiting in a tow line telling war
stories with my buddies. Nothing beats the Saturday night barbecue at the
gliderport. Not that having a self launcher excludes you from any of this,
of course.

Another reason I don't seek self launchers is that I am not really good at
complexity. I have enough trouble with the few levers and knobs is a pure
glider. While learning to use flaps I did just about every dumb thing one
can do with that single additional handle. A little voice in my head tells
me that the complexity of a self launcher is not a good thing for me,
personally. You may be different.

I think I am usually immune to peer pressure and my perceived standing in
the gliding community. Somehow, though, after I completed a long and
difficult flight in trying conditions, and somebody said "But you have an
engine" -- I might have a problem with that!

I am having a lot of fun with this post and I'm sure I have raised Eric
Greenwell's blood pressure by now. I guess I need to tell the other side of
the story. Last summer I met a pilot from Denmark, Francis, several times
who was in the U.S. flying his DG-400 all around the western part of the
country. And I mean all around. He started in Texas, worked his way up to
Washington state, and was on his way back to Texas. He had done this sort
of thing many times, in Europe, Morocco, etc. He does this every year. He
lives out of a plastic grocery sack stuffed into the tiny luggage shelf of
the glider. We took him to motels and to dinner since we had cars. This
guy was living my daydream!

Eric is also a pilot that really uses his self launcher well and often. He
is a great guy, sociable, and fun to fly with. I'm sure that there are many
others out there, too. So a self launcher can be a wonderful thing.

I would rather spend my meager gliding money buying more L/D with several
wonderful partners in really nice ships than buying a stinky, noisy engine
and propeller to fiddle with. If I won that lottery today, I don't think I
would change what I am doing now. As always, YMMV.

Flame suit on, Eric... :-)

-Bob Korves
Duo Discus 5H
LAK-17a 5K

"Waduino" > wrote in message
...
> Interesting post Steve.
> As an over 50 newbie to soaring flying out of a club that operates 7 days
a
> week during the soaring season, I thought a self launcher was only useful
on
> days when the flight line gets long. Hearing horror stories about
increased
> fatalities when landing out associated with the motor (waiting too long,
> failing to start, etc.) I didn't think there was a whole lot of value for
> the extra $. Your post puts a different spin on it - accelerated learning,
> safely exploring marginal conditions, etc. When you consider the cost of
100
> tows a year, and SLs (an Apis anyway) running about an extra $20K USD, you
> can amortize the motor over ten years or so with saved tow fees (which
keep
> going up). Sure, maintenance will cost more, but life is short.
>
> Wad
>
> > It has provided me the opportunity to fly when
> > the weather is okay, good or flat out amazing, as well as to try things
> > when
> > the weather is poor but you are just curios if there's any way you might
> > actually be able to get somewhere... I feel that I have been able to
> > accelerate my learning curve, by
> > using my self launcher to simply gather different experiences and even
to
> > mitigate certain risks and allow myself to move forward to continue
> > learning
> > and get to where I want to go.
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Korves wrote:

> After being around self launchers for many years, however, I mostly
> remember watching the owners fiddle with them, and then send the prop
> in for an AD, wait 3 months, then fiddle some more, and then send the
> engine in for an AD, wait another 3 months, and then fiddle some
> more.

Was that a Stemme you were around?

> Well, maybe I am exaggerating at little.

THey do require more maintenance than an unpowered sailplane because of
the motor. Most of the time, it can be deferred to the winter or other
times you can't fly anyway. The other side of the coin is an entire club
shut down because of a towplane problem, which I've experienced more
often than a problem with my motor.

> The other issue is that for the extra cost of the engine I could buy
> a Pawnee and have enough left over to hire a cute tow pilot on the
> interest it earned.
>
> Maybe a bit more exaggeration.

IF you fly a lot (40+ flights a year), you can save more on tow and
retrieve fees than the extra cost of interest, insurance, and
maintenance. That's also an exaggeration, but not much. And the engine
does hold it's value, so you can get your money back when you sell it.

> I suppose if you are antisocial or live in a part of the country
> where there are no tow planes, have time only during the week when
> the club is closed, or whatever, and have lots of money, and time for
> fiddling, then a self launcher would be dandy.

It's also dandy for other purposes, and dandy even if most of those
things aren't true. You quoted Steve Hill's posting, now you should read
it more carefully!

