LS-4 ? What about 1-26 ?

[Ian Cant]

Eric Greenwell maintains, and I am sure he is right,
that increased performance adds cost and smaller size
reduces cost, and that many potential owners would
be 'happy' with LS-4 performance in a smaller and more
modern design.

What about a modern 1-26 ? Could it be made affordable
and attractive enough to sell 800-1000 copies ? Would
the reduction in performance goal from 40:1 to 23:1
really reduce the selling price a lot ? Or are we
at a point in the performance/cost curve where a reduction
in L/D [for any size of glider] does not save a bunch
of cost but an increase [whether by refinement of an
existing design or a clean-sheet new design] costs
a whole bundle ?

I suspect that the economics of sailplane production
are not driven by material costs or design sophistication,
but by issues of labor costs, marketing costs, certification
and insurance - and above all, the achieved market
share. Anyone know some real-world figures to argue
from ?

Ian

[[email protected]]

The modern 1-26 already exists. It's called a PW-5. Unfortunately it
hasn't taken off because it's not as sleek looking as the original.

[Waduino]

Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up a
little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
Wad
---

[Eric Greenwell]

Waduino wrote:
> Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up a
> little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
> Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
> Wad

Paint it in polyurethane and you can probably leave tied out about as
well, too. Brad can tell us how it takes to build one.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Robertmudd1u]

>Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up a
>little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
>Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
>Wad
>---

Thanks for the nice comment. Yes, the cost has gone up because of the weakness
of the dollar. Current price of an Apis 13 kit is 16,100 euros or about
$21,000. More costly than a 1-26 to be sure but also a lot more fun to fly.

Robert Mudd

[smjmitchell]

I don't think that performance is a big cost driver.

The major cost drivers are:
* development costs
* certification costs
* labour (for production)
* raw material costs

I suspect that all of these drivers will have a similar value irrespective
of whether the glider is a APIS, 1-26 or LS-4. OK ... maybe the material
cost will vary a little but the difference is not going to result in a
glider that is 1/3 or 1/2 cheaper.

The biggest issue with the cost of airplanes is quite simply VOLUME. They
are generally built by hand using relatively crude production techniques and
basic tooling. A modern small automobile is arguably far more complex than
any glider but is costs a LOT less because of the level of automation in the
mass production process and the large number of units sold. If we want
cheaper gliders then we need to find a way to increase the volume of sales.
Certification and design costs would be amortised over more units and
production costs would dramatically reduce (bigger buying power for raw
materials and better tooling / automated production will reduce labour
cost). This is a chicken and egg thing ... you are not going to increase
volume until the price is reduced and you cannot reduce price (which
requires a new business model and significant investment) without the
evidence of the larger sales potential. In essence we are stuck with
expensive gliders unless we can attract some very wealthy individuals to the
sport who share the vision of cheap gliders and are willing to gamble some
of their money, against conventional business wisdom, simply to see if this
vision can be realised without any guarantee of a return.


"Robertmudd1u" > wrote in message
...
> >Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up
a
> >little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
> >Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
> >Wad
> >---
>
> Thanks for the nice comment. Yes, the cost has gone up because of the
weakness
> of the dollar. Current price of an Apis 13 kit is 16,100 euros or about
> $21,000. More costly than a 1-26 to be sure but also a lot more fun to
fly.
>
> Robert Mudd

[Michel Talon]

smjmitchell > wrote:
>
> I suspect that all of these drivers will have a similar value irrespective
> of whether the glider is a APIS, 1-26 or LS-4. OK ... maybe the material
> cost will vary a little but the difference is not going to result in a
> glider that is 1/3 or 1/2 cheaper.
>

YES

> The biggest issue with the cost of airplanes is quite simply VOLUME. They
> are generally built by hand using relatively crude production techniques and
> basic tooling. A modern small automobile is arguably far more complex than
> any glider but is costs a LOT less because of the level of automation in the
> mass production process and the large number of units sold. If we want
> cheaper gliders then we need to find a way to increase the volume of sales.

YES

> Certification and design costs would be amortised over more units and
> production costs would dramatically reduce (bigger buying power for raw
> materials and better tooling / automated production will reduce labour
> cost). This is a chicken and egg thing ... you are not going to increase
> volume until the price is reduced and you cannot reduce price (which
> requires a new business model and significant investment) without the
> evidence of the larger sales potential. In essence we are stuck with
> expensive gliders unless we can attract some very wealthy individuals to the
> sport who share the vision of cheap gliders and are willing to gamble some
> of their money, against conventional business wisdom, simply to see if this
> vision can be realised without any guarantee of a return.

Which means, more than anything else, that one has to concentrate on one
model and only one, because there is no room for high volume production
of several models. As a consequence, any discussion wether 13m gliders
are better than 15m gliders, wether DG gliders are better than the LS4,
or any such futility may have only one consequence, distract people from
the aim.


--

Michel TALON

[smjmitchell]

> Which means, more than anything else, that one has to concentrate on one
> model and only one, because there is no room for high volume production
> of several models. As a consequence, any discussion wether 13m gliders
> are better than 15m gliders, wether DG gliders are better than the LS4,
> or any such futility may have only one consequence, distract people from
> the aim.
>

Obsolutely ... in essence what you are saying is the same as Henry Ford 100
years ago when he said 'you can have any colour so long as it is black'.

If the price was a lot lower and there was only one choice I don't think
people would have anything to debate. They would just buy the thing.

[Waduino]

I guess this just brings us back to the World Class idea which was a great
idea but a botched implementation, based on the response of the soaring
community.

Too bad. It would really be fun to have a one-design that people really
bought into.

Wad.


"smjmitchell" > wrote in message
u...
>
>> Which means, more than anything else, that one has to concentrate on one
>> model and only one, because there is no room for high volume production
>> of several models. As a consequence, any discussion wether 13m gliders
>> are better than 15m gliders, wether DG gliders are better than the LS4,
>> or any such futility may have only one consequence, distract people from
>> the aim.
>>
>
> Obsolutely ... in essence what you are saying is the same as Henry Ford
> 100
> years ago when he said 'you can have any colour so long as it is black'.
>
> If the price was a lot lower and there was only one choice I don't think
> people would have anything to debate. They would just buy the thing.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[F.L. Whiteley]

I don't know if production methods have changed much. Last I knew,
composite 15m was 1000 hours labor, by far the largest cost component. (for
comparison C-172 was something like 372 hours 30 years ago).

There was no certification requirement for the world class. It was
conformal, that is, could be built to specified size and shape by anyone
from any material as part of the rules. One of the ideals.

If memory serves, development was done by volunteers and university staff if
memory serves, so there was only a modest license cost per unit.

Development and certification costs are fully amortized in some existing
models. If the soaring world adopted the LS-4b (which it has no rights to
presently) as the world class, there would be no development nor
certification costs. Sell a few molds to allow international construction
and sell them. Sell control kits. Charge a license/plans fee for each.
And build them commercially also. Wouldn't take long before the numbers
increased and the world class would percolate to the top of the competition
venues.

Doesn't have to be the LS-4b either. The 304 is another very worthy
candidate. Continuing the PW-5 as a sub-class might also have some benefit.

Frank Whiteley

"smjmitchell" > wrote in message
u...
> I don't think that performance is a big cost driver.
>
> The major cost drivers are:
> * development costs
> * certification costs
> * labour (for production)
> * raw material costs
>
> I suspect that all of these drivers will have a similar value irrespective
> of whether the glider is a APIS, 1-26 or LS-4. OK ... maybe the material
> cost will vary a little but the difference is not going to result in a
> glider that is 1/3 or 1/2 cheaper.
>
> The biggest issue with the cost of airplanes is quite simply VOLUME. They
> are generally built by hand using relatively crude production techniques
and
> basic tooling. A modern small automobile is arguably far more complex than
> any glider but is costs a LOT less because of the level of automation in
the
> mass production process and the large number of units sold. If we want
> cheaper gliders then we need to find a way to increase the volume of
sales.
> Certification and design costs would be amortised over more units and
> production costs would dramatically reduce (bigger buying power for raw
> materials and better tooling / automated production will reduce labour
> cost). This is a chicken and egg thing ... you are not going to increase
> volume until the price is reduced and you cannot reduce price (which
> requires a new business model and significant investment) without the
> evidence of the larger sales potential. In essence we are stuck with
> expensive gliders unless we can attract some very wealthy individuals to
the
> sport who share the vision of cheap gliders and are willing to gamble some
> of their money, against conventional business wisdom, simply to see if
this
> vision can be realised without any guarantee of a return.
>
>
> "Robertmudd1u" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone
up
> a
> > >little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
> > >Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
> > >Wad
> > >---
> >
> > Thanks for the nice comment. Yes, the cost has gone up because of the
> weakness
> > of the dollar. Current price of an Apis 13 kit is 16,100 euros or about
> > $21,000. More costly than a 1-26 to be sure but also a lot more fun to
> fly.
> >
> > Robert Mudd
>
>

[Charles Yeates]

Frank
>
> Doesn't have to be the LS-4b either. The 304 is another very worthy
> candidate. Continuing the PW-5 as a sub-class might also have some benefit.
>

New =
LS-4b @ 39,000 Euro
304 @ 40,000 Euro
Smyk @ 17,000 Euro

Why jump up the price of a "one class" ship?

[Mark James Boyd]

All other thinks being equal, features seem to drive up cost.
Retractable gear, water ballast, weights for the tail (like DG-1000),
automatic control hookups, a second occupant, a distinct control system
with flaps...

The most interesting thing about the sparrowhawk is the high price
considering the lack of these features and the one time mold.
I've watched the price increase 40% in the years, and in this case
it seems to be attributed to materials cost.

So the Sparrowhawk seems VERY different from its competitors because
its goal was extremely light weight, not low cost. The PW-5 and Russia
came from low cost, and resulted in less span, the Sparrowhawk was driven
simply by weight.

A comparison of APIS to LS-4 is a little funny, as the features of ballast
and retract are compared to the feature of integrated flaps.
The APIS simply has an all flight speed range that's wider than the
LS-4. But at the top end on strong days? A fully ballasted LS-4
should run away with this.

The idea of integrated flaps which reduce stall speed is good,
and I suspect with such a low bottom end, there is some safety enhancement.
I must wonder, however, what the aileron spin characteristics are with
full flaps. Until there are a goodly number of years (and possible
accident reports) it may be difficult to determine.

The SZD 50-3 looked to me to be a neat glider on paper, but the
abrupt stall/spin characteristics and accident record seem to betray it.



