70 kg 31:1 glider is here to stay?

[Andre Volant]

For soaring, this is it.
New racing class?
Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
What's a rush anyway?
Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
Stalls at 31.4 km/h

http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg

Empty weight env. 70 Kg
Span 15 meters
Lenght 5,35 meters
Aspect ratio 21,3
Area 10,56 m2
Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
Stall 31,4 Km/h
Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
VNE 140 Km/h

Andre

[Bert Willing]

Very, very true.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Tim Mara" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> can you say the word "homely" ?
> again.....part of the reasons that many people have been drawn to soaring,
> especially those who have joined the ranks from general aviation, is the
> slick beautiful lines of (most) sailplanes....We can "visualize" ourselves
> transformed into the same heroic and stunning figure as our machine we
> then occupy...
> Part of, (IMHO) the lack of success and mixed emotions toward some
> sailplanes has been the novelty and shall I say "unique" appearance of
> some......this is not a new phenomenon .it's not just the PW5's, Russia's,
> Genesis types (only to name a few)that have created such arguments, but
> look back at other failed designs over the past 30 years, I'm sure you'll
> see plenty of other "novel" designs that never made a lasting impact or
> even made it to the market.....
> We all admit it or not, still look at lovely models, beautiful cars and ,
> of course sleek airplanes and let our emotions empty our pocket books a
> lot quicker than we study the specifications sheets and make our decisions
> from excel comparisons and graphs..
> tim
>
> "Andre Volant" > wrote in message
> om...
>> For soaring, this is it.
>> New racing class?
>> Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
>> What's a rush anyway?
>> Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
>> Stalls at 31.4 km/h
>>
>> http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
>> http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg
>>
>> Empty weight env. 70 Kg
>> Span 15 meters
>> Lenght 5,35 meters
>> Aspect ratio 21,3
>> Area 10,56 m2
>> Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
>> Stall 31,4 Km/h
>> Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
>> VNE 140 Km/h
>>
>> Andre
>
>
>

[Bill Daniels]

"Tim Mara" > wrote in message
...
> can you say the word "homely" ?
> again.....part of the reasons that many people have been drawn to soaring,
> especially those who have joined the ranks from general aviation, is the
> slick beautiful lines of (most) sailplanes....We can "visualize" ourselves
> transformed into the same heroic and stunning figure as our machine we
then
> occupy...
> Part of, (IMHO) the lack of success and mixed emotions toward some
> sailplanes has been the novelty and shall I say "unique" appearance of
> some......this is not a new phenomenon .it's not just the PW5's, Russia's,
> Genesis types (only to name a few)that have created such arguments, but
look
> back at other failed designs over the past 30 years, I'm sure you'll see
> plenty of other "novel" designs that never made a lasting impact or even
> made it to the market.....
> We all admit it or not, still look at lovely models, beautiful cars and ,
of
> course sleek airplanes and let our emotions empty our pocket books a lot
> quicker than we study the specifications sheets and make our decisions
from
> excel comparisons and graphs..
> tim
>

Tim's viewpoint is, as usual, insightful. However, esthetic values can
change over time. It seems that at some point after everyone agrees on what
is 'beautiful', that esthetic value becomes a little 'boring' and a new
esthetic arises. I'm sure that the wooden, gull winged pre-WWII gliders
were (and to me, still are) considered beautiful. Of course, a proven
contest winner has a beauty all its own quite independent of its geometry.

Where I object to these low performance gliders is that they fly in the face
of a century of soaring progress. They seem to say, "since we can't compete
with the fast guys, lets change the rules".

If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want all
the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
rules.

Bill Daniels

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:

>
> Tim's viewpoint is, as usual, insightful. However, esthetic values can
> change over time. It seems that at some point after everyone agrees on what
> is 'beautiful', that esthetic value becomes a little 'boring' and a new
> esthetic arises. I'm sure that the wooden, gull winged pre-WWII gliders
> were (and to me, still are) considered beautiful. Of course, a proven
> contest winner has a beauty all its own quite independent of its geometry.
>
> Where I object to these low performance gliders is that they fly in the face
> of a century of soaring progress. They seem to say, "since we can't compete
> with the fast guys, lets change the rules".

I didn't see anything on their web site about "changing the rules". They
want to expand peoples options with a high performance _foot-launched_
glider. It was characterized as a better choice than the Carbon Dragon,
which, in the hands of Gary Osoba and others, has shown us there are
other "rules" out there that we didn't even know about (e.g., microlift).

>
> If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want all
> the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
> rules.

And this glider may fit in very well with this philosophy. Think about
hang glider pilots and what they fly. Remember, it's designed for foot
launching. I didn't get the impression they thought the high performance
sailplane crowd would push their lead sleds into the trash heap!

--
Eric Greenwell
USA

[Tim Mara]

can you say the word "homely" ?
again.....part of the reasons that many people have been drawn to soaring,
especially those who have joined the ranks from general aviation, is the
slick beautiful lines of (most) sailplanes....We can "visualize" ourselves
transformed into the same heroic and stunning figure as our machine we then
occupy...
Part of, (IMHO) the lack of success and mixed emotions toward some
sailplanes has been the novelty and shall I say "unique" appearance of
some......this is not a new phenomenon .it's not just the PW5's, Russia's,
Genesis types (only to name a few)that have created such arguments, but look
back at other failed designs over the past 30 years, I'm sure you'll see
plenty of other "novel" designs that never made a lasting impact or even
made it to the market.....
We all admit it or not, still look at lovely models, beautiful cars and , of
course sleek airplanes and let our emotions empty our pocket books a lot
quicker than we study the specifications sheets and make our decisions from
excel comparisons and graphs..
tim

"Andre Volant" > wrote in message
om...
> For soaring, this is it.
> New racing class?
> Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
> What's a rush anyway?
> Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
> Stalls at 31.4 km/h
>
> http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
> http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg
>
> Empty weight env. 70 Kg
> Span 15 meters
> Lenght 5,35 meters
> Aspect ratio 21,3
> Area 10,56 m2
> Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
> Stall 31,4 Km/h
> Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
> VNE 140 Km/h
>
> Andre

[Charles Yeates]

Depends on pocketbook, eh? Some can afford a PW-5 and some ASH25M
Enjoyment of each can be equal.

Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want all
> the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
> rules.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>

[Nyal Williams]

Perfect example of miscommunication! Neither wrong.
Bill said 'over hostile terrain,' and he said all
he could buy. Charlie said one can have as much enjoyment
in other circumstances. This wasn't even a discussion;
it was a drive-by.

At 19:18 19 November 2004, Charles Yeates wrote:
>Depends on pocketbook, eh? Some can afford a PW-5
>and some ASH25M
>Enjoyment of each can be equal.
>
>Bill Daniels wrote:
>>
>> If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile
>>terrain, I want all
>> the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't
>>let you change her
>> rules.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>>
>>
>

[[email protected]]

One guy buys a PW5. Another guy buys a Libelle or Std Cirrus, flys
circles around the PW5, and has $10K or so left over to spend on booze
or hookers or whatever. Who has got more enjoyment for his money?

[Pete Reinhart]

Charles,
I'll bet he paid less for the Nimbus he's flying than you could sell him a
PW-5.
A Nimbus won the region 9 sports class this year and the Nimbus isn't that
much harder to rig than a PW-5 (I've done both).
For me, I'm flying a nice Open Jantar that I know I paid less for than even
some of the used PW-5's currently on the market.
It is true that I probably can't land it in as small a field as a PW-5, but
then I can cover a lot more ground when I'm looking for a place to land, and
thus, have more options.
It is my opinion (and not only mine) that the older open class ships
represent some of the best values in soaring machines there are. Most have
nice comfy cockpits that aren't too sensitive to weight, most are fairly
easy to fly, and most of them climb really well and stay up well on weak
days. With the right rigging equipment, they aren't any more trouble to
assemble than your average 15 meter ship.
As for the one design aspect, I raced sailboats for 30 years at a fairly
high level both one design and handicap. I think one design sailboat racing
is a joke because no two are _exactly_ the same and the various class rules
range from ridiculously specific to almost meaningless. Most one design
classes ultimately end up something like the 1-26 class just to get the
participation.

Cheers! (flame suit on)


"Charles Yeates" > wrote in message
...
> Depends on pocketbook, eh? Some can afford a PW-5 and some ASH25M
> Enjoyment of each can be equal.
>
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> >
> > If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want
all
> > the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
> > rules.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
> >
> >

[Stewart Kissel]

Gee...that sure explains how a 1-26 won the OLC...with
a lot of very long flights.




At 23:06 19 November 2004, wrote:
>One guy buys a PW5. Another guy buys a Libelle or
>Std Cirrus, flys
>circles around the PW5, and has $10K or so left over
>to spend on booze
>or hookers or whatever. Who has got more enjoyment
>for his money?
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> One guy buys a PW5. Another guy buys a Libelle or Std Cirrus, flys
> circles around the PW5, and has $10K or so left over to spend on booze
> or hookers or whatever. Who has got more enjoyment for his money?

Tell me who the pilots are and I'll ask them, then report to you. I
can't possibly guess, and neither can you.

If they land with smiles on their faces, I'm happy!
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:00:39 GMT, "Pete Reinhart" >
wrote:
.. Most one design
>classes ultimately end up something like the 1-26 class just to get the
>participation.
>
Seems to be effective. Maybe there's a point there that everyone is
missing, like "fun"?

[Slick]

To me this plane is fascinating. I'm amazed by the stall speed of 20 mph. It
sounds like it would be a great idea for soaring around very scenic areas,
where you don't want to rush around all of the time. As well, it would be
comforting to know that if an emergency landing was needed in an
un-inhabitable area, that the crash could be at very slow speed. If it's
durable, easy to assemble/disassemble, and reasonably priced I believe this
would make and excellent club ship.
"Andre Volant" > wrote in message
om...
> For soaring, this is it.
> New racing class?
> Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
> What's a rush anyway?
> Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
> Stalls at 31.4 km/h
>
> http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
> http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg
>
> Empty weight env. 70 Kg
> Span 15 meters
> Lenght 5,35 meters
> Aspect ratio 21,3
> Area 10,56 m2
> Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
> Stall 31,4 Km/h
> Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
> VNE 140 Km/h
>
> Andre




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Pete Brown]

Charles Yeates wrote:
> Depends on pocketbook, eh? Some can afford a PW-5 and some ASH25M
> Enjoyment of each can be equal.
>

Charles:

This is exactly the case.

I have always thought that the huge increment in the
enjoyment of my life come from when I have wings.

The step I take I go from -0- wings to 20/1 wings is an
infinitely bigger leap than when I go from 20/1 to 40/1.

I look forward to the day when I can introduce my non-winged
friends to flying in a PW-6 or any other aircraft. The
magic occurs when we leave the ground and inhabit the sky.

Pete

Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes
turned skyward, for there you have been, there you long to
return." -- Leonardo da Vinci.

Peter D. Brown
http://home.gci.net/~pdb/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/

[Avron Tal]

Another interesting one:
http://www.aeros.com.ua/products/sailplane/index.htm

Avron Tal

[Jack Harkin]

Stewart Kissel > wrote in message >...
> Gee...that sure explains how a 1-26 won the OLC...with
> a lot of very long flights.
>
>
>
>
> At 23:06 19 November 2004, wrote:
> >One guy buys a PW5. Another guy buys a Libelle or
> >Std Cirrus, flys
> >circles around the PW5, and has $10K or so left over
> >to spend on booze
> >or hookers or whatever. Who has got more enjoyment
> >for his money?
> >
> >

Might have something to do with the pilot?