>
> I happen to like the people in this sport at least as well as I like
> the flying. I sometimes actually enjoy waiting in a tow line telling
> war stories with my buddies. Nothing beats the Saturday night
> barbecue at the gliderport. Not that having a self launcher excludes
> you from any of this, of course.
>
> Another reason I don't seek self launchers is that I am not really
> good at complexity. I have enough trouble with the few levers and
> knobs is a pure glider. While learning to use flaps I did just about
> every dumb thing one can do with that single additional handle. A
> little voice in my head tells me that the complexity of a self
> launcher is not a good thing for me, personally.

This is an excellent reason for sticking with unpowered gliders. Safely
flying a motorglider does take more discipline and care than an
unpowered glider. You are no longer just a glider pilot, but also the
"tow" pilot.

> I think I am usually immune to peer pressure and my perceived
> standing in the gliding community. Somehow, though, after I
> completed a long and difficult flight in trying conditions, and
> somebody said "But you have an engine" -- I might have a problem with
> that!

This used annoy me, but I don't hear it anymore. Pilots are much more
aware of motorgliders now, so mostly, they ask thoughtful questions
about how my flying differs, now that I have an engine. They can see I'm
flying farther and in more interesting conditions than comparable
gliders/pilots, yet I usually come back with a cold engine. It whets
their curiosity.

> I am having a lot of fun with this post and I'm sure I have raised
> Eric Greenwell's blood pressure by now. I guess I need to tell the
> other side of the story. Last summer I met a pilot from Denmark,
> Francis, several times who was in the U.S. flying his DG-400 all
> around the western part of the country. And I mean all around. He
> started in Texas, worked his way up to Washington state, and was on
> his way back to Texas. He had done this sort of thing many times, in
> Europe, Morocco, etc. He does this every year. He lives out of a
> plastic grocery sack stuffed into the tiny luggage shelf of the
> glider. We took him to motels and to dinner since we had cars. This
> guy was living my daydream!

And then there are the two Germans that flew their ASH 26 Es from
Houston to Alaska, and back!

> Eric is also a pilot that really uses his self launcher well and
> often. He is a great guy, sociable, and fun to fly with.

Why, thanks, Bob!

> I'm sure that there are many others out there, too. So a self
> launcher can be a wonderful thing.
>
> I would rather spend my meager gliding money buying more L/D with
> several wonderful partners in really nice ships than buying a stinky,
> noisy engine and propeller to fiddle with. If I won that lottery
> today, I don't think I would change what I am doing now. As always,
> YMMV.

They aren't for everyone, but there are plenty of people that don't
realize how much they would enjoy one, because they don't know very much
about them and how they can improve their soaring experience. Generally,
the $premium$ for the engine stops them thinking about the good things
that make it worthwhile.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Tom Seim]

(Ruud) wrote in message >...
> (Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
> > (Mike Stringfellow) wrote in message >...
> > > The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down from its peak of
> > > 1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go even lower, with
> > > some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar to the Euro).
> > >
> > > This has pretty much put the kibosh on my goals of buying a new
> > > European sailplane. A model at, say, Euro 85,000 cost around $70,000
> > > a couple of years ago, is now around $110,000 and may soon be at
> > > $120,000.
> > >
> > > Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
> > > manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the numbers of potential
> > > sales would justify this.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Yes, invest your money and wait. For instance, if you put your money
> > in a high quality mutual fund you will begin accumulating principal.
> > Take your $70,000 and put in a Morningstar 5-star fund (i.e. Fidelity
> > Contrafund). If you average 15% return the numbers are:
> > Year Amount
> > 0 $70000
> > 1 80500
> > 2 92575
> > 3 106461
> > 4 122430
> > 5 140795
> > 6 161914
> > etc.
> >
> > At some point the price of the glider, converted from euros, is going
> > to be less than your investment. BUY THE GLIDER! This is, simply, the
> > power of compounded interest.
> >
> > Don't agree with my numbers? Then put your damn money into a mattress
> > and see what happens!
> >
> > The moral of the story is that patience is on the side of the buyer.
>
> Interesting story.
> The only trouble with it is that an average return of 15% on your
> investment is not enough to keep up with the free fall of the US
> dollar.

Your grasp of international money markets is truly awesome! Have you
considered running for Alan Greenspan's job?