In article >,
smjmitchell > wrote:
>I don't think that performance is a big cost driver.
>
>The major cost drivers are:
>* development costs
>* certification costs
>* labour (for production)
>* raw material costs
>
>I suspect that all of these drivers will have a similar value irrespective
>of whether the glider is a APIS, 1-26 or LS-4. OK ... maybe the material
>cost will vary a little but the difference is not going to result in a
>glider that is 1/3 or 1/2 cheaper.
>
>The biggest issue with the cost of airplanes is quite simply VOLUME. They
>are generally built by hand using relatively crude production techniques and
>basic tooling. A modern small automobile is arguably far more complex than
>any glider but is costs a LOT less because of the level of automation in the
>mass production process and the large number of units sold. If we want
>cheaper gliders then we need to find a way to increase the volume of sales.
>Certification and design costs would be amortised over more units and
>production costs would dramatically reduce (bigger buying power for raw
>materials and better tooling / automated production will reduce labour
>cost). This is a chicken and egg thing ... you are not going to increase
>volume until the price is reduced and you cannot reduce price (which
>requires a new business model and significant investment) without the
>evidence of the larger sales potential. In essence we are stuck with
>expensive gliders unless we can attract some very wealthy individuals to the
>sport who share the vision of cheap gliders and are willing to gamble some
>of their money, against conventional business wisdom, simply to see if this
>vision can be realised without any guarantee of a return.
>
>
>"Robertmudd1u" > wrote in message
...
>> >Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up
>a
>> >little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
>> >Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
>> >Wad
>> >---
>>
>> Thanks for the nice comment. Yes, the cost has gone up because of the
>weakness
>> of the dollar. Current price of an Apis 13 kit is 16,100 euros or about
>> $21,000. More costly than a 1-26 to be sure but also a lot more fun to
>fly.
>>
>> Robert Mudd
>
>


--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

I think the whole thing suffers from the "I'd do it for free!" syndrome.
Same thing in flight instructing. Flying is something even the
professionals think is fun. There are so many competitors
who are willing to work for such a low price (because it is fun)
that there is little financial incentive for production.

Look at the APIS, Sparrowhawk, PW-5, Russia, Silent. Have the makers,
I mean the actual workers on these gliders, made anything close to the
amount of money they would if they were employed in a regular
job? $80k/year for 4 years for Greg Cole's skills pretty much wipes out
any possible profit on a Sparrowhawk with a production run of 20 at $30k.

So there's a bunch of folks innovating and making gliders for charity.
If you approached them with the same profit prospects and told them
they'd be manufacturing innovative urinals, they'd run, not walk, away from
the project.

So what do we see? A lot of innovations and great ideas. The downside
is so many competitors chipping away at the fairly small market that
there is little chance for a Henry Ford type operation to succeed.

Are we going to see one patentable "killer" glider? Maybe. A
turbine self-launch Sparrowhawk would be very hard to compete with
based on weight and the non-recurring engineering costs.

But will we see a "killer" design for a larger market? I suspect not.
I think gliding will continue to see a lot of low production run
charitable innovators, each chipping away at buyers. Well, at least this
is the case in the USA, where "experimental" gliders are allowed...




In article >,
smjmitchell > wrote:
>
>> Which means, more than anything else, that one has to concentrate on one
>> model and only one, because there is no room for high volume production
>> of several models. As a consequence, any discussion wether 13m gliders
>> are better than 15m gliders, wether DG gliders are better than the LS4,
>> or any such futility may have only one consequence, distract people from
>> the aim.
>>
>
>Obsolutely ... in essence what you are saying is the same as Henry Ford 100
>years ago when he said 'you can have any colour so long as it is black'.
>
>If the price was a lot lower and there was only one choice I don't think
>people would have anything to debate. They would just buy the thing.
>
>
>
>
>
>


--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

Waduino > wrote:
>I guess this just brings us back to the World Class idea which was a great
>idea but a botched implementation, based on the response of the soaring
>community.
>
>Too bad. It would really be fun to have a one-design that people really
>bought into.

Isn't the competition for the next World Class glider coming up soon?
I don't see anything "Too bad" about that. With over a decade of
reflection, one would expect the implementation could be improved...

We keep talking about these sub-13meter gliders. I suspect
we will see them as entries...
--

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

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Charles Yeates" > wrote in message
...
> Frank
> >
> > Doesn't have to be the LS-4b either. The 304 is another very worthy
> > candidate. Continuing the PW-5 as a sub-class might also have some
benefit.
> >
>
> New =
> LS-4b @ 39,000 Euro
> 304 @ 40,000 Euro
> Smyk @ 17,000 Euro
>
> Why jump up the price of a "one class" ship?

Price, though a factor, is really moot as it can be ameliorated by
partnerships or club ownership. My club is shopping. Smyk is not on the
list. The primary reason is the lousy polar. I've watched PW-5 owners
struggle out here and it just does not cut it where winds in the lift band
are often 20kts or more on good days. East of the Mississippi river and
conditions for the Smyk would be much more favorable. A 40/1 world class
glider has additional appeal. It can also be flown competitively in other
classes in local and regional contests.

We looked very hard at it when they were 'giving' them away with the PW-6
for $11K, but it still wasn't appealing enough to tip the deal. However,
had we seen the PW-6 a few weeks earlier, we might gone for the pair.

Frank Whiteley

[m pautz]

Ian Cant wrote:

> Eric Greenwell maintains, and I am sure he is right,
> that increased performance adds cost and smaller size
> reduces cost, and that many potential owners would
> be 'happy' with LS-4 performance in a smaller and more
> modern design.
>
> What about a modern 1-26 ? Could it be made affordable
> and attractive enough to sell 800-1000 copies ? Would
> the reduction in performance goal from 40:1 to 23:1
> really reduce the selling price a lot ? Or are we
> at a point in the performance/cost curve where a reduction
> in L/D [for any size of glider] does not save a bunch
> of cost but an increase [whether by refinement of an
> existing design or a clean-sheet new design] costs
> a whole bundle ?
>
> I suspect that the economics of sailplane production
> are not driven by material costs or design sophistication,
> but by issues of labor costs, marketing costs, certification
> and insurance - and above all, the achieved market
> share. Anyone know some real-world figures to argue
> from ?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
Ages ago, a similar question was asked. One of the Schweizer brothers
wrote back and said the problem was that they would have to buy a
liablility policy for the production run. The policy payment came out
to $16,000 for each glider.

[Shawn]

Waduino wrote:
> Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up a
> little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
> Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
> Wad
> ---
>
>
Build? Fagettaboutit.

[Charles Yeates]

Mark

A good perspective --

> I think the whole thing suffers from the "I'd do it for free!" syndrome.
> Same thing in flight instructing. Flying is something even the
> professionals think is fun. There are so many competitors
> who are willing to work for such a low price (because it is fun)
> that there is little financial incentive for production.
>
> Look at the APIS, Sparrowhawk, PW-5, Russia, Silent. Have the makers,
> I mean the actual workers on these gliders, made anything close to the
> amount of money they would if they were employed in a regular
> job? $80k/year for 4 years for Greg Cole's skills pretty much wipes out
> any possible profit on a Sparrowhawk with a production run of 20 at $30k.
>
> So there's a bunch of folks innovating and making gliders for charity.
> If you approached them with the same profit prospects and told them
> they'd be manufacturing innovative urinals, they'd run, not walk, away from
> the project.
>
> So what do we see? A lot of innovations and great ideas. The downside
> is so many competitors chipping away at the fairly small market that
> there is little chance for a Henry Ford type operation to succeed.
>
> Are we going to see one patentable "killer" glider? Maybe. A
> turbine self-launch Sparrowhawk would be very hard to compete with
> based on weight and the non-recurring engineering costs.
>
> But will we see a "killer" design for a larger market? I suspect not.
> I think gliding will continue to see a lot of low production run
> charitable innovators, each chipping away at buyers. Well, at least this
> is the case in the USA, where "experimental" gliders are allowed...
>
>
>
>
> In article >,
> smjmitchell > wrote:
>
>>>Which means, more than anything else, that one has to concentrate on one
>>>model and only one, because there is no room for high volume production
>>>of several models. As a consequence, any discussion wether 13m gliders
>>>are better than 15m gliders, wether DG gliders are better than the LS4,
>>>or any such futility may have only one consequence, distract people from
>>>the aim.
>>>
>>
>>Obsolutely ... in essence what you are saying is the same as Henry Ford 100
>>years ago when he said 'you can have any colour so long as it is black'.
>>
>>If the price was a lot lower and there was only one choice I don't think
>>people would have anything to debate. They would just buy the thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[Charles Yeates]

Mark

> Isn't the competition for the next World Class glider coming up soon?

Maybe in 2009.

[F.L. Whiteley]

"m pautz" > wrote in message
news:Ub7ld.499010$mD.298982@attbi_s02...
>
>
> Ian Cant wrote:
>
> > Eric Greenwell maintains, and I am sure he is right,
> > that increased performance adds cost and smaller size
> > reduces cost, and that many potential owners would
> > be 'happy' with LS-4 performance in a smaller and more
> > modern design.
> >
> > What about a modern 1-26 ? Could it be made affordable
> > and attractive enough to sell 800-1000 copies ? Would
> > the reduction in performance goal from 40:1 to 23:1
> > really reduce the selling price a lot ? Or are we
> > at a point in the performance/cost curve where a reduction
> > in L/D [for any size of glider] does not save a bunch
> > of cost but an increase [whether by refinement of an
> > existing design or a clean-sheet new design] costs
> > a whole bundle ?
> >
> > I suspect that the economics of sailplane production
> > are not driven by material costs or design sophistication,
> > but by issues of labor costs, marketing costs, certification
> > and insurance - and above all, the achieved market
> > share. Anyone know some real-world figures to argue
> > from ?
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Ages ago, a similar question was asked. One of the Schweizer brothers
> wrote back and said the problem was that they would have to buy a
> liablility policy for the production run. The policy payment came out
> to $16,000 for each glider.
>
>
People I'm acquainted with that produce sports equipment set up their
production so that all equipment and facility is leased, not owned. The
business is strictly inventory and accounts receivable, every thing else is
at arm's length, so that if plaintiffs should ever prevail, they are welcome
to the empty space, desk, and chair. If you have to insure to protect real
property as part of the means of production, your liability exposure is
extremely high and has to be protected by passing this cost onto the
consumer. Sadly, it's the state of American business. Most small
entrepanuers I know have layered, non-asset, interests these days.

Frank Whiteley

[Brad]

> Paint it in polyurethane and you can probably leave tied out about as
> well, too. Brad can tell us how it takes to build one.


Hi Eric,

Building the Apis was actually a lot of fun, with good instructions,
and advice from Robert Mudd I was able to complete the build process
in under 150 hours. The gel-coat (prestec) took considerably longer!

The latest project on my 13m Apis is putting an engine in it.

After building 2 Russias and an Apis I'd like to tackle a design of my
own based on these 2 ships. Any one interested????......:o)

Cheers,
Brad

[Mark Nyberg]

"Waduino" > wrote in message >...
> Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up a
> little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
> Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
> Wad
> ---
Wad,
A few of us were invited to fly Brad Hill's APIS as part the research
for purchasing our club's next glider. For over two years we had been
looking for a glider that is easy to fly, safe to fly, nice to look at
and has good cross-country performance. We also wanted a glider that
would perform well in the weaker conditions north of Seattle and be
light enough to land out in the small fields near where we fly.