[Shawn]

Avron Tal wrote:
> Another interesting one:
> http://www.aeros.com.ua/products/sailplane/index.htm

Looks like fun, but the fact that the best glide occurs at about the
stall speed of my Mosquito suggests that penetration ability will be
limited. Also, given that it takes me twice as long to rig as anybody
else, an advertised rig time of 40 minutes is a big negative.
As a step up from hang gliding or over from 1-26s, it looks good.
Does SH know about this?
http://www.aeros.com.ua/products/hg/discus.htm

Shawn

[Robert Ehrlich]

----------
Dans l'article >, Charles
Yeates > a écrit :


> Depends on pocketbook, eh? Some can afford a PW-5 and some ASH25M
> Enjoyment of each can be equal.
>

And others like mysef and many members of my club can't afford anything,
or wouldn't have any money for paying for launches after buying a PW-5,
but our club can afford 4 LS4, 2 Pégases, 1 ASW24, 2 Discus, 2 LS6 (17.5
& 18m), so why would we even consider buying a PW-5?

[Mike Stringfellow]

Somehow, drifting around in a speed-challenged sailplane so I can
crash into trees slowly doesn't have quite so much appeal as flying
quickly cross-country and landing at an airfield!

[Eric Greenwell]

Robert Ehrlich wrote:
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article >, Charles
> Yeates > a écrit :
>
>
>
>>Depends on pocketbook, eh? Some can afford a PW-5 and some ASH25M
>>Enjoyment of each can be equal.
>>
>
>
> And others like mysef and many members of my club can't afford anything,
> or wouldn't have any money for paying for launches after buying a PW-5,
> but our club can afford 4 LS4, 2 Pégases, 1 ASW24, 2 Discus, 2 LS6 (17.5
> & 18m), so why would we even consider buying a PW-5?

To compete in the World Class competitions?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mike Ziaskas]

Though this ship looks like a hoot to fly, I have my
doubts whether this ship could be aerotowed by conventional
towplanes. __Mike


At 02:12 20 November 2004, Slick wrote:
>To me this plane is fascinating. I'm amazed by the
>stall speed of 20 mph. It
>sounds like it would be a great idea for soaring around
>very scenic areas,
>where you don't want to rush around all of the time.
>As well, it would be
>comforting to know that if an emergency landing was
>needed in an
>un-inhabitable area, that the crash could be at very
>slow speed. If it's
>durable, easy to assemble/disassemble, and reasonably
>priced I believe this
>would make and excellent club ship.
>'Andre Volant' wrote in message
om...
>> For soaring, this is it.
>> New racing class?
>> Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
>> What's a rush anyway?
>> Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
>> Stalls at 31.4 km/h
>>
>> http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
>> http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg
>>
>> Empty weight env. 70 Kg
>> Span 15 meters
>> Lenght 5,35 meters
>> Aspect ratio 21,3
>> Area 10,56 m2
>> Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
>> Stall 31,4 Km/h
>> Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
>> VNE 140 Km/h
>>
>> Andre
>
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
>Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in
>the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
>---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
>Encryption =---
>
Mike Z

[Mike Ziaskas]

Though this ship looks like a hoot to fly, I have my
doubts whether this ship could be aerotowed by conventional
towplanes. __Mike


At 02:12 20 November 2004, Slick wrote:
>To me this plane is fascinating. I'm amazed by the
>stall speed of 20 mph. It
>sounds like it would be a great idea for soaring around
>very scenic areas,
>where you don't want to rush around all of the time.
>As well, it would be
>comforting to know that if an emergency landing was
>needed in an
>un-inhabitable area, that the crash could be at very
>slow speed. If it's
>durable, easy to assemble/disassemble, and reasonably
>priced I believe this
>would make and excellent club ship.
>'Andre Volant' wrote in message
om...
>> For soaring, this is it.
>> New racing class?
>> Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
>> What's a rush anyway?
>> Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
>> Stalls at 31.4 km/h
>>
>> http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
>> http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg
>>
>> Empty weight env. 70 Kg
>> Span 15 meters
>> Lenght 5,35 meters
>> Aspect ratio 21,3
>> Area 10,56 m2
>> Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
>> Stall 31,4 Km/h
>> Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
>> VNE 140 Km/h
>>
>> Andre
>
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
>Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in
>the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
>---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
>Encryption =---
>
Mike Z

[Robert Ehrlich]

----------
Dans l'article >, Eric
Greenwell > a écrit :


> Robert Ehrlich wrote:
>>
>> ----------
>> Dans l'article >, Charles
>> Yeates > a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>>Depends on pocketbook, eh? Some can afford a PW-5 and some ASH25M
>>>Enjoyment of each can be equal.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And others like mysef and many members of my club can't afford anything,
>> or wouldn't have any money for paying for launches after buying a PW-5,
>> but our club can afford 4 LS4, 2 Pégases, 1 ASW24, 2 Discus, 2 LS6 (17.5
>> & 18m), so why would we even consider buying a PW-5?
>
> To compete in the World Class competitions?
>

This is the only reason for which the 5 PW-5 registered now in France were
bought. No, only 4 of them, one was won as the prize for the 1st World Air
Games. The 2 winners of the 2 first internationnal World Class competitions,
Fred Hoyeau and Julien Henry then reverted to the old FAI classes.

As many of us, I am not a competitor, so this would not be a good reason for
me, maybe I will try some day, but anyway using a club glider, so not in the
World Class.