You might bother to check out what has happened historically to
international exchange rates: they oscillate. This is merely one more
cycle in the oscillation. Otherwise, by your logic, the dollar will be
worthless in 5-7 years. Invest and wait, that's my advice. Of course,
if you're loaded with dough, go for it!

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <419ab2d8$1@darkstar>,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

> I'm still interested in the idea of a turbine powered sailplane
> without a propeller. Sure, very inefficient (it looks like
> about 3-4 times as much fuel consumed), but gliders seem about the
> ONLY place where this may be a good tradeoff, since the time of
> engine running is so short.
>
> A low weight, fuel inefficient engine with no prop, a low weight glider,
> and a medium performance L/D (meaning a low stall speed so
> reasonable acceleration to takeoff). Must be a single engine,
> otherwise it would likely be uninsurable (as if
> insuring a glider with ONE turbine wasn't bad enough :)

A low stall speed isn't what you want. By far the most important thing
is a high Vne. The best way to climb in a jet is to accelerate in level
flight (in ground effect if you can) to Vne and then climb at Vne.



> Other than a lightweight, inefficient turbine, I don't see
> any other "revolutionary" powerplants for gliders which might
> bring the cost down and create more widespread interest.

There are also rockets. Lighter, simpler, less fuel efficient, and
(probably) cheaper than jets.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
>A low stall speed isn't what you want. By far the most important thing
>is a high Vne. The best way to climb in a jet is to accelerate in level
>flight (in ground effect if you can) to Vne and then climb at Vne.

This may be the best way in terms of efficiency and power, but
I'm not sure it is as practical as the alternative.

I'm thinking of a situation where acceleration to a speed where
climbing out of ground effect is possible. If we assume a
glider weighing 400 lbs total, it takes a certain amount of thrust
to accelerate it to above stall speed, and then Vx and Vy. It then takes
a lot more thrust to get it to Vne.

Will a turbine produce 4 times as much thrust at 120 knots compared to
50 knots? I don't know. I do know that if the stall speed is pushed
way up, you need a lot more runway or a lot bigger engine.

So look at the Sparrowhawk polar, and assume 400 lbs. What is the
minimum thrust turbine engine that can launch this thing from a
2000ft long runway with 30 feet of clearance over the far end
and thereafter at least 200 fpm climb per NM (no wind)?

Assuming the same turbine is used, I'm guessing moving the polar to
the right (with a new wing) doesn't help, even if the weight remains
the same. The issue is acceleration to flying speed, and this is
helped by lowering the flying speed (Vy or Vx) and lowering the weight.

So any of you math/aerodynamics guys out there got a guess?
I guessed 45 pounds of continuous thrust would do it, but
this was a SWAG, and I have no idea what a turbine rated at 45lbs
really puts out at 0 airspeed. I also didn't account for any drag
during the acceleration, and used interpolation for climb.

How much more thrust is needed to do the same thing, but with 500 fpm
climb per NM after launch?

I really don't know, but I'd love to see a java program where
you put in the weight numbers, polar data, and thrust at different
speeds, and get the results...

>> Other than a lightweight, inefficient turbine, I don't see
>> any other "revolutionary" powerplants for gliders which might
>> bring the cost down and create more widespread interest.
>
>There are also rockets. Lighter, simpler, less fuel efficient, and
>(probably) cheaper than jets.

It looks like $20 for 4lbs of thrust for 8 seconds. Each launch looks like
at least hundreds of dollars (worth of commercial rockets sold
by Public Missiles, Ltd and the like).

Perhaps these can be constructed as reusable and experimental,
for much less cost, but I'm just not familiar with this.

If you can give us some estimates on costs and thrust and burn time,
that would be great :) Perhaps the largest barrier to this
is unfamiliarity and not knowing how such a burn is controlled.
How does one perform an aborted takeoff?

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <419af6e1$1@darkstar>,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

> In article >,
> Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> >
> >A low stall speed isn't what you want. By far the most important thing
> >is a high Vne. The best way to climb in a jet is to accelerate in level
> >flight (in ground effect if you can) to Vne and then climb at Vne.
>
> This may be the best way in terms of efficiency and power, but
> I'm not sure it is as practical as the alternative.
>
> I'm thinking of a situation where acceleration to a speed where
> climbing out of ground effect is possible. If we assume a
> glider weighing 400 lbs total, it takes a certain amount of thrust
> to accelerate it to above stall speed, and then Vx and Vy. It then takes
> a lot more thrust to get it to Vne.