All who flew Brad's Apis remarked at how well it fit all of our
criteria. The triple taper wing of the APIS looks great and the flaps
offer excellent thermalling performance -- with great penetration for
a 300lb glider. All who flew it felt that it was at least as easy to
fly as a 1-26. Our club bought a 13-meter APIS in August and are very
happy with it.

Mark Nyberg
Evergreen Soaring

[Robertmudd1u]

> All who flew it felt that it was at least as easy to
>fly as a 1-26. Our club bought a 13-meter APIS in August and are very
>happy with it.
>
>Mark Nyberg

They bought the Apis 13 that I built from a kit. Man do I ever miss flying that
glider. Pure fun.

Robert Mudd

[Waduino]

>> Apis 13 kit is 16,100 euros

Looks like the Euro price is going up, which is then compounded by the weak
dollar. Too bad.
Wad.


"Robertmudd1u" > wrote in message
...
> >Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up
> >a
>>little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
>>Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
>>Wad
>>---
>
> Thanks for the nice comment. Yes, the cost has gone up because of the
> weakness
> of the dollar. Current price of an Apis 13 kit is 16,100 euros or about
> $21,000. More costly than a 1-26 to be sure but also a lot more fun to
> fly.
>
> Robert Mudd

[smjmitchell]

What I think we need is a new way of building gliders.

You cannot reduce certification costs nor development costs but you can
reduce material and labour costs.

What I had in mind when I made my earlier post re mass production was not a
production line that produces a glider a day or anything that optimistic.
However there has got be another smallish step up from what we currently do
that will result in a dramatic reduction in the costs and hence price. The
question is what is the critical mass number that will give us this
production advantage ... I dunno the answer - I doubt anyone does. It is
well known (as one other post states) that Cessna produced airplanes in
approx 300 hours. That is a long way from where we are currently at for
composite gliders ... and that is for a much more complex airplane than any
glider. The question is simply what level of tooling and investment is
required to get to this next level and what gains will that give us in
production cost and hence volume.

Assuming a composite glider, what I have in mind is tape laying machines,
filament winding, RTM methods etc. All other areas of the composites
industry are moving this way - I am sure sailplanes will eventually. There
are also other innovative ways to build sailplanes if we are really willing
to think outside the square. Also CNC machines for all metal parts etc. Also
the design is important we need more efficient design processes and tools
and more effort needs to be invested to reduce parts count. Perhaps there is
a better way to build a composite airframe than the standard foam sandwich
approach. We will not know unless we challenge ourselves to do it.

The Sparrow Hawk while a commendable design effort will never be a
commercial success (as another poster pointed out). It is too labour
intensive to build, the cost of materials (Toray carbon prepregs I seem to
recall) are too expensive (carbon prepreg tape is 1/4 the price woven cloth
per metre sq for instance) and it is not certificated which significantly
reduces the size of the potential market (and the design is barely legal
under Part 103).

Similarly the discussion on kits gliders is a bad example when compared to
say an LS-4. These are only cheap because the builder has to invest a lot of
labour and because they are not certificated.

There is ample evidence in the hang glider world and indeed in other leisure
sport products that the volume would increase dramatically if the price
could be reduced. Imagine if you could sell a certified APIS for 150% of a
current list price of a competition standard hang glider what that would do
to the volume of glider sales. Waiting in a queue for a club glider would be
a thing of the past - you would simply buy your own - the increase in volume
would come from within the existing gliding fraterity, not to mention the
more people the sport would attract and retain through greater
affordability. I don't know exactly how many hang gliders are sold annually
but recent articles I have read indicate that it is thousands a year. Anyone
got any hard data ????? How many gliders do Schempp Hirth, DG, et al sell a
year ... anyone got some data ?????

Finally you don't need to point out that the above is somewhat idealistic. I
am very aware of this but unless we look to the future, challenge ourselves
to do better and make significant progress in the direction of costs and
affordability we will not have a viable sport. Someone has to start to do
the dreaming if we are going to have any hope of solving the problem. Anyone
share that vision ?







"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "m pautz" > wrote in message
> news:Ub7ld.499010$mD.298982@attbi_s02...
> >
> >
> > Ian Cant wrote:
> >
> > > Eric Greenwell maintains, and I am sure he is right,
> > > that increased performance adds cost and smaller size
> > > reduces cost, and that many potential owners would
> > > be 'happy' with LS-4 performance in a smaller and more
> > > modern design.
> > >
> > > What about a modern 1-26 ? Could it be made affordable
> > > and attractive enough to sell 800-1000 copies ? Would
> > > the reduction in performance goal from 40:1 to 23:1
> > > really reduce the selling price a lot ? Or are we
> > > at a point in the performance/cost curve where a reduction
> > > in L/D [for any size of glider] does not save a bunch
> > > of cost but an increase [whether by refinement of an
> > > existing design or a clean-sheet new design] costs
> > > a whole bundle ?
> > >
> > > I suspect that the economics of sailplane production
> > > are not driven by material costs or design sophistication,
> > > but by issues of labor costs, marketing costs, certification
> > > and insurance - and above all, the achieved market
> > > share. Anyone know some real-world figures to argue
> > > from ?
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Ages ago, a similar question was asked. One of the Schweizer brothers
> > wrote back and said the problem was that they would have to buy a
> > liablility policy for the production run. The policy payment came out
> > to $16,000 for each glider.
> >
> >
> People I'm acquainted with that produce sports equipment set up their
> production so that all equipment and facility is leased, not owned. The
> business is strictly inventory and accounts receivable, every thing else
is
> at arm's length, so that if plaintiffs should ever prevail, they are
welcome
> to the empty space, desk, and chair. If you have to insure to protect
real
> property as part of the means of production, your liability exposure is
> extremely high and has to be protected by passing this cost onto the
> consumer. Sadly, it's the state of American business. Most small
> entrepanuers I know have layered, non-asset, interests these days.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>
>

[Charles Yeates]

May be way off but I recall Tom knauff talking about Schemp Hirth using
about 400 hours per Discus / Ventus ?

> What I think we need is a new way of building gliders.
>
> You cannot reduce certification costs nor development costs but you can
> reduce material and labour costs.
>
> What I had in mind when I made my earlier post re mass production was not a
> production line that produces a glider a day or anything that optimistic.
> However there has got be another smallish step up from what we currently do
> that will result in a dramatic reduction in the costs and hence price. The
> question is what is the critical mass number that will give us this
> production advantage ... I dunno the answer - I doubt anyone does. It is
> well known (as one other post states) that Cessna produced airplanes in
> approx 300 hours. That is a long way from where we are currently at for
> composite gliders ... and that is for a much more complex airplane than any
> glider. The question is simply what level of tooling and investment is
> required to get to this next level and what gains will that give us in
> production cost and hence volume.
>
> Assuming a composite glider, what I have in mind is tape laying machines,
> filament winding, RTM methods etc. All other areas of the composites
> industry are moving this way - I am sure sailplanes will eventually. There
> are also other innovative ways to build sailplanes if we are really willing
> to think outside the square. Also CNC machines for all metal parts etc. Also
> the design is important we need more efficient design processes and tools
> and more effort needs to be invested to reduce parts count. Perhaps there is
> a better way to build a composite airframe than the standard foam sandwich
> approach. We will not know unless we challenge ourselves to do it.
>
> The Sparrow Hawk while a commendable design effort will never be a
> commercial success (as another poster pointed out). It is too labour
> intensive to build, the cost of materials (Toray carbon prepregs I seem to
> recall) are too expensive (carbon prepreg tape is 1/4 the price woven cloth
> per metre sq for instance) and it is not certificated which significantly
> reduces the size of the potential market (and the design is barely legal
> under Part 103).
>
> Similarly the discussion on kits gliders is a bad example when compared to
> say an LS-4. These are only cheap because the builder has to invest a lot of
> labour and because they are not certificated.
>
> There is ample evidence in the hang glider world and indeed in other leisure
> sport products that the volume would increase dramatically if the price
> could be reduced. Imagine if you could sell a certified APIS for 150% of a
> current list price of a competition standard hang glider what that would do
> to the volume of glider sales. Waiting in a queue for a club glider would be
> a thing of the past - you would simply buy your own - the increase in volume
> would come from within the existing gliding fraterity, not to mention the
> more people the sport would attract and retain through greater
> affordability. I don't know exactly how many hang gliders are sold annually
> but recent articles I have read indicate that it is thousands a year. Anyone
> got any hard data ????? How many gliders do Schempp Hirth, DG, et al sell a
> year ... anyone got some data ?????
>
> Finally you don't need to point out that the above is somewhat idealistic. I
> am very aware of this but unless we look to the future, challenge ourselves
> to do better and make significant progress in the direction of costs and
> affordability we will not have a viable sport. Someone has to start to do
> the dreaming if we are going to have any hope of solving the problem. Anyone
> share that vision ?
>
>

[JohnWN in Burke, VA]

I'm so new at soaring that I have only taken one glider ride in my life.
Having established that I'm not an expert on much of anything, here's my 2
cents worth. The VOLUME envisioned to make an affordable plane would
possibly make VFR flight impossible because of the huge number of planes in
the air. So getting a cheap sailplane, might kill the sport that you want
to promote. I can imagine having to apply for an airspace usage permit much
as we have to apply months or years in advance for reservations at some of
the most popular National Parks. On the other hand, I'm one of the people
that will have to join a club to have afford access to a plane.

My two cents
....john__________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________

"smjmitchell" > wrote in message
u...
>I don't think that performance is a big cost driver.
>
> The major cost drivers are:
> * development costs
> * certification costs
> * labour (for production)
> * raw material costs
>
> I suspect that all of these drivers will have a similar value irrespective
> of whether the glider is a APIS, 1-26 or LS-4. OK ... maybe the material
> cost will vary a little but the difference is not going to result in a
> glider that is 1/3 or 1/2 cheaper.
>
> The biggest issue with the cost of airplanes is quite simply VOLUME. ...

[Bill Daniels]

Welcome to soaring, John.

The 'crowded skies' bogy is largely a fabrication of the evening news
'talking heads' and their editors who want to frighten people into watching
their programs (and their sponsors commercials).

In actuality, on the busiest days, there are only about 5000 aircraft
airborne over the 48 states at any time. Most of these are at altitudes
much higher than gliders usually fly or in the vicinity of major airports.
As avgas prices increase, the private piston fleet flies fewer and fewer
hours so the traffic density below 18,000 feet may actually be decreasing.
Most glider flying is done in remote areas where air traffic is very low.
In summary, there's LOTS of room in the sky to fly gliders. The glider
fleet could increase tenfold or more without problems.

Where a problem might arise is with the 'uphill capacity' of a local soaring
operation to launch a large number of gliders. A solution is 'self-launch'
gliders or my preferred solution - winches.