[Paul Little]

Of course here is the latest in FL sailplanes - not
even in production yet...

http://www.zhwin.ch/archaeopteryx/english.php

At 18:24 20 November 2004, Mike Ziaskas wrote:
>Though this ship looks like a hoot to fly, I have my
>doubts whether this ship could be aerotowed by conventional
>towplanes. __Mike
>
>
>At 02:12 20 November 2004, Slick wrote:
>>To me this plane is fascinating. I'm amazed by the
>>stall speed of 20 mph. It
>>sounds like it would be a great idea for soaring around
>>very scenic areas,
>>where you don't want to rush around all of the time.
>>As well, it would be
>>comforting to know that if an emergency landing was
>>needed in an
>>un-inhabitable area, that the crash could be at very
>>slow speed. If it's
>>durable, easy to assemble/disassemble, and reasonably
>>priced I believe this
>>would make and excellent club ship.
>>'Andre Volant' wrote in message
om...
>>> For soaring, this is it.
>>> New racing class?
>>> Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
>>> What's a rush anyway?
>>> Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
>>> Stalls at 31.4 km/h
>>>
>>> http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
>>> http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg
>>>
>>> Empty weight env. 70 Kg
>>> Span 15 meters
>>> Lenght 5,35 meters
>>> Aspect ratio 21,3
>>> Area 10,56 m2
>>> Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
>>> Stall 31,4 Km/h
>>> Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
>>> VNE 140 Km/h
>>>
>>> Andre
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
>>Usenet News==----
>>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in
>>the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
>>---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
>>Encryption =---
>>
>Mike Z
>
>
>

[Michel Talon]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> To compete in the World Class competitions?
>

The point is that no more than 1/10 if not 1/100 members of
our clubs wants to compete. ****ing contests are not our most precious
asset, we old europeans ...


--

Michel TALON

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "Slick" > wrote:

> ...I'm amazed by the stall speed of 20 mph...

I would be too - if I believed it.

Bob K.

[Pete Reinhart]

I believe it Bob,
All of the the gliders iIve ever flown as far as I can remember have been
fully stalled at 20 mph. Most have started somewhere between 40 and 50
though.
Cheers!

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
om...
> Earlier, "Slick" > wrote:
>
> > ...I'm amazed by the stall speed of 20 mph...
>
> I would be too - if I believed it.
>
> Bob K.

[Chris OCallaghan]

Good points.

Let me think back... there was a day when the 2-33 sufficiently
inspired me. And not long after when the 1-26 was as pretty and nimble
as you could want a glider to be. There were glass gliders on the
field, but they didn't diminish my interest in those gliders I had
access to.

Let's be clear about something... real pilots need to fly. When I
decided I wanted to fly the best, I changed my career goals and found
a way to afford it, rather than whining about a lack of acceptably
cheap, aesthetically pleasing, high performance sailplanes.

Whining about what I don't have seems to me an exercise in futility.
Even worse, whining about other people who are honestly trying to keep
others from whining... well, it's a sad thing, indeed. If you are a
real pilot, as opposed to someone who just likes to tell his friends
he's a pilot, you'll fly what you can afford and love it. Or you'll
find a way to affort your dreams. All the better if someone is
inspired to find you a better price/performance ratio. Who cares what
it looks like?

[Bob Korves]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
om...
> Earlier, "Slick" > wrote:
>
> > ...I'm amazed by the stall speed of 20 mph...
>
> I would be too - if I believed it.
>
> Bob K.

The numbers quoted by manufacturers for empty weight, stall speed, minimum
sink, and yes, especially L/D, are purely marketing numbers and mostly
fiction.

There are aircraft that if you used 1.3 VSO for approach calculated by the
advertised stall speed you would never make it to the runway!

Also note that the stall speeds given by the manufacturers are usually given
at the minimum possible (or impossible) mass. Then again, I weigh 85
kilos...

So, Bob, are you going to change this state of affairs with the HP-24, and
say so loudly, or continue to add the customary percentage? (-:

To paraphrase, "There are lies, damn lies, and specifications". Caveat
Emptor.
-Bob Korves

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:41:19 UTC, "Bill Daniels" >
wrote:

: Where I object to these low performance gliders is that they fly in the face
: of a century of soaring progress. They seem to say, "since we can't compete
: with the fast guys, lets change the rules".
:
: If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want all
: the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
: rules.

On the other hand, traditional soaring is dying all over the world
while hang/paragliding are booming.

Ian

--

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:35:18 UTC, wrote:

: One guy buys a PW5. Another guy buys a Libelle or Std Cirrus, flys
: circles around the PW5, and has $10K or so left over to spend on booze
: or hookers or whatever. Who has got more enjoyment for his money?

I dunno. Why not ask them?

Ian


--

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:03:12 UTC, "Tim Mara" >
wrote:

: again.....part of the reasons that many people have been drawn to soaring,
: especially those who have joined the ranks from general aviation, is the
: slick beautiful lines of (most) sailplanes...

And part of the reasons that many people have been put off soaring is
the cost, complexity and infrastructure. It's a classic mistake in
marketing to ask your customers how things could be improved ... you
should be asking everyone else!

That said, of course, has the PW-5 yet sold 5% of the numbers
predicted?

Ian

--

[Janusz Kesik]

Uzytkownik "Ian Johnston" > napisal w
wiadomosci
...