Thrust is cheap. The amount of fuel used is to a first approximation
independent of the thrust of the engine (in fact to a certain point more
powerful engines result in less fuel used). But an engine that will
give you only 200 fpm of climb will take *forever* to get you to any
reasonable flying speed.


> >There are also rockets. Lighter, simpler, less fuel efficient, and
> >(probably) cheaper than jets.
>
> It looks like $20 for 4lbs of thrust for 8 seconds. Each launch looks like
> at least hundreds of dollars (worth of commercial rockets sold
> by Public Missiles, Ltd and the like).
>
> Perhaps these can be constructed as reusable and experimental,
> for much less cost, but I'm just not familiar with this.
>
> If you can give us some estimates on costs and thrust and burn time,
> that would be great :) Perhaps the largest barrier to this
> is unfamiliarity and not knowing how such a burn is controlled.
> How does one perform an aborted takeoff?

You seem to be assuming solid rockets. That would be a *very* bad idea.
Liquid rockets are reusable and use cheap fuels. Have a look at the
videos etc on XCor's web site (http://www.xcor.com/). They've built
liquid/gas fuelled rocket engines with thrust levels ranging from 15 lb
to 1800 lb. One of their 400 lb thrust alcohol/oxygen engines would
launch a typical glider with performance similar to a winch launch using
about 45 lb of fuel.

I've done calculations on takeoff performance several times over the
years, and posted the results on this newsgroup.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bruce-93959A.09393520012003%40copper
..ipg.tsnz.net

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=an_595515430

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>In article <419af6e1$1@darkstar>,
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote:
>
>Thrust is cheap. The amount of fuel used is to a first approximation
>independent of the thrust of the engine (in fact to a certain point more
>powerful engines result in less fuel used). But an engine that will
>give you only 200 fpm of climb will take *forever* to get you to any
>reasonable flying speed.

>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=an_595515430

I looked at your previous calculations, thanks for the reference to
the earlier post.

I wonder if you could redo the numbers for the limiting (minimum)
case for launching a human. Lets say a 50kg launch. Then also
do the numbers for a 150kg launch. I'd love to see what this looks like for
10kg and 20kg of thrust.

I also looked at some of the other numbers in the post,
and they seemed a little off.
20kg of drag until liftoff speed seems a bit of an overestimate.
The Sparrowhawk would seem to have at most 5kg of drag
while accelerating to best L/D, assuming no
wheel friction, and this drag should increase as airspeed increases.
If a turbine is used, perhaps this isn't so bad, if it helps
compensate for turbine inefficiencies at low airspeeds? I dunno.
Also, maybe this was to compensate for rough ground?

You also stated that "exact L/D doesn't matter much at all while in
powered mode." For the numbers you ran, this looks true (5000fpm
climb!). But at very low thrust and the minimal thrust case,
the best L/D and speed at that L/D would seem to be quite important.
Speeds much faster than this should require significantly more thrust.

Here were some of the calculations, which you did and I found enlightening:

thrust 50kg 100kg
Ground run 204m 76m
Dist at low level 945m 420m
climb angle 8deg 17deg
powered time 104s 45s
climb rate? 1000 fpm?

I'd be intereted to see what thrust is needed if the weight is reduced to
150kg, and the ground run is about 600m, using a Sparrowhawk polar.
Then I'd like to see how this changes if the ground run is allowed
to be 1200m. By ground run I'm assuming we mean accelerating
to something between Vs and Vy. I'd love to see what the climb angle
and climb rate then become.

I'm interested in the minimum case because this is a natural starting
point. I've done these calculations and it seemed that 15kg of thrust
gave a ground run less than 600m, and a climb rate of more than 200fpm
(might have been 500fpm, but I don't recall).