Unfortunately, it's a fact that the population of glider pilots is shrinking
which translates into fewer businesses and clubs where one can find gliders
to fly or tows to launch privately owned gliders.

The choice is a shrinking sport, a stagnant one or a growing one. I think
the happiest choice is a growing one. Cheaper gliders are a part of the
solution.

Bill Daniels





"JohnWN in Burke, VA" > wrote in message
news:Uvpld.1596$iR.1168@lakeread04...
> I'm so new at soaring that I have only taken one glider ride in my life.
> Having established that I'm not an expert on much of anything, here's my 2
> cents worth. The VOLUME envisioned to make an affordable plane would
> possibly make VFR flight impossible because of the huge number of planes
in
> the air. So getting a cheap sailplane, might kill the sport that you want
> to promote. I can imagine having to apply for an airspace usage permit
much
> as we have to apply months or years in advance for reservations at some of
> the most popular National Parks. On the other hand, I'm one of the people
> that will have to join a club to have afford access to a plane.
>
> My two cents
>
....john__________________________________________ ___________________________
_____________________________________
>
> "smjmitchell" > wrote in message
> u...
> >I don't think that performance is a big cost driver.
> >
> > The major cost drivers are:
> > * development costs
> > * certification costs
> > * labour (for production)
> > * raw material costs
> >
> > I suspect that all of these drivers will have a similar value
irrespective
> > of whether the glider is a APIS, 1-26 or LS-4. OK ... maybe the material
> > cost will vary a little but the difference is not going to result in a
> > glider that is 1/3 or 1/2 cheaper.
> >
> > The biggest issue with the cost of airplanes is quite simply VOLUME. ...
>
>
>

[Brad]

> I think the whole thing suffers from the "I'd do it for free!" syndrome.
> Same thing in flight instructing. Flying is something even the
> professionals think is fun. There are so many competitors
> who are willing to work for such a low price (because it is fun)
> that there is little financial incentive for production.
>

Mark,

I had a long talk with Bob K the other day and he reminded me that the
population of folks out there that would build a glider from a kit are
extremely short in supply; those that would attempt to design and
build and fly their own design are a speck under a microscope.

I dream about designing and building as a very rewarding challenge,
maybe I'll sit in a fuselage I made from my own design someday, maybe
not.....but it is a labor of love for me.....corny as it sounds, but I
do think a decent performing ship can be built by a guy in his garage
for a reasonable amount of $$$.......a one-off with very little hard
tooling will be my approach.

As I've mentioned in a previous post, the days of paper and pencil are
gone, for me everything is on the PC......after experiencing how the
777 was designed I am a believer of the digital mock-up concept.

Cheers,
Brad

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>If I am right, that the viability of the sport does not depend on cheap,
>new, high performance gliders, perhaps this is a good thing: it might be
>more difficult to solve that high-volume production problem than the one
>of getting more people into the sport and retaining them by improving
>access to the sport by other means.

The problem isn't too few gliders, it's
NOT ENOUGH GLIDER PILOTS!

To get more glider pilots, you need more instructors
(who charge low rates). One source for these instructors is
cross-training the USUA and EAA ultralight instructors, and
cross-training ASEL CFIs (at least to the Sport Pilot level).

The two ways to grow the sport are to get youth, or get
pilots from other airsports.

If I were a glider manufacturer, I'd make LSA gliders
and advertise in the Ultralight, Hang Glider, and
Experimental magazines and conventions.

Have any of you noticed that gliders weren't even mentioned in the
new Sport Pilot and LSA magazine? And there are no glider pictures
in the Sport Pilot branch color brochures and briefings...

I would have expected at least the SZD 50-3 USA distributor to have
noticed this and made some phone calls.

There is a whole group of (sometimes aging) airsport enthusiasts
who are deciding the freezing cold open air in their face
and the lack of protection on landing/crashing/crumpling
in their hang gliders and ultralights is a bad thing.

They want gliders, they just don't know about them...
--

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

[Eric Greenwell]

smjmitchell wrote:

> What I think we need is a new way of building gliders.

I suspect we may be going at this backwards, and what we need is a
better way to increase the number of glider pilots. This will increase
the demand for gliders, allowing more manufacturers to produce gliders
in greater volume, and lower costs.

snip

>
> There is ample evidence in the hang glider world and indeed in other leisure
> sport products that the volume would increase dramatically if the price
> could be reduced. Imagine if you could sell a certified APIS for 150% of a
> current list price of a competition standard hang glider what that would do
> to the volume of glider sales.

There are already gliders available to the hang glider pilots with much
superior performance to a competition hang glider for _same_ price as
competition hang glider. Take a look at the used gliders available: the
Ka-6 and even the 1-26 can meet your target.

There is much more to the issue than cost and performance. The barriers
to entering the sport are not the cost of a new glider, or the hang
glider pilots would be snapping up all these aircraft. Even a PW5 seems
like an exotic starship to a hang glider pilot that gets 15:1, and it is
cheaper to own and fly than a competition hang glider (former hang
glider pilots, now sailplane pilots, tell me this true).

> Waiting in a queue for a club glider would be
> a thing of the past - you would simply buy your own - the increase in volume
> would come from within the existing gliding fraterity, not to mention the
> more people the sport would attract and retain through greater
> affordability. I don't know exactly how many hang gliders are sold annually
> but recent articles I have read indicate that it is thousands a year. Anyone
> got any hard data ????? How many gliders do Schempp Hirth, DG, et al sell a
> year ... anyone got some data ?????

Without a growing sport, any sales increase we make within the present
community will be short-lived, because after a few years, everyone that
wants a glider will have one, and the volume will drop off. These things
aren't like cars - they last for a long, long time, and have to crashed
badly to remove them from the fleet.

Having lower cost gliders will help the sport, of course, but I think it
the effect is being overestimated. When someone decides to start flying
lessons, it is not because they see a new LS4 can be bought for $30,000
instead of $40,000.

To sustain the large volume of production that we speculate may be
needed to lower costs means we have to have many more people becoming
serious sailplane pilots (serious enough to buy a glider) every year,
year after year, to build the market for all those gliders.

Frankly, we already have cheap gliders via the used market and the
medium performance gliders. What we don't have is cheap, new, high
performance gliders so lusted for by the RAS pilots, but these are not
the gliders that will bring in new pilots.

>
> Finally you don't need to point out that the above is somewhat idealistic. I
> am very aware of this but unless we look to the future, challenge ourselves
> to do better and make significant progress in the direction of costs and
> affordability we will not have a viable sport. Someone has to start to do
> the dreaming if we are going to have any hope of solving the problem. Anyone
> share that vision ?

If I am right, that the viability of the sport does not depend on cheap,
new, high performance gliders, perhaps this is a good thing: it might be
more difficult to solve that high-volume production problem than the one
of getting more people into the sport and retaining them by improving
access to the sport by other means.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

"smjmitchell" > wrote in message
u...
> What I think we need is a new way of building gliders.
<snip>
> Assuming a composite glider, what I have in mind is tape laying machines,
> filament winding, RTM methods etc. All other areas of the composites
> industry are moving this way - I am sure sailplanes will eventually. There
> are also other innovative ways to build sailplanes if we are really
willing
> to think outside the square. Also CNC machines for all metal parts etc.
Also
> the design is important we need more efficient design processes and tools
> and more effort needs to be invested to reduce parts count. Perhaps there
is
> a better way to build a composite airframe than the standard foam sandwich
> approach. We will not know unless we challenge ourselves to do it.
>
A significant part of Burt Rutan's Boomerang was built using filament
winding process. Pre-preg composites are promising and reduce layup time.
However, there may be real problems repairing damage to such components. So
frontend gains may lead to larger backend costs. I would expect some impact
on insurance rates as a result. It may be possible to make the advantages
outweigh the disadvantages.

Frank Whiteley

[Bob]

Ok, I'm going to weigh in here!

I am a relatively new glider pilot but I have flown power, hang
gliders. I have also been a skydiver. I am now living in Germany and
as I have a glider club 10 minutes from the house, last year I decided
to get my soaring license. I could have used my power ticket o get a
license here in a short time but that (I feel) would have been a
mistake. The differences in the 2 sports go beyond landing,
navigation, and airspace knowledge.

I am also a sailor and have built sailboats commercially. The biggest
gains in efficiency in sailboat production came about from modular
construction. This is being used in the sailplane building process to
some extent.

But!!! The next biggest gain would be in using 2 part molds for the
wings and fuselage. What this means is there is a mold with 2 parts
for the upper wing and 2 parts for the lower wing. This means the wing
skins would have 4 molds (port and starboard). The fuse would have 4
molds (2 port and 2 starboard). This would decrease the amount of
labor involved in each part.

The upper wing mold would include the spar cavity, you would lay the
spar into the inside upper wing mold spar cavity before laying the
wing skin. Using precut/prepreg E glass with Divincell (or other
appropriate) cellular core, you would lay the skin and spray gel coat
on the upper (outer) mold and compress the 2 molds. Using vacuum and
heat to assure proper resin consistency will mitigate voids and
delamination problems.

When the upper wing skin is cured it would be mated with the lower
wing skin (both still in there outer molds) and bonded. The airbrake
module would slide into the laser cut bay in the upper wing with
Kevlar rigging wires (not pushrods). The aileron and the aileron
controls (also Kevlar wire) would be installed.

The fuse would follow the same procedure.

Now, we must build 2-300 of these planes just to break even on the
tooling (not development) so we have to agree on one design,
preferably one already in existence. If we could sell 4-500 units in a
2-3 year time frame then we could (possibly) have a viable business
model.

Sound like an LS4 clone to me!

Bob

(The proceeding is a very opinionated and un-researched scenario)

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <k1qld.501341$mD.200090@attbi_s02>,
"Bill Daniels" > wrote:

> The choice is a shrinking sport, a stagnant one or a growing one. I think
> the happiest choice is a growing one. Cheaper gliders are a part of the
> solution.

I agree.

And you can't grow the sport by everyone buying used LS4s and Discii.
Only newly-built gliders can do it.

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

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> There are already gliders available to the hang glider pilots with much
> superior performance to a competition hang glider for _same_ price as
> competition hang glider. Take a look at the used gliders available: the
> Ka-6 and even the 1-26 can meet your target.

I don't know why people keep saying things like this. You can *not*
significantly grow gliding by people buying Ka-6's or 1-26's. They
aren't *MAKING* them any more, there is a only a very limited number
around, and if you made new ones they'd cost as much or more as a PW-5
(whcih is better than either of them, albiet marginally in the case of
the K6) anyway.