> On the other hand, traditional soaring is dying all over the world
> while hang/paragliding are booming.
>
> Ian

I have tried paragliding once, and I know: never again. Too scary experience
as for me. In a glider, I sit in a cockpit, and feel without any doubt much
safer. :)
If it comes to hanggliding, seems to be safer, but I have seen enough
accidents to think a lot until I'll give it a try, however recently I have
started to compare the costs of beginning to learn hang-gliding and staying
here as a glider 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

[Bill Daniels]

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:41:19 UTC, "Bill Daniels" >
> wrote:
>
> : Where I object to these low performance gliders is that they fly in the
face
> : of a century of soaring progress. They seem to say, "since we can't
compete
> : with the fast guys, lets change the rules".
> :
> : If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want
all
> : the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
> : rules.
>
> On the other hand, traditional soaring is dying all over the world
> while hang/paragliding are booming.
>
> Ian

Where I fly, hang gliding is dying. The survivors are taking up traditional
soaring. The HG people are finding traditional soaring is cheaper and much
easier on the knees.

Bill Daniels

[Eric Greenwell]

Chris OCallaghan wrote:

>
> Whining about what I don't have seems to me an exercise in futility.
> Even worse, whining about other people who are honestly trying to keep
> others from whining... well, it's a sad thing, indeed. If you are a
> real pilot, as opposed to someone who just likes to tell his friends
> he's a pilot, you'll fly what you can afford and love it. Or you'll
> find a way to affort your dreams. All the better if someone is
> inspired to find you a better price/performance ratio. Who cares what
> it looks like?

I agree. My priorities, in order, are safety, comfort, handling, with
cost, performance, and rigging ease, being in the "trade-offs" category,
with appearance as the last one. I've bought 5 gliders in the 30 years
I've been flying, and never chose between gliders based on their appearance!

I love looking beautiful sailplanes, but I don't have fly one; after
all, it's either in the trailer, or I'm inside it looking out.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:41:19 UTC, "Bill Daniels" >
> wrote:
>
> : Where I object to these low performance gliders is that they fly in the
face
> : of a century of soaring progress. They seem to say, "since we can't
compete
> : with the fast guys, lets change the rules".
> :
> : If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want
all
> : the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
> : rules.
>
> On the other hand, traditional soaring is dying all over the world
> while hang/paragliding are booming.
>
> Ian
>
Not according to the HG list I follow. HG/PG are merging in the US, not
without dissension and controversy.

Frank

[Jack]

Ian Johnston wrote:

> And part of the reasons that many people have been put off soaring is
> the cost, complexity and infrastructure.

Yeah, it's hard to overcome the character defects in your customers.

Chris O'Callaghan has it right:

"...there was a day when the 2-33 sufficiently
inspired me. And not long after when the 1-26
was as pretty and nimble as you could want a
glider to be. There were glass gliders on the
field, but they didn't diminish my interest in
those gliders I had access to.

"Let's be clear about something... real pilots
need to fly...."

"...If you are a real pilot, as opposed to someone
who just likes to tell his friends he's a pilot,
you'll fly what you can afford and love it. Or
you'll find a way to afford your dreams."

The cost of my 1-26 is minimal. It flies wonderfully. What more could
I ask? Being retired after a full and diverse aviation career, I can
enjoy flight for its own sake more perfectly now than ever.

My club is very much a mutually supportive environment for my soaring
activities, and there is nothing less complex in aviation that I know
of than flying sailplanes.

If "cost, complexity and infrastructure" are major impediments to
soaring for some people I cannot sympathize with them at all.


Jack

[Ian Johnston]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:20:36 UTC, Jack > wrote:

: My club is very much a mutually supportive environment for my soaring
: activities, and there is nothing less complex in aviation that I know
: of than flying sailplanes.

Well, if I want to fly a sailplane in the UK, I have to

a) join a club

b) travel to the club one day on most flyable weekends for a year
until solo, then

c) arrive at the club by 9am or so for a reasonable place on the
flying list

d) depend on a tug pilot/winch driver, and ground crew to get me
airborne

and that's without the additional complications of retrieve crew if I
fly cross country. On the other hand, if I want to fly a paraglider in
the UK I have to

a) take a training course over a few weekends

b) climb up a convenient hll

c) jump off.

OK's a different experience, but it's still flying and if that's the
driving urge, not travelling huge numbers of miles or pole squattng in
wave, but just flying for the love of being off the ground then I am
quite sure that foot launched gliders offer significant reductions in
cost and time required.

: If "cost, complexity and infrastructure" are major impediments to
: soaring for some people I cannot sympathize with them at all.

And that, with all due respect, is the sort of attitude that explains
why gliding is in such trouble. I, on the contrary, have enormous
sympathy for those whose burning desire to fly is thwarted by The
System, and I'm all in favour of making things cheaper and simpler
whenever possible.

Ian

[Steve Bralla]

"Ian Johnston" > writes:

>On the other hand, traditional soaring is dying all over the world
>while hang/paragliding are booming.
>
>Ian
>

I keep reading this in discussions of soaring dying and it is not true. All
soaring activities are declining. Hang gliding peaked in the '80s and
paragliding peaked in the '90s.

Steve

[Jack]

Ian Johnston wrote:

> And that, with all due respect, is the sort of attitude that explains
> why gliding is in such trouble. I, on the contrary, have enormous
> sympathy for those whose burning desire to fly is thwarted by The
> System, and I'm all in favour of making things cheaper and simpler
> whenever possible.

Cheaper and simpler is good.

But Hang Gliding is not Para Gliding is not Soaring.

Going first class always costs a little more. Your argument that the
best experience should be available for a price and a degree of effort
commensurate with the most basic experience flies in the face of all
human history, Ian.

Those who whine or "whinge" (UK), about the cost of fast glass, and
yet find a 1-26 or a PW-5 beneath them, those who complain that the
air field is too far away but can't be bothered to move their tent,
and those who can't abide a bit of study and compliance sound a
similar note to yours. Fortunately, the rest of us are too busy flying
to be very concerned about the background noise.