>
>
>> >There are also rockets. Lighter, simpler, less fuel efficient, and
>> >(probably) cheaper than jets.
>>
>> It looks like $20 for 4lbs of thrust for 8 seconds. Each launch looks like
>> at least hundreds of dollars (worth of commercial rockets sold
>> by Public Missiles, Ltd and the like).
>>
>> Perhaps these can be constructed as reusable and experimental,
>> for much less cost, but I'm just not familiar with this.
>>
>> If you can give us some estimates on costs and thrust and burn time,
>> that would be great :) Perhaps the largest barrier to this
>> is unfamiliarity and not knowing how such a burn is controlled.
>> How does one perform an aborted takeoff?
>
>You seem to be assuming solid rockets. That would be a *very* bad idea.
>Liquid rockets are reusable and use cheap fuels. Have a look at the
>videos etc on XCor's web site (http://www.xcor.com/). They've built
>liquid/gas fuelled rocket engines with thrust levels ranging from 15 lb
>to 1800 lb. One of their 400 lb thrust alcohol/oxygen engines would
>launch a typical glider with performance similar to a winch launch using
>about 45 lb of fuel.

Interesting stuff. Maybe for the moment we look at the thrust
calculations, and decide later what makes the thrust :)

>
>I've done calculations on takeoff performance several times over the
>years, and posted the results on this newsgroup.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bruce-93959A.09393520012003%40copper
>.ipg.tsnz.net
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=an_595515430
>
>--
>Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
>Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>In article <419b8d27$1@darkstar>,
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if you could redo the numbers for the limiting (minimum)
>> case for launching a human. Lets say a 50kg launch. Then also
>> do the numbers for a 150kg launch. I'd love to see what this looks like for
>> 10kg and 20kg of thrust.
>
>Well, if you scale the weight, thrust and drag by the same amount then
>all the speeds and times are the same.

So with half the thrust, half the drag, and half the weight,
the rest is the same? Hmmm...ok. If this is right then 25kg of
thrust will get the Sparrowhawk accelerated and aloft smartly.
20kg of thrust (45# of the AMT turbine) will do nearly as well.

>I don't know how much is the right amount, but I was trying to guess for
>a heavily loaded (full of water) single seater or light two seater on
>grass on ground that isn't rock hard. Imagine putting 20 kg of weights
>on a rope over a pulley, with the rope attached to a glider. Would it
>move it? I don't think so. Would it keep it going if it was already
>moving? Maybe, just.

I've considered the idea of using fishing line with a 50# rating attached
to a bicycle. We've used a 14-year old to pull an (empty) 2-33
this way (with stronger rope). I'd like to try this "bicycle launch"
with a very light glider (maybe a Russia) to see what happens. I'd
really love to see a glider break ground pulled by a guy on a bicycle!
I'm only just half joking here...

>> I'm interested in the minimum case because this is a natural starting
>> point. I've done these calculations and it seemed that 15kg of thrust
>> gave a ground run less than 600m, and a climb rate of more than 200fpm
>> (might have been 500fpm, but I don't recall).

>Good God. I don't know where you fly, but most glider pilots don't have
>that sort of takoff space available to them!

All of the places I've launched have at least 3000ft of takeoff
space available, mainly because this is a pretty minimum runway length
for aerotow of the heavier ships on warmer days.

>I, for one, do *not* want to be stooging off the end of the runway and
>overflying the houses at best L/D speed with 200 fpm of climb in still
>air!

Depends on the price. If it costs me an additional $5,000 a year
for anything over 200fpm, and my runway is 6000 feet long,
I'd be happy at 200 feet crossing the end of the runway with consistent
200fpm climb, then a downwind turn. Is this safe? That seems clear.
Is it cost effective? Well, what's the price for more climb?
Everybody *wants* 1,000,000 fpm climb. Nobody *wants* to pay for it.
I choose 30 feet over the end of the runway and 200ft per NM specifically
because I don't know anyone who would accept less performance. So this
is a natural starting point for calculations. A very light glider with
a very low stall speed with moderate performance on a runway
that is of fairly common US length. What is the thrust needed?

It doesn't mean everyone will *want* this combination, just that
nobody wants anything less. Ergo it is the starting point.