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Bruce Hoult wrote:
> In article >,
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>
>>There are already gliders available to the hang glider pilots with much
>>superior performance to a competition hang glider for _same_ price as
>>competition hang glider. Take a look at the used gliders available: the
>>Ka-6 and even the 1-26 can meet your target.
>
>
> I don't know why people keep saying things like this. You can *not*
> significantly grow gliding by people buying Ka-6's or 1-26's. They
> aren't *MAKING* them any more, there is a only a very limited number
> around,

And yet they are very cheap, which is why I suggest there aren't enough
pilots interested in gliding. If hang glider pilots were falling all
over each other to move into low cost gliders with substantially better
performance than their hang gliders, we'd see higher prices. I don't
think it is the glider _supply_ that is lacking, it is the _demand_ for
gliders that is missing.

and if you made new ones they'd cost as much or more as a PW-5
> (whcih is better than either of them, albiet marginally in the case of
> the K6) anyway.

I agree. But do you think there would be more people starting gliding
lessons if they could buy a new LS4 for $40,000 US instead of $50,000?
Or even it it was only $30,000? I don't think there would be any more
starting pilots, though we would probably keep a few more. It will take
a lot more than that to get the LS4 volume up to where the $30,000 price
is possible.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> > I don't know why people keep saying things like this. You can *not*
> > significantly grow gliding by people buying Ka-6's or 1-26's. They
> > aren't *MAKING* them any more, there is a only a very limited number
> > around,
>
> And yet they are very cheap, which is why I suggest there aren't enough
> pilots interested in gliding. If hang glider pilots were falling all
> over each other to move into low cost gliders with substantially better
> performance than their hang gliders, we'd see higher prices. I don't
> think it is the glider _supply_ that is lacking, it is the _demand_ for
> gliders that is missing.

Yes, that's a good point.

Perhaps the hang glider pilots simply don't *know* about these cheap
gliders? Or perhaps they value being able to climb an arbitrary peak
and jump off too much? In which case they're not going to be happy with
less than a self-launching glider.


> and if you made new ones they'd cost as much or more as a PW-5
> > (whcih is better than either of them, albiet marginally in the case of
> > the K6) anyway.
>
> I agree. But do you think there would be more people starting gliding
> lessons if they could buy a new LS4 for $40,000 US instead of $50,000?
> Or even it it was only $30,000? I don't think there would be any more
> starting pilots, though we would probably keep a few more. It will take
> a lot more than that to get the LS4 volume up to where the $30,000 price
> is possible.

Personally, I think a new PW-5 or similar for $15k is a pretty damn good
thing. It seems that others don't think so. I'm wierd I guess.

I fly a Janus (and have flown DG1000 and Duo) and they're nice, but for
flying cross country I actually *prefer* a PW-5 (and I was flying one
yesterday). Sure, you can't go as far or as fast but you can still
challenge youself and there are plenty of days when the PW-5 can stay up
but the Janus can't (yes I know the reverse is true in some
places/conditions).

OTOH I've never flown a single-seater with more performance than a
Libelle (about 65 hours in Libelles, Std and Club), so I probably don't
have a clue what a *real* glider flies like anyway. Is an LS-4 *that*
much better than a Libelle?

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

[Brad]

> > Finally you don't need to point out that the above is somewhat idealistic. I
> > am very aware of this but unless we look to the future, challenge ourselves
> > to do better and make significant progress in the direction of costs and
> > affordability we will not have a viable sport. Someone has to start to do
> > the dreaming if we are going to have any hope of solving the problem. Anyone
> > share that vision ?

Well, since I seem to dwell a lot in the idealistic sense when it
comes to glider design/building I'll chime in.

My vision of my idealistic glider would be a self-launcher. It would
be something between a TST-10 and an Apis 15m.

The engine installation would be an engine on a stick, I would look
into using the extension/retraction system the Russia AC-5M uses,
electric start would be good.......since this engine already exists
with the MZ-35, I would probably choose this engine.....although it
seems 2-stroke technology is booming these days....just look at the
power plants being developed for the powered parachutes........the
Cors-Air Black devil would even work for what I have in mind. Probably
there are even more out there that I am unaware of, and I have done
lot's of homework on this subject.

The mission statement for this sailplane would not be for racing, it
would be tailored towards recreational flying.

It would look sexy; D2 type planform with a modified D2/V2 type
fuselage shape.....because I think these are archetypes of modern
sailplane design......here is where I end my similarities.........I do
not need a racer, or a heavy ship, or a ship with all the modern
accoutrements......these are the refinements that make a glider so
expensive. I believe the R & D that goes into these ships is cutting
edge: airfoils, boundry layer devices, tooling......this all adds up,
as it should, and pilots who buy and fly these masterpieces have every
right to be proud and have high expectations for performance and
quality.

Now.....back to my dream machine. This ship would be built using wet
layup technolgy, it would use a lot of carbon, the wings would be
sandwich construction and the fuselage would be carbon with ring
bulkheads and stringers. It is somewhat true that the cockpits of
these "lightweights" are sparse, but I believe with proper use of
Kevlar and a combination of integral seat and cockpit longerons a safe
and lightweight fuselage could be made.

I would strive to make the parts count as small as possible to
minimize the cost in time and $$. A set of molds could be made if
there was interest in such an idea, to facilitate making multiple
bits, but there are other tried and true manufacturing methods a guy
could use to make it a one-off and not incur the expense of hard
tooling......the trade off is hours of labor to fair the outer
surfaces to your level of quality.

I really believe that an elegant, nice performing ship is possible to
manufacture and with diligence could be done and sold for a price a
lot of us would find appealing.

Well, that's my dream of a west-side sailplane.

Cheers,
Brad
199Ak

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:03:17 +1300, Bruce Hoult >
wrote:

>Sure, you can't go as far or as fast but you can still
>challenge youself and there are plenty of days when the PW-5 can stay up
>but the Janus can't (yes I know the reverse is true in some
>places/conditions).

Here in Germany the same story is told about the Ka-6/Ka-8 and glass
gliders - it's the legend of the weather that allows the lighter
gliders with inferior L/D to stay airborne while the "heavy" gliders
with good L/D need to land.

Unfortunately I never had the pleasure to meet anyone who saw this
happen. ;)


>Is an LS-4 *that*
>much better than a Libelle?

Yes.
"That much" is a question of taste of course. Flying an LS-4 or DG-300
in a team with a Libelle means that you have to pull the flaps after
each 3rd thermal and get rid of 500 ft if you want to stay together
with him. To me this is a vast difference.







Bye
Andreas

[Eric Greenwell]

Bruce Hoult wrote:
> In article >,
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>
>>>I don't know why people keep saying things like this. You can *not*
>>>significantly grow gliding by people buying Ka-6's or 1-26's. They
>>>aren't *MAKING* them any more, there is a only a very limited number
>>>around,
>>
>>And yet they are very cheap, which is why I suggest there aren't enough
>>pilots interested in gliding. If hang glider pilots were falling all
>>over each other to move into low cost gliders with substantially better
>>performance than their hang gliders, we'd see higher prices. I don't
>>think it is the glider _supply_ that is lacking, it is the _demand_ for
>>gliders that is missing.
>
>
> Yes, that's a good point.
>
> Perhaps the hang glider pilots simply don't *know* about these cheap
> gliders?

I think this is a big part of it. They generally aren't where the
sailplane crowd is, and vice versa.

> Or perhaps they value being able to climb an arbitrary peak
> and jump off too much?

This is also part of it. The lack of regulation (licenses, biennial
reviews, and so on) is appealing to everyone, but perhaps more so the
younger crowd.

THe former hang glider pilots (and now sailplane pilots) I've talked to
indicated that as they got older, they began to notice the advantages of
sailplanes:

* much less physical effort and pain to fly
* every cross-country flight doesn't end in a retrieve
* the glider doesn't wear out and lose half it's value in a 3-4 years
* you don't beat up your car/truck driving over miles and hours of
crummy logging roads to get to the launch site (the drive to the airport
is easy, comparatively, even if it's farther away)
* said site is often without the right wind or thermals when you get there
* you don't have so many friends that seem to have a death wish
* and the wife is estactic that they leave late in the morning and
actually get home before dinner!

> In which case they're not going to be happy with
> less than a self-launching glider.

They can be very happy, because of the advantages listed above. All of
these pilots are still working, so weekend flying is fine with them,
andbecause soaring is more likely in a sailplane than a hang glider on a
any given day.

snip
>
> Personally, I think a new PW-5 or similar for $15k is a pretty damn good
> thing. It seems that others don't think so. I'm wierd I guess.

Definitely a 3 sigma on RAS!


> OTOH I've never flown a single-seater with more performance than a
> Libelle (about 65 hours in Libelles, Std and Club), so I probably don't
> have a clue what a *real* glider flies like anyway. Is an LS-4 *that*
> much better than a Libelle?

I doubt it, based on the gliders I've flown. A nicer glider all around,
but the flights won't be much better.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[smjmitchell]

As many posts have pointed out the problem of dwindling numbers in soaring
is more complex than simply the cost of gliders ... however the cost of
gliders is a big factor. Lets not confuse current debate by bringing in
other issues. These issues (some of which I list below should be debated
separately).

Other issues are:
* Tow costs (this needs to be addressed by lighter smaller gliders than can
be towed by ultralight or smaller more compact winches).
* Access to two seat training and instructors (no point is producing new low
cost sailplanes if there is no affordable two seat trainers).
* Most pilots who enter the sport with a desire to fly competition quickly
realise that this is the domain of the wealthy and quickly decide that they
cannot affort this elitist sport (we need an affordable and active one
design class).
* Lack of young people (aging glider pilot population - currently not the
sort of scene that young people want to hang around - hang gliding and
skydiving are better alternatives for young people. Young people consider
glider clubs to be something akin to a retirement home).
* External financial pressures means that people have less to spend on
gliding (rising cost of housing, social pressures to live a more extravigant
lifestyle).
* The entry cost of our sport is too high (I am continually frustrated by
the comments of the small group of people who fly Discus' and LS-7's etc
that state that the cost is the cost - goddam it - the people we should be
attracting to the sport are the young. The 20-50 year olds. Those with
families and mortgages - how the hell are they supposed to afford a
$100,000+ glider. They will however be those who can affort these gliders in
later years. Gliding is a good family sport but the elitist attitude of a
minority is cutting of the supply of new members at the grass roots level).
* The current club environment is probably no longer a valid model for the
basis of our sport - we are now competing with many other sports that have
developed far more efficient models (in cost and time) and have promoted
themselves in a much more sophisticated manner. Take a close look at the
parachute industry ... they run large skydive centres near major cities,
they have a commercial basis, they attract the young by the hundreds, equal
mix of females and males which is important to the young. You go, you pay,
you do, you socialise a little and then go home. No hassle, a good time had
by all. Gliding has too many hassles.


Minestones in Glider Design:

The point I was trying to make in several earlier posts is that it is time
for a new designer to emerge with ideas that will take gliding in a new
direction. The current gliders designs have matured to an almost uniform
degree of conformity. Think back through history and the names of several
designers loom large that have shaped modern soaring:

Rudolf Kaiser (KA-6/7 and AS-K series)
Karel Dlouhy (Blanik)
Eugen Hanle (Libelle)
Gerhard Waible (AS-W series)
Klaus Holligaus (Cirrus, Nimbus, Janus, Discuss)
and there are others ....