Jack

[Ian Johnston]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:33:47 UTC, Jack > wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:
:
: > And that, with all due respect, is the sort of attitude that explains
: > why gliding is in such trouble. I, on the contrary, have enormous
: > sympathy for those whose burning desire to fly is thwarted by The
: > System, and I'm all in favour of making things cheaper and simpler
: > whenever possible.
:
: Cheaper and simpler is good.
:
: But Hang Gliding is not Para Gliding is not Soaring.

I am suret here are hang glider and paraglider pilots who would
disagree.

: Going first class always costs a little more. Your argument that the
: best experience should be available for a price and a degree of effort
: commensurate with the most basic experience flies in the face of all
: human history, Ian.

And since when have I said that? Not only that, it's a very arrogant
assumption to claim that any one of us knows what the "best
experience" is. My point is simply that there are people who love
flying and also want to so it simply or cheaply. I am very happy with
34:1 wood, thank you. Sure, I could spend five times as much on 40:1
glass, but I, personally, would not get five times as much fun out of
it. Others might - that would be their fun, their choice and non of my
business.

: Those who whine or "whinge" (UK), about the cost of fast glass, and
: yet find a 1-26 or a PW-5 beneath them

Who are these people? My point, you may recall, is that having cheap
and cheerful gliders available may well attract people into soaring.
Don't know know anyone who flies a Ka6 or 1-26 who wouldn't fly if it
was Discus or nothing?

:, those who complain that the
: air field is too far away but can't be bothered to move their tent,
: and those who can't abide a bit of study and compliance sound a
: similar note to yours.

You are welcome to say, as I think you are, that real glider pilots
will dedicate every aspect of their lives to flying, and that anyone
who concedes any other pressures or interest isn't worthy of the name.
It's a point of view, I suppose, though not one that I feel would work
very well at UK clubs.

Regards,

Ian

[Jack]

Ian Johnston wrote:

> My point is simply that there are people who love
> flying and also want to so it simply or cheaply. I am very happy with
> 34:1 wood, thank you. Sure, I could spend five times as much on 40:1
> glass, but I, personally, would not get five times as much fun out of
> it. Others might - that would be their fun, their choice and non of my
> business.

Then we find nothing about which to disagree.

Cheaper and more accessible is better, all else being equal. ;)


Jack

[Chris Ashburn]

You've got to take a look at the bungee launch vidro they;ve got.

For this, and any light sailplane, this is 1000% better than foot launch.
Just take 20ft of linoleum and a bungee to the launch site and you're off.

Love that acceleration.
http://www.zhwin.ch/archaeopteryx/videos/bungeelaunch.mpg

Trike (just) gear and low stall speed leaves little chance of a wing drop.

Chris

Paul Little wrote:

>Of course here is the latest in FL sailplanes - not
>even in production yet...
>
>http://www.zhwin.ch/archaeopteryx/english.php
>
>At 18:24 20 November 2004, Mike Ziaskas wrote:
>
>
>>Though this ship looks like a hoot to fly, I have my
>>doubts whether this ship could be aerotowed by conventional
>>towplanes. __Mike
>>
>>
>>At 02:12 20 November 2004, Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>To me this plane is fascinating. I'm amazed by the
>>>stall speed of 20 mph. It
>>>sounds like it would be a great idea for soaring around
>>>very scenic areas,
>>>where you don't want to rush around all of the time.
>>>As well, it would be
>>>comforting to know that if an emergency landing was
>>>needed in an
>>>un-inhabitable area, that the crash could be at very
>>>slow speed. If it's
>>>durable, easy to assemble/disassemble, and reasonably
>>>priced I believe this
>>>would make and excellent club ship.
>>>'Andre Volant' wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>>
>>>>For soaring, this is it.
>>>>New racing class?
>>>>Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
>>>>What's a rush anyway?
>>>>Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
>>>>Stalls at 31.4 km/h
>>>>
>>>>http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
>>>>http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg
>>>>
>>>>Empty weight env. 70 Kg
>>>>Span 15 meters
>>>>Lenght 5,35 meters
>>>>Aspect ratio 21,3
>>>>Area 10,56 m2
>>>>Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
>>>>Stall 31,4 Km/h
>>>>Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
>>>>VNE 140 Km/h
>>>>
>>>>Andre
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
>>>Usenet News==----
>>>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in
>>>the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
>>>---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
>>>Encryption =---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Mike Z
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

[Steve Pawling]

Hi Janusz,

I'm actively "biwingual" (sailplane,435 hrs and paraglider,31 hrs).
Both aircraft require a high level of risk management but, for me, the
paraglider requires more. I've only been "scared" in paraglider one
time and I used it as a learning experience (it's also the reason I
fly a DHV 1 paraglider intended for novices). I can't say that I've
really been "scared" in the sailplane but have had moments of anxiety
from time to time.

I like the slow flying speed and convenience of the paraglider.
Yesterday, I decided to fly the paraglider - drove 10 minutes from my
house to the launch site and was in the air after a total of 20
minutes from leaving my house. The sailplane takes a bit more time to
get airborne.
Cu skies,
Steve
Tehachapi, CA

PS: Ian, I'm not sure that HG and PG are "booming" in the US. I don't
have the latest memebership statistics at hand but I recently heard
someone bemoaning the small membership numbers of USHGA. However, in
2002, membership increased 1,000 over the previous year to a total of
11,200 members.