But I think all the calculations and even the Alisport Silent
implementation on a 150%-200% scale point to this as a fully viable
solution with a lighter glider and one engine and still 500fpm climb
from an acceptable ground roll. I know a (creative) Russia motorglider
owner/A&P who is almost disgusted enough with his unreliable
engine that he's almost ready to try out an AMT450. I've seen that
twinkle in his eye and know he's an avid experimenter. Hmmm...
winter is upon us and he may need somethin' to tinker with, even
if it just ends up as a turbo ;)
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <419b8d27$1@darkstar>,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

> In article >,
> Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> >In article <419af6e1$1@darkstar>,
> > (Mark James Boyd) wrote:
> >
> >Thrust is cheap. The amount of fuel used is to a first approximation
> >independent of the thrust of the engine (in fact to a certain point more
> >powerful engines result in less fuel used). But an engine that will
> >give you only 200 fpm of climb will take *forever* to get you to any
> >reasonable flying speed.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=an_595515430
>
> I looked at your previous calculations, thanks for the reference to
> the earlier post.
>
> I wonder if you could redo the numbers for the limiting (minimum)
> case for launching a human. Lets say a 50kg launch. Then also
> do the numbers for a 150kg launch. I'd love to see what this looks like for
> 10kg and 20kg of thrust.

Well, if you scale the weight, thrust and drag by the same amount then
all the speeds and times are the same.


> I also looked at some of the other numbers in the post,
> and they seemed a little off.
> 20kg of drag until liftoff speed seems a bit of an overestimate.
> The Sparrowhawk would seem to have at most 5kg of drag
> while accelerating to best L/D, assuming no
> wheel friction

I don't know how much is the right amount, but I was trying to guess for
a heavily loaded (full of water) single seater or light two seater on
grass on ground that isn't rock hard. Imagine putting 20 kg of weights
on a rope over a pulley, with the rope attached to a glider. Would it
move it? I don't think so. Would it keep it going if it was already
moving? Maybe, just.


> Here were some of the calculations, which you did and I found enlightening:
>
> thrust 50kg 100kg
> Ground run 204m 76m
> Dist at low level 945m 420m
> climb angle 8deg 17deg
> powered time 104s 45s
> climb rate? 1000 fpm?
>
> I'd be intereted to see what thrust is needed if the weight is reduced to
> 150kg, and the ground run is about 600m, using a Sparrowhawk polar.
> Then I'd like to see how this changes if the ground run is allowed
> to be 1200m. By ground run I'm assuming we mean accelerating
> to something between Vs and Vy. I'd love to see what the climb angle
> and climb rate then become.
>
> I'm interested in the minimum case because this is a natural starting
> point. I've done these calculations and it seemed that 15kg of thrust
> gave a ground run less than 600m, and a climb rate of more than 200fpm
> (might have been 500fpm, but I don't recall).

Good God. I don't know where you fly, but most glider pilots don't have
that sort of takoff space available to them!

I, for one, do *not* want to be stooging off the end of the runway and
overflying the houses at best L/D speed with 200 fpm of climb in still
air!

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Waduino]

The business types seem to be saying that the US dollar has only begun to
fall and that it could fall much faster now that it is at record lows vs the
Euro.

That aside... what gliders are being produced in the US? I believe the
Peregrine is very close, there's the SparrowHawk. What else? And will anyone
Stateside be able to come up with a (different thread) moderate performance,
moderate price, self-launcher?

Wad.


"Mike Stringfellow" > wrote in message
om...
> The US dollar is now valued close to 0.75 Euro, down from its peak of
> 1.25 a couple of years ago. Analysts say it may go even lower, with
> some projecting exchange rates of 0.7 (1.4 dollar to the Euro).
>
> This has pretty much put the kibosh on my goals of buying a new
> European sailplane. A model at, say, Euro 85,000 cost around $70,000
> a couple of years ago, is now around $110,000 and may soon be at
> $120,000.
>
> Economic models would suggest a strong incentive for sailplane
> manufacture in North America, but I wonder if the numbers of potential
> sales would justify this.
>
> Any thoughts?

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "Waduino" > wrote:

> ...What else? And will anyone Stateside
> be able to come up with a (different
> thread) moderate performance,
> moderate price, self-launcher?

We're working on it. Update number 100 shows some drawings that Brad
Hill did for fitting a sustainer-sized motor into the basic HP-24:

http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24/update_16_november_04.htm

We're also looking at what it will take to fit a larger self-launch
sized motor in back there. We're working on it as fast as we can
afford to.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Brad]

I won't start a new thread.....I'll leave that up to those interested
in pursuing such a thread, But Bob K. is on the right track with the
HP-24.

Brad
N199AK

> That aside... what gliders are being produced in the US? I believe the
> Peregrine is very close, there's the SparrowHawk. What else? And will anyone
> Stateside be able to come up with a (different thread) moderate performance,
> moderate price, self-launcher?
>
> Wad.