Think how the creations of each of these designers changed the course of
gliding. Most of these designers created gliders that set new levels in
glider performance. We have reached a point now where we can no longer
afford more performance. We need creative ideas to reduce cost. We need a
new bunch of designers to tackle this issue. This problem is not unique to
gliders ... take jet fighters for instance. Exactly the same issue exists.
There comes a point where you have to balance cost and performance.


Costs of Labour:

Hang gliders and Paragliders are increasingly being made in China. To keep
the cost of labour down. There was a recent article in the 'Oz Report' (the
daily HG email newletter) that stated that there is one factory in China
that makes 7000 sails a year. It has to happen ... how long before we will
have a Chinese Discus or Apis. The cost of labour is the biggest hurdle that
manufacturers have to deal with (say 400 hrs x $50 = $20000). Either reduce
the number of hours by automation or reduce the labour rate. Glider
manufacturers need to be looking to China or Mexico etc. Of course this is
only a temporary fix to the problem. As living standards rise in these
courties so will the cost of labour. So ultimately out challenge is to
automate production for the long term.


Old Cheap Gliders:

This is not going to fix the problem.
* The supply is limited.
* Styling out of date (you may laugh but styling is important - perhaps why
the PW-5 was not as big a hit as it should have been).
* They require a lot more maintenance because of the age and construction
techniques.
* The are heavier to tow and rig than a AC-4 or Apis.
* If people are spending 15K+ then they want something new.
* They simply don't have the performance of an Apis or AC-4.


Performance:

I think arguements such as this are always hijacked by those who fly
competitively in high performance gliders. They could not see themselves in
a PW-5 or AC-4. This is one of our fundamental problems - no one is speaking
for the members we are yet to attract . For most beginner to intermediate
pilots the AC-4 or PW-5 are great little gliders that they can do a lot
with, learn heaps in and probably the only glider that they will really ever
need - especially if there was sufficient volume of these gliders to have an
active competition scene.


Certification and Light Plane Category:

We need a worldwide uniform standard for the new crop of gliders. JAR-22 was
previously almost universal but times have changed. The future will be in
the light sport / ultralight area. The current crop of ultralight sailplanes
are for the most part on shakey ground certification wise. Most of them are
somehow made legal in the ultralight categories of various countries. This
needs to be fixed and fixed urgently so that those making these machines
have some increased certainty. Light Sport aircraft are the future in the US
but there is no design standard. We need an ASTM subcommittee to start
looking at an ASTM glider standard - we already have standards for Light
Sport Aircraft (Powered) and Powered Parachutes etc. We also need handbooks
and guidance material on how to certificate gliders in a cost efficient
manner ... probably a task for OSTIV ????

[Steve Bralla]

In article >, "smjmitchell"
> writes:

>There is ample evidence in the hang glider world and indeed in other leisure
>sport products that the volume would increase dramatically if the price
>could be reduced.

I haven't been active in hang gliding in several years so I must have missed
the dramatic increase in activity after the price reduction. All I've heard
about is the reduction in hang gliding worldwide. That even counting
paragliding as part on hang gliding.
The Apis (kit) is 166% the cost of an Atos VX (rigid wind hang glider). $12K vs
$20K.
I don't think it's the rise in cost, it's the change in society.

Steve

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:06:04 +1100, "smjmitchell"
> wrote:

>As many posts have pointed out the problem of dwindling numbers in soaring
>is more complex than simply the cost of gliders ... however the cost of
>gliders is a big factor. Lets not confuse current debate by bringing in
>other issues. These issues (some of which I list below should be debated
>separately).
>
There are many reasons that new gliders will NOT be made in the US,
and most of them are out of the control of the people that would like
to see them.

First, cost. Can it be made cheaply with a high profit? No.

Can it be made to a low quality standard and still be serviceable?
Again, no.

Any company head that has been "trained" in the last thirty years is
going to have foremost on his mind, "can we outsource." This is going
to have a chilling effect on those that can afford it, but are
dependent on maintaining a means of support when it comes time to open
the wallet.

It requires a reasonable sustained effort to learn, "reasonable
sustained effort" is now something that our "institutions of higher
learning" teach is to be avoided. Fast and cheap is the only way now.

IOW, there has been a basic change of attitudes in the US, from "Can
do", to "It's impossible." From, "It's old, but it was well built,
let's rebuild it" to "It's cheap, throw it away and buy a new one."
And the downhill spiral begins as one manufacturer after another tries
to "outcheap" the next, to maintain, "market share."

It used to be that someone entering the workforce had a reasonable
expectation of having a job, a means of income for the rest of his/her
working life. The only question today is how many jobs you will have
in your lifetime, there is no such thing as a job you can depend on,
thing of the past. Restore some stability in peoples daily lives, and
you might find a market, and a few more that will attempt flying, but
until there's stability again, it won't happen. As with one person I
know, lost the job with a major communications company, said screw it,
retired. Enough money to live on, but don't look there for one to
start flying.

And yes, the Chinese can probably make things cheaper, due to the lack
of good paying jobs there. The problem is that when they've cut YOUR
income, through competition, to THEIR level, a used and abused 1-26 is
still going to be out of your reach.

It isn't just a soaring problem, it's a global problem. That nobody
seems to want to look at. I don't see it improving during my
lifetime.

[Pete Reinhart]

Brad,
It's starting to sound a bit like an HP-24, only smaller.
Cheers!


"Brad" > wrote in message
om...
> > > Finally you don't need to point out that the above is somewhat
idealistic. I
> > > am very aware of this but unless we look to the future, challenge
ourselves
> > > to do better and make significant progress in the direction of costs
and
> > > affordability we will not have a viable sport. Someone has to start to
do
> > > the dreaming if we are going to have any hope of solving the problem.
Anyone
> > > share that vision ?
>
> Well, since I seem to dwell a lot in the idealistic sense when it
> comes to glider design/building I'll chime in.
>
> My vision of my idealistic glider would be a self-launcher. It would
> be something between a TST-10 and an Apis 15m.
>
> The engine installation would be an engine on a stick, I would look
> into using the extension/retraction system the Russia AC-5M uses,
> electric start would be good.......since this engine already exists
> with the MZ-35, I would probably choose this engine.....although it
> seems 2-stroke technology is booming these days....just look at the
> power plants being developed for the powered parachutes........the
> Cors-Air Black devil would even work for what I have in mind. Probably
> there are even more out there that I am unaware of, and I have done
> lot's of homework on this subject.
>
> The mission statement for this sailplane would not be for racing, it
> would be tailored towards recreational flying.
>
> It would look sexy; D2 type planform with a modified D2/V2 type
> fuselage shape.....because I think these are archetypes of modern
> sailplane design......here is where I end my similarities.........I do
> not need a racer, or a heavy ship, or a ship with all the modern
> accoutrements......these are the refinements that make a glider so
> expensive. I believe the R & D that goes into these ships is cutting
> edge: airfoils, boundry layer devices, tooling......this all adds up,
> as it should, and pilots who buy and fly these masterpieces have every
> right to be proud and have high expectations for performance and
> quality.
>
> Now.....back to my dream machine. This ship would be built using wet
> layup technolgy, it would use a lot of carbon, the wings would be
> sandwich construction and the fuselage would be carbon with ring
> bulkheads and stringers. It is somewhat true that the cockpits of
> these "lightweights" are sparse, but I believe with proper use of
> Kevlar and a combination of integral seat and cockpit longerons a safe
> and lightweight fuselage could be made.
>
> I would strive to make the parts count as small as possible to
> minimize the cost in time and $$. A set of molds could be made if
> there was interest in such an idea, to facilitate making multiple
> bits, but there are other tried and true manufacturing methods a guy
> could use to make it a one-off and not incur the expense of hard
> tooling......the trade off is hours of labor to fair the outer
> surfaces to your level of quality.
>
> I really believe that an elegant, nice performing ship is possible to
> manufacture and with diligence could be done and sold for a price a
> lot of us would find appealing.
>
> Well, that's my dream of a west-side sailplane.
>
> Cheers,
> Brad
> 199Ak

[Eric Greenwell]

smjmitchell wrote:

snip

>
> Think how the creations of each of these designers changed the course of
> gliding. Most of these designers created gliders that set new levels in
> glider performance. We have reached a point now where we can no longer
> afford more performance. We need creative ideas to reduce cost. We need a
> new bunch of designers to tackle this issue. snip

Mitchell makes some good points, and I agree with them in general, but I
think the focus for cheaper gliders should be on the gliders clubs and
commercial operations will buy. If cheap, good gliders are going to
increase the number of pilots, we need these gliders where these new
pilots will see them and use them.

For example, if a brand new PW5 or similar was only $10,000, that would
make it almost irresistible to a lot of clubs. The members would have a
good transition to cross-country flying from the two seat trainers;
bigger clubs could afford more than one; and many new pilots would
become private owners of this glider.

Eventually, as the number of pilots increased, so would the demand for
higher performance to where a high volume, lower cost LS4 equivalent
could be practical to manufacture. My belief is we have to ensure the
demand first, then build that cheap LS4.

I realize a $10,000 PW5 equivalent is a dream, when even the low tech
trailer for it will cost $5000, but I hope you see the point that lower
cost high performance gliders at the high end won't do as much for
soaring as a low cost medium performance glider. The high end glider
only appeals to those already committed to the sport.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Daniels]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> smjmitchell wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >
> > Think how the creations of each of these designers changed the course of
> > gliding. Most of these designers created gliders that set new levels in
> > glider performance. We have reached a point now where we can no longer
> > afford more performance. We need creative ideas to reduce cost. We need
a
> > new bunch of designers to tackle this issue. snip
>
> Mitchell makes some good points, and I agree with them in general, but I
> think the focus for cheaper gliders should be on the gliders clubs and
> commercial operations will buy. If cheap, good gliders are going to
> increase the number of pilots, we need these gliders where these new
> pilots will see them and use them.
>
> For example, if a brand new PW5 or similar was only $10,000, that would
> make it almost irresistible to a lot of clubs. The members would have a
> good transition to cross-country flying from the two seat trainers;
> bigger clubs could afford more than one; and many new pilots would
> become private owners of this glider.
>
> Eventually, as the number of pilots increased, so would the demand for
> higher performance to where a high volume, lower cost LS4 equivalent
> could be practical to manufacture. My belief is we have to ensure the
> demand first, then build that cheap LS4.
>
> I realize a $10,000 PW5 equivalent is a dream, when even the low tech
> trailer for it will cost $5000, but I hope you see the point that lower
> cost high performance gliders at the high end won't do as much for
> soaring as a low cost medium performance glider. The high end glider
> only appeals to those already committed to the sport.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA


Finding a way to produce a 'cheap' LS4 isn't going to be the result of
re-shuffling the compromises that produced the LS4 in the first place.
Composite gliders are made the way they are because hand labor can produce a
high performance product in low quantities. There's not a lot a room for
improvement in that process. (Finding cheap labor will be a short term
solution since once they can produce a quality product, they won't be cheap
anymore.)