"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message >...
> Uzytkownik "Ian Johnston" > napisal w
> wiadomosci
> ...
>
> > On the other hand, traditional soaring is dying all over the world
> > while hang/paragliding are booming.
> >
> > Ian
>
> I have tried paragliding once, and I know: never again. Too scary experience
> as for me. In a glider, I sit in a cockpit, and feel without any doubt much
> safer. :)
> If it comes to hanggliding, seems to be safer, but I have seen enough
> accidents to think a lot until I'll give it a try, however recently I have
> started to compare the costs of beginning to learn hang-gliding and staying
> here as a glider pilot.
>
> Regards,

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:04:04 -0800, Chris Ashburn >
wrote:

>For this, and any light sailplane, this is 1000% better than foot launch.
>Just take 20ft of linoleum and a bungee to the launch site and you're off.

.... not to mention the car, trailer and time to get the glider up the
hill to the launch site. <vbg>


>
>Love that acceleration.
>http://www.zhwin.ch/archaeopteryx/videos/bungeelaunch.mpg

Look at the flexing on the side of the fuselage during the
acceleration. Scary.



Bye
Andreas

[Robert Ehrlich]

----------
Dans l'article
>, "Ian
Johnston" > a écrit :

> ...
> On the other hand, if I want to fly a paraglider in
> the UK I have to
>
> a) take a training course over a few weekends
>
> b) climb up a convenient hll
>
> c) jump off.
> ...`

You forgot:

a1) buy a paraglider;

c1) have somebody who takes me back from my landing place to
the place where I started and left my car, or make the way
with my feet.

a) may be also much longer than the drive to the next glider
field if you are in very flat land and the next convenient hill
is far away.

[Eric Greenwell]

Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:04:04 -0800, Chris Ashburn >
> wrote:
>
>
>>For this, and any light sailplane, this is 1000% better than foot launch.
>>Just take 20ft of linoleum and a bungee to the launch site and you're off.
>
>
> ... not to mention the car, trailer and time to get the glider up the
> hill to the launch site. <vbg>

You still need those things if you foot launch.

>
>
>>Love that acceleration.
>>http://www.zhwin.ch/archaeopteryx/videos/bungeelaunch.mpg
>
>
> Look at the flexing on the side of the fuselage during the
> acceleration. Scary.

Shouldn't be - it's just a lightweight fairing, not structural. The tail
on my ASH 26 E oscillates side to side when the engine is at full
throttle, causing some concern in bystanders unfamiliar with gliders,
but the tail hasn't fallen off any of them yet! Appearances can be
deceiving.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jim Vincent]

>Look at the flexing on the side of the fuselage during the
>acceleration. Scary.

I think the fuselage is metal tube structure with a FRP or just P shell around
it. Given that, all the loads are taken by the metal tube structure; the shell
is for aerodynamic and cosmetic reasons.

Jim Vincent
N483SZ

[Wayne Paul]

>> Andreas Maurer wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:04:04 -0800, Chris Ashburn >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>For this, and any light sailplane, this is 1000% better than foot
launch.
> >>Just take 20ft of linoleum and a bungee to the launch site and you're
off.
> >
> >
> > ... not to mention the car, trailer and time to get the glider up the
> > hill to the launch site. <vbg>
>
> You still need those things if you foot launch.
>
> >
> >
> >>Love that acceleration.
> >>http://www.zhwin.ch/archaeopteryx/videos/bungeelaunch.mpg
> >
> >
> > Look at the flexing on the side of the fuselage during the
> > acceleration. Scary.

If you think that looks scary, take a look at the fuselage skin of this
A-3D.
http://www.a3skywarrior.com/donatedpics/CVA59%20Cat%203.jpg

Wayne
(Been there, done that.)

[Ian Johnston]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:11:04 UTC, "Robert Ehrlich"
> wrote:

: ----------
: Dans l'article
: >, "Ian
: Johnston" > a ‚crit :
:
: > ...
: > On the other hand, if I want to fly a paraglider in
: > the UK I have to
: >
: > a) take a training course over a few weekends
: >
: > b) climb up a convenient hll
: >
: > c) jump off.
: > ...`
:
: You forgot:
:
: a1) buy a paraglider;

That is very true. But then, I left out "Buy a glider" as well...in
some cases flying a club glider will be fine, but that tends to make
the wait longer and the flight shorter ...

: c1) have somebody who takes me back from my landing place to
: the place where I started and left my car, or make the way
: with my feet.

If I land out. Same goes for a glider.

: a) may be also much longer than the drive to the next glider
: field if you are in very flat land and the next convenient hill
: is far away.

Or much closer. My gliding club is 100 miles away, and there are good
hills - should I ever choose to risk life and limb in one of those
dratted things - within a few miles of me.

Ian

[OscarCVox]

>>On the other hand, traditional soaring is dying all over the world
>>while hang/paragliding are booming.

Full flying membership of the BGA (source Sailplane and Gliding)

1974 9899
1993 9409
1994 9522
1995 9757
1996 9409
1997 9225
1998 9153
1999 8802
2000 8975
2001 8848
2002 9166

That works out roughly a 7% reduction in 25 years. Nothing to get comlacent
about but not as drastic as some of the doom mongers would have us believe.
There has even been an upturn over the last few years

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
"Wayne Paul" > wrote:

> If you think that looks scary, take a look at the fuselage skin of this
> A-3D.
> http://www.a3skywarrior.com/donatedpics/CVA59%20Cat%203.jpg

And it didn't actually start the cat shot yet?

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

[Wayne Paul]

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> > If you think that looks scary, take a look at the fuselage skin of this
> > A-3D.
> > http://www.a3skywarrior.com/donatedpics/CVA59%20Cat%203.jpg
>
> And it didn't actually start the cat shot yet?
>
Yes, the cat shot is in progress. Here is another picture showing the
fuselage stress of a launch.
http://www.a3skywarrior.com/pg17photos/Adams01.jpg

Wayne

[Michael McNulty]

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
>> If you think that looks scary, take a look at the fuselage skin of this
>> A-3D.
>> http://www.a3skywarrior.com/donatedpics/CVA59%20Cat%203.jpg
>
> And it didn't actually start the cat shot yet?
>
> --
> Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
> Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O---------
The loads in the skin are from full engine thrust being reacted by the hold
back bar on the belly.