What's needed is a breakthrough in materials and processes. I don't know
what that is or if it's even possible but if we are to succeed, it will
require thinking WAY "outside the box".

A modern glider is a very large assembly of light, strong, highly accurate
parts. How do we do that cheaply? Solve that riddle and you will be a
legend.

Bill Daniels

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>And yet they are very cheap, which is why I suggest there aren't enough
>pilots interested in gliding. If hang glider pilots were falling all
>over each other to move into low cost gliders with substantially better
>performance than their hang gliders, we'd see higher prices. I don't
>think it is the glider _supply_ that is lacking, it is the _demand_ for
>gliders that is missing.

YES YES YES! How about a picture of Mike Melville next to space ship
one on the cover of Soaring? Then how about somebody giving him a
brand new glider in exchange for a few publicity photos?

Maybe a self-launcher :)

>Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA


--

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

[Shawn]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>smjmitchell wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>
>>>Think how the creations of each of these designers changed the course of
>>>gliding. Most of these designers created gliders that set new levels in
>>>glider performance. We have reached a point now where we can no longer
>>>afford more performance. We need creative ideas to reduce cost. We need
>
> a
>
>>>new bunch of designers to tackle this issue. snip
>>
>>Mitchell makes some good points, and I agree with them in general, but I
>> think the focus for cheaper gliders should be on the gliders clubs and
>>commercial operations will buy. If cheap, good gliders are going to
>>increase the number of pilots, we need these gliders where these new
>>pilots will see them and use them.
>>
>>For example, if a brand new PW5 or similar was only $10,000, that would
>>make it almost irresistible to a lot of clubs. The members would have a
>>good transition to cross-country flying from the two seat trainers;
>>bigger clubs could afford more than one; and many new pilots would
>>become private owners of this glider.
>>
>>Eventually, as the number of pilots increased, so would the demand for
>>higher performance to where a high volume, lower cost LS4 equivalent
>>could be practical to manufacture. My belief is we have to ensure the
>>demand first, then build that cheap LS4.
>>
>>I realize a $10,000 PW5 equivalent is a dream, when even the low tech
>>trailer for it will cost $5000, but I hope you see the point that lower
>>cost high performance gliders at the high end won't do as much for
>>soaring as a low cost medium performance glider. The high end glider
>>only appeals to those already committed to the sport.
>>
>>--
>>Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>
>>Eric Greenwell
>>Washington State
>>USA
>
>
>
> Finding a way to produce a 'cheap' LS4 isn't going to be the result of
> re-shuffling the compromises that produced the LS4 in the first place.
> Composite gliders are made the way they are because hand labor can produce a
> high performance product in low quantities. There's not a lot a room for
> improvement in that process. (Finding cheap labor will be a short term
> solution since once they can produce a quality product, they won't be cheap
> anymore.)
>
> What's needed is a breakthrough in materials and processes. I don't know
> what that is or if it's even possible but if we are to succeed, it will
> require thinking WAY "outside the box".
>
> A modern glider is a very large assembly of light, strong, highly accurate
> parts. How do we do that cheaply? Solve that riddle and you will be a
> legend.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>
Injection molding the surface. Build a light strong substructure, place
it in the mold, squirt in the surface material. The structural parts
would have to have some way for the surface to bond to it. Various
possibilities exist. Wait for the epoxy to cure, pop it in an oven for
a while-whatever. Remove nearly finished product.
The surface would have to be fairly thin to avoid weighing a ton, but
their are lots of very strong, light plastics and moldable composites
out there.
A big advantage I can see is that the structure doesn't have to have the
ultra-smooth surface required for laminar flow. The aerodynamic surface
isn't load bearing. Both can be optimized for their purpose.
Surface repairs wouldn't be structural. Perhaps you could ship a wing
back to the factory and have a new surface reapplied. Who knows.
The surface material could be optimized to avoid cracks and
deterioration due to UV, thus eliminating the need for complete
refinishing. Colors anyone? :-)
The surface material would have to have similar expansion and
contraction properties to the structure.
The surface could be heavy. On the other side the structure could
probably be made ridiculously light. Don't really know though
Just a thought.
Flame away!

Shawn

[Mark James Boyd]

Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
>Perhaps the hang glider pilots simply don't *know* about these cheap
>gliders? Or perhaps they value being able to climb an arbitrary peak
>and jump off too much? In which case they're not going to be happy with
>less than a self-launching glider.

I think they *know* about these cheap gliders. They also *know* about the
FAA, and $4k cost of training, sales tax, and paying taxes on the thing
every year, and stupid TSA crap that can then possibly rob them of it all.

I'd bet the FAA really isn't interested at all in gliders either,
and we'd have a BGA type setup if we used mostly winches instead of
commonly aerotowing with FAA Numbered aircraft, in the USA.

>
>
>Personally, I think a new PW-5 or similar for $15k is a pretty damn good
>thing. It seems that others don't think so. I'm wierd I guess.

How about that "$11k when bought with a PW-6 deal?" My God, if
anyone wanted to sell me their $11k brand new PW-5 that just "came along"
with the PW-6, I'd pinch myself...
--

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

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "Pete Reinhart" > wrote:

> Brad,
> It's starting to sound a bit like an HP-24, only smaller.

Funny about that... ;)

Seriously, I do have a 13m ship on the drawing board, and I'm holding
a project number for it. It will use a lot of the shapes and internal
parts I've already developed for the HP-24. But it'll stay a paper
airplane until either a) I get at least one or two -24s in the air or
b) the prospective 13m market shows signs of heating up.

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

[smjmitchell]

> What's needed is a breakthrough in materials and processes. I don't know
> what that is or if it's even possible but if we are to succeed, it will
> require thinking WAY "outside the box".

Agreed it certainly will need some creativity but I am sure it can happen.
It is presumably no more of a step forward than that made by the first
composite sailplanes (Phoebus and Libelle) when compared to the state of the
art at the time, gliders such as the K-6.

It is also probably not something that one person can do in isolation. I
believe we need a 'think tank' (possibly an OSTIV or SSA committee) composed
of existing glider designers, composite specialists, people with
certification background and experienced glider pilots and maintainers. This
would however require careful management because you know what they say
about things designed by a committee. I guess the think tank would generate
concepts and ideas that members could take away (i.e. by direct involvement
in discussions or through published papers and reports) to use in developing
gliders. I don't envisage such a committee actually designing a glider.

I don't think advances such as this can come from academia (with a few
exceptions such as Boermans at Delft but then this is not about
aerodynamics). Academics don't understand commercial pressures and I doubt
they would have a good enough grip on the practical side of manufacturing
and certification.

Rapid advances are currently being made in improving the producability of
composites in yachts, wind turbines and many other commercial applications
(for example see some of the articles at www.compositesworld.com and
subscribe to one of the free magazines they offer).

I would also like to make one additional point re certification. One other
post touched on this subject with reference to the BGA. I think we need to
take a careful look at whether the regulator side of the certification
process could be delegated to an industry body by the FAA and by other
airworthiness authorities around the world. This is not easy to do in a
strict regulatory sence (only the FAA can issue a TC) but it would make
certification cheaper and potentially easier to achieve (for instance the
FAA would simply consider a glider certification program a nuisance, an
industry group with gliding in their blood could encourage and help the
applicant - something they could never expect from the FAA). Costs could
also be lower because a lot of the compliance finding could be done by
enthusiasts for much lower rates than the FAA would charge. I think it is
time that the SSA took a lead in this area and looked at what can be done
under the Sport Plane category. To be honest I don't know quite how
something similar could be done in Europe with their current regulatory
environment.

[Bruce Greeff]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Welcome to soaring, John.
>
> The 'crowded skies' bogy is largely a fabrication of the evening news
> 'talking heads' and their editors who want to frighten people into watching
> their programs (and their sponsors commercials).
>
> In actuality, on the busiest days, there are only about 5000 aircraft
> airborne over the 48 states at any time. Most of these are at altitudes
> much higher than gliders usually fly or in the vicinity of major airports.
> As avgas prices increase, the private piston fleet flies fewer and fewer
> hours so the traffic density below 18,000 feet may actually be decreasing.
> Most glider flying is done in remote areas where air traffic is very low.
> In summary, there's LOTS of room in the sky to fly gliders. The glider
> fleet could increase tenfold or more without problems.
>
> Where a problem might arise is with the 'uphill capacity' of a local soaring
> operation to launch a large number of gliders. A solution is 'self-launch'
> gliders or my preferred solution - winches.
>
> Unfortunately, it's a fact that the population of glider pilots is shrinking
> which translates into fewer businesses and clubs where one can find gliders
> to fly or tows to launch privately owned gliders.
>
> The choice is a shrinking sport, a stagnant one or a growing one. I think
> the happiest choice is a growing one. Cheaper gliders are a part of the
> solution.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>
>
Hey Bill

Happy to announce that in some parts soaring is growing. We had four gliders in
one thermal on Sunday for the first time since I joined the club four years ago.
We could have launched one more, but the bridle for the Blanik failed launching
#1, so #2 had to go back to the hangar.

Used to be we battled to have enough members around to get an instructor and
student up reliably. On a good day we might launch two simultaneously, but three
was very very rare.