[Wayne Paul]

"Michael McNulty" > wrote in message
news:hRGod.156802$G15.14357@fed1read03...
>
> "Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> >
> >> If you think that looks scary, take a look at the fuselage skin of this
> >> A-3D.
> >> http://www.a3skywarrior.com/donatedpics/CVA59%20Cat%203.jpg
> >
> > And it didn't actually start the cat shot yet?
> >
> > --
> > Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
> > Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O---------
> The loads in the skin are from full engine thrust being reacted by the
hold
> back bar on the belly.
>
>
I guess you have never seen one of those bridle hooks pull out during a
72,000 lb cat shot and watched your friend go into the drink.

In this picture the hold back bar had already broken. The hold back bar on
the A-3 is connected near the tail hook. The two aft straps that you see in
the picture are there to keep the bridle from going into the ocean. The
stress is caused from the force on the bridle attempting to compress the
nose gear.

Here is my Whidbey Island next door neighbor's story:
http://www.a3skywarrior.com/whaletales/142633/142633.html

[Robert Ehrlich]

Ian Johnston wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:11:04 UTC, "Robert Ehrlich"
> > wrote:
>
> : ----------
> : Dans l'article
> : >, "Ian
> : Johnston" > a ,crit :
> :
> : > ...
> : > On the other hand, if I want to fly a paraglider in
> : > the UK I have to
> : >
> : > a) take a training course over a few weekends
> : >
> : > b) climb up a convenient hll
> : >
> : > c) jump off.
> : > ...`
> :
> : You forgot:
> :
> : a1) buy a paraglider;
>
> That is very true. But then, I left out "Buy a glider" as well...in
> some cases flying a club glider will be fine, but that tends to make
> the wait longer and the flight shorter ...

Where I am flying, there is also a para-gliding club operating on
a slope on the border of the airfield when sailplanes are not flying.
Most flights in club sailplanes are much longer than paraglider flights.
>
> : c1) have somebody who takes me back from my landing place to
> : the place where I started and left my car, or make the way
> : with my feet.
>
> If I land out. Same goes for a glider.

As far as I can see here, any hang-glider flight that doesn't remain
over the slope ends by a landout. During the last flying seasons my
number of field landings in a sailplane varied from 1 to 3 per season,
for 4000 to 8000 cross-country flight. Anyway this was to object to
the argument that hang or para gliding don't rely on the assistance
of somebody else. If I fly a sailplane in a club, the assistance for
an outlanding is easy to find, any pilot in the club would do it as I
am willing to do it for him if the inverse happen. If I go alone on the
next hill to jump with a paraglider, I have to make specific provision
for that.

>
> : a) may be also much longer than the drive to the next glider
> : field if you are in very flat land and the next convenient hill
> : is far away.
>
> Or much closer. My gliding club is 100 miles away, and there are good
> hills - should I ever choose to risk life and limb in one of those
> dratted things - within a few miles of me.
>
> Ian

[Ian Johnston]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:24:28 UTC, Robert Ehrlich
> wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:

: > That is very true. But then, I left out "Buy a glider" as well...in
: > some cases flying a club glider will be fine, but that tends to make
: > the wait longer and the flight shorter ...
:
: Where I am flying, there is also a para-gliding club operating on
: a slope on the border of the airfield when sailplanes are not flying.
: Most flights in club sailplanes are much longer than paraglider flights.

That is true. It is, of course, no reason to sneer at paraglider
pilots, who seem to enjoy their sport, and it's even more reason to
get frustrated about the typically short flight time limits on club
gliders ...

Ian

[Robert Ehrlich]

----------
Dans l'article
>, "Ian
Johnston" > a écrit :
>
> That is true. It is, of course, no reason to sneer at paraglider
> pilots, who seem to enjoy their sport, and it's even more reason to
> get frustrated about the typically short flight time limits on club
> gliders ...
>

I have no reason to sneer at paraglider pilots, as I have frequent
friendly discussions with these people who are flying here, some of
then are also sailplane pilots. But from these discussions, my conclusion
is that the common opinion that hanggliding is cheaper and easier than
sailplane flying is mainly an illusion that most facts contradict. Several
hangglider pilots agree with me on that. This doesn't mean they all are
going to switch to sailplanes, as one thing remains for sure: it is much
easier and cheaper to continue in the way you have started, invested and
gained some experience than to switch to another one and restart from
scratch.

In a well managed club, there is no reason that flights should be short
and people get frustrated about that. It is not the case in my club. In
France most clubs encourage long flights by having the flight time after
the 2 or 3 first hours for free, or by proposing unlimited flight time
in the year for a fixed amount payed at the beginning of the season. In
my club there are a very few day in the year when 2 or more pilots have to
share a club glider and so the time of their flight is limited, although
no time limit is imposed and all relies on mutual agrement between the
pilots sharing the glider. But this is rare. In the past, more than 10
years ao, when I was not already member, there was some periods of growth
when shortage of available gliders happened, but the growth in income
generated by the growth in membership allowed in this case the club to
buy new modern gliders (a LS4b and a Discus) to correct for that. All others
glider owned by the club where bought as used gliders and some of them
refinished in the club. Now we are in a phase of declining membership, as
almost everywhere, and the fleet follows, as the number of our gliders
decreased from 25 10 years ago to 19 now, but as there is some hysteresis
between the 2 decreases, most of the time we have more gliders available
than pilots, this is the only good side of a bad thing.