For what it is worth we had a very strange day with 7/8 or more cloud a lot of
the time, but lots of lift. Presumably the cold air caused by rain in the area
was drifting in and displacing relatively warmer air. In the occasional bit of
sunshine the thermals were very tight but very strong. Had the unusual
experience of getting 3-4m/s up at 20minutes to legal sunset. Airbrakes open for
most of the last fifteen minutes... (Thinks, maybe this is how the British
weather works)

Strange but fun. Which is the point, focus on it being fun and people join, I am
no longer the youngster at the club (at 40). This is also good.
>
>
> "JohnWN in Burke, VA" > wrote in message
> news:Uvpld.1596$iR.1168@lakeread04...
>
>>I'm so new at soaring that I have only taken one glider ride in my life.
>>Having established that I'm not an expert on much of anything, here's my 2
>>cents worth. The VOLUME envisioned to make an affordable plane would
>>possibly make VFR flight impossible because of the huge number of planes
>
> in
>
>>the air. So getting a cheap sailplane, might kill the sport that you want
>>to promote. I can imagine having to apply for an airspace usage permit
>
> much
>
>>as we have to apply months or years in advance for reservations at some of
>>the most popular National Parks. On the other hand, I'm one of the people
>>that will have to join a club to have afford access to a plane.
>>
>>My two cents
>>
>
> ...john___________________________________________ __________________________
> _____________________________________
>
>>"smjmitchell" > wrote in message
u...
>>
>>>I don't think that performance is a big cost driver.
>>>
>>>The major cost drivers are:
>>>* development costs
>>>* certification costs
>>>* labour (for production)
>>>* raw material costs
>>>
>>>I suspect that all of these drivers will have a similar value
>
> irrespective
>
>>>of whether the glider is a APIS, 1-26 or LS-4. OK ... maybe the material
>>>cost will vary a little but the difference is not going to result in a
>>>glider that is 1/3 or 1/2 cheaper.
>>>
>>>The biggest issue with the cost of airplanes is quite simply VOLUME. ...
>>
>>
>>
>

[OscarCVox]

What about the Discus CS?
Made in the Czech republic. Design costs amortised years ago. All the
approvals.
Better performance than the LS4. Better handling (yes I have flown both) Since
it is still in production you wouldnt have to start new production lines etc.
Just get it voted as the new world class and we will all be happy

[Eric Greenwell]

OscarCVox wrote:

> What about the Discus CS?
> Made in the Czech republic. Design costs amortised years ago. All the
> approvals.
> Better performance than the LS4. Better handling (yes I have flown both) Since
> it is still in production you wouldnt have to start new production lines etc.
> Just get it voted as the new world class and we will all be happy

Is it significantly cheaper (65% or less) than a glider competitive in
the Standard Class? If it isn't, what's the point? Then we'd have two
Standard Classes.

Is it as cheap as the gliders in the Club class? If it is, what's the
point? Why have two club classes?

I hope the World Class will keep it's vision of low cost competition,
not just "a bit cheaper" competition. I know "we will all be happy"
won't happen if the World Class becomes a "me too" class.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "F.L. Whiteley" > napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci ...
> I don't know if production methods have changed much. Last I knew,
> composite 15m was 1000 hours labor, by far the largest cost component.
(for
> comparison C-172 was something like 372 hours 30 years ago).

So... then we return to what I was talking about previously: move to the
countries where the cost of the workhour is low. Just like here (Poland). We
have experienced tradespersons who are into the glider production technology
(wood, glassfibre, and metal as well). Those guys are well qualified, and
don't want too much in reward - the German worker often wants even 30Euros
for his hour. A Pole here woll be happy working for 3-4 US Dollars per hour.
See the difference?
If the production of glider demands 1000 workhours, then labour cost for
Germany may be 39000US$ (at Euro/Dollar = 1.30) and for Poland 3500US $ (at
3.5US$/h) that makes 35500US $ saved just by moving production from Germany
(just an example) to Poland. Add to this that lots of other things necessary
for production are a lot more affordable here, as well as the social
insurance and taxes too. We may manufacture the same product at tenth part
of the cost employing same skilled persons. Not only glider's but other
manufacturers can (and they do!) move here to benefit from this.

> If memory serves, development was done by volunteers and university staff
if
> memory serves, so there was only a modest license cost per unit.

The design was simply a Masters Thesis for a group of students of
Politechnika Warszawska (Warsaw University of Technology:
http://www.pw.edu.pl)
done under direction of one of the scientists employed there.

> Doesn't have to be the LS-4b either. The 304 is another very worthy
> candidate. Continuing the PW-5 as a sub-class might also have some
benefit.

Unlike many others, I still say the PW-5 is a good design, which can be
flown by any pilot, at any moment of his development as a pilot, even the
first solo level. The World Class glider was intended to be a 'glider for
everyone', and it is indeed. Maybe LS-4 is very docile, but still requires
'a little bit' more experience than just after the first solo.

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Janusz Kesik]

Uzytkownik "Charles Yeates" > napisal w wiadomosci
...
> Frank
> >
> > Doesn't have to be the LS-4b either. The 304 is another very worthy
> > candidate. Continuing the PW-5 as a sub-class might also have some
benefit.
> >
>
> New =
> LS-4b @ 39,000 Euro
> 304 @ 40,000 Euro
> Smyk @ 17,000 Euro
>
> Why jump up the price of a "one class" ship?

Charles,

I believe it's all about the labour costs. See my post which I have sent
just few minutes ago for details.

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "Mark James Boyd" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:4194f9b2$1@darkstar...
> The SZD 50-3 looked to me to be a neat glider on paper, but the
> abrupt stall/spin characteristics and accident record seem to betray it.
>
It's just a glider which was been designed to spin when asked, and not 'to
be afraid' of full acro. Nothing more. It just needs more attention of the
pilot.

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "smjmitchell" > napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci u...
> Minestones in Glider Design:
>
> The point I was trying to make in several earlier posts is that it is time
> for a new designer to emerge with ideas that will take gliding in a new
> direction. The current gliders designs have matured to an almost uniform
> degree of conformity. Think back through history and the names of several
> designers loom large that have shaped modern soaring:
>
> Rudolf Kaiser (KA-6/7 and AS-K series)
> Karel Dlouhy (Blanik)
> Eugen Hanle (Libelle)
> Gerhard Waible (AS-W series)
> Klaus Holligaus (Cirrus, Nimbus, Janus, Discuss)
> and there are others ....

just like Okarmus & Mynarski (Foka 4/5 + Cobra 15/17)
http://www.piotrp.de/SZYBOWCE/pszd24.htm

and Edward Marganski (Swift S-1 & Fox)
http://www.piotrp.de/SZYBOWCE/pszd24.htm

http://www.piotrp.de/SZYBOWCE/ps1.htm

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Janusz Kesik]

Uzytkownik "Bill Daniels" > napisal w wiadomosci
news:50Nld.85500$HA.42160@attbi_s01...

> Finding a way to produce a 'cheap' LS4 isn't going to be the result of
> re-shuffling the compromises that produced the LS4 in the first place.
> Composite gliders are made the way they are because hand labor can produce
a
> high performance product in low quantities. There's not a lot a room for
> improvement in that process. (Finding cheap labor will be a short term
> solution since once they can produce a quality product, they won't be
cheap
> anymore.)

Not only cheap, but also qualified enough. If You move the production to
China, then when they reach the moment they will be able to produce a brand
new LS-4 which will be of acceptable quality there may be too late, and the
learining process also costs. Isn't it better to move the production some
500km East to the place where there is a lot of guys which are able to
produce it 'with their eyes closed' and still at 3-4US$ / workhour, huh? :)

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Paul]

Janusz Kesik wrote:
> U=BFytkownik "Mark James Boyd" > napisa=B3 w wiado=
mo=B6ci
> news:4194f9b2$1@darkstar...
>=20
>>The SZD 50-3 looked to me to be a neat glider on paper, but the
>>abrupt stall/spin characteristics and accident record seem to betray it=
=2E
>>
>=20
> It's just a glider which was been designed to spin when asked, and not =
'to
> be afraid' of full acro. Nothing more. It just needs more attention of =
the
> pilot.
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
>=20
> --
> Janusz Kesik

Hi Janusz

Whilst I must admit limited experience, 200 odd hours, 200 odd flights=20
over 3 years, and thus my opinion might not be worth much, I am truly=20
mystified by the bad reputation the Puchatz has. I think it is one of=20
the nicest gliders to fly. I fly some limited aerobatics (loops,=20
chandelles, stall turns and spins) and it always seem predictable and=20
controllable. Sure it scared the hell out me when my instructor first=20
showed me the spin, the transition from level flight to nose down=20
attitude was rather quick, but once you experience it know what to=20
expect it is not a problem. Our club has a firm rule that all aerobatic =

maneuvers must finish 1500 ft AGL and maybe that improves the safety=20
margins. I am wondering if the higher rate of spin accidents relates to =

the frequency with which it is used for spin training. After all if a=20
glider is not used to spin, it will have a lower rate of spin accidents. =

I have flown some 9 different glider types, from Blaniks to Ventus B=20
and the Puchatz would have to be the easiest glider to fly. The part I=20
found most curious is the fact that very experienced pilots seem to have =

got them selves into trouble.

Paul

[basils27]

Actuallly if you look at the statistics (in the UK at least) the Puchacz is
only dangerous when there is an instructor on board! The low time pilots
flying solo don't seem to have any problems.

Basil


"Paul" > wrote
Hi Janusz

After all if a
glider is not used to spin, it will have a lower rate of spin accidents.
I have flown some 9 different glider types, from Blaniks to Ventus B
and the Puchatz would have to be the easiest glider to fly. The part I
found most curious is the fact that very experienced pilots seem to have
got them selves into trouble.

Paul

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "basils27" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:1100868621.FL3kxd/mdA9XvztfGXcFRA@teranews...
> Actuallly if you look at the statistics (in the UK at least) the Puchacz
is
> only dangerous when there is an instructor on board! The low time pilots
> flying solo don't seem to have any problems.

Well, maybe this means that the instructors should look at the mirror more
carefully? A routine, bad habits? Could be. I have heard that Puchacz
requires the 'handbook' recovery (the pupils who fly alone just do it like
it is stated in their handbook) so maybe there's a bug - in a so called
'human factor'?

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Jacek Kobiesa]

"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message >...
> Uzytkownik "Bill Daniels" > napisal w wiadomosci
> news:50Nld.85500$HA.42160@attbi_s01...
>
> > Finding a way to produce a 'cheap' LS4 isn't going to be the result of
> > re-shuffling the compromises that produced the LS4 in the first place.
> > Composite gliders are made the way they are because hand labor can produce
> a
> > high performance product in low quantities. There's not a lot a room for
> > improvement in that process. (Finding cheap labor will be a short term
> > solution since once they can produce a quality product, they won't be
> cheap
> > anymore.)
>
> Not only cheap, but also qualified enough. If You move the production to
> China, then when they reach the moment they will be able to produce a brand
> new LS-4 which will be of acceptable quality there may be too late, and the
> learining process also costs. Isn't it better to move the production some
> 500km East to the place where there is a lot of guys which are able to
> produce it 'with their eyes closed' and still at 3-4US$ / workhour, huh? :)
>
> Regards,

Janusz,

You are absolutely correct. The cost of production in old SZD Bielsko
will be bit lower then in some other countries capable of
manufacturing sailplanes. The crew from SZD Bielsko is extremely
highly skilled, so the quality of gliders built in that factory should
be and it is very good. But currently they only make Junior, Puchacz,
Acro and the 55. Should the SZD Bielsko management approach the
Germans who own the manufacturing rights to the LS4 and ask them for
their business or should the SZD Bielsko revive the SZD48-3, improve
slightly and sell it worldwide for very competitive price? Make it the
glider of choice for the U.S. Sport Class and the European Club Class?
This bird can also compete (just for fun I suppose) in the standard
class worldwide. The Jantar Std. 3 flies pretty good and with some
minimal training most pilots that are current can fly it safely.
Well...just something to think about...

[F.L. Whiteley]

Interesting thread on HG list this morning. WRT E/$ rate, Atos VX
hangglider may soon cost $20K.

Frank Whiteley