4-seater

[Nyal Williams]

A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?

[ZASoars]

The glider you ask about may well have been the Gross 4 .The Purdue University
glider club owned one way back when.

[Stefan]

Nyal Williams wrote:

> A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
> Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?

Not sure about a 4 seater, but how about a 130 seater?
http://www.waffenhq.com/flugzeuge/me321.html

Stefan

[Charles Yeates]

Yes, and there was a multitude of smaller 8 to 12 placers used in Crete,
Malta and Normandy, eh?

>> A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
>> Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?
>
>
> Not sure about a 4 seater, but how about a 130 seater?
> http://www.waffenhq.com/flugzeuge/me321.html
>
> Stefan
>

[[email protected]]

In 1943, the mayor of St. Louis, Missouri was among 10 people who died
in a glider crash at Lambert Field.
(see http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/2002/1202/docmath.htm)


Nyal Williams wrote:
> A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
> Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?

[Nyal Williams]

I remember the incident well, I was 12 years old at
the time. It showed up in Life magazine, as I recall.

To belabor the point a bit, I remember seeing a flight
of 75 of these CG-4s towed by C-47s across my village
in North Carolina during the Big One.



At 03:00 24 November 2004, wrote:
>In 1943, the mayor of St. Louis, Missouri was among
>10 people who died
>in a glider crash at Lambert Field.
>(see http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/2002/1202/docmath.htm)
>
>
>Nyal Williams wrote:
>> A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was
>>built at one time.
>> Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?
>
>

[cernauta]

(Nyal Williams) wrote:

>A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
>Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?

Somebody built a 4 place glider with twin fuselages. It was based on
Blanik parts. A center section, two outside wings, two fuselages and
tails.
I believe it was built by a German Blanik repair station.

Aldo Cernezzi

[Bert Willing]

Urban legend ?

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"cernauta" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> (Nyal Williams) wrote:
>
>>A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
>>Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?
>
> Somebody built a 4 place glider with twin fuselages. It was based on
> Blanik parts. A center section, two outside wings, two fuselages and
> tails.
> I believe it was built by a German Blanik repair station.
>
> Aldo Cernezzi
>

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "Bert Willing" >
napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ...
> Urban legend ?

Not at all. There was an SZD design which consisted of two SZD-9 Bocian
fuselages, each with left or right wing appropriatly, and the 'mid-section'
between the fuselages where the tested airfoils were used. The design was a
flying laboratory for testing of new airfoils characteristics. I believe
that only one or two places were occupied in flight, the rest was used by
the in-flight testing equipment.

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]

I recall a recent discussion about the desirability of a 4-place glider for
the ride business. The subject came up after stuffing two not so smallish
people into the back seat of a 2-32 and sending them on a ride over the
Rockies.

The majority view was that the probability of one of the three paying
passengers getting airsick and ruining it for the other two was just too
high. I'm not too sure about that. A 4-place, 25 meter span ride glider
might be a money maker.

Bill Daniels

"Bert Willing" > wrote in
message ...
> Urban legend ?
>
> --
> Bert Willing
>
> ASW20 "TW"
>
>
> "cernauta" > a écrit dans le message de
> news: ...
> > (Nyal Williams) wrote:
> >
> >>A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
> >>Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?
> >
> > Somebody built a 4 place glider with twin fuselages. It was based on
> > Blanik parts. A center section, two outside wings, two fuselages and
> > tails.
> > I believe it was built by a German Blanik repair station.
> >
> > Aldo Cernezzi
> >
>
>

[Vaughn Simon]

"Bert Willing" > wrote in
message ...
> Urban legend ?

Apparently not. I found a picture of it on the net at :
http://users.skynet.be/nestofdragons/weird_09.htm On the same page you will
see several twins of similar concept, including a twin Ercoupe that looks
like the result of a nasty mid-air.

Vaughn

[Bert Willing]

I was referring to the German Blanik.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Janusz Kesik" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
>
> U¿ytkownik "Bert Willing" >
> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ...
>> Urban legend ?
>
> Not at all. There was an SZD design which consisted of two SZD-9 Bocian
> fuselages, each with left or right wing appropriatly, and the
> 'mid-section'
> between the fuselages where the tested airfoils were used. The design was
> a
> flying laboratory for testing of new airfoils characteristics. I believe
> that only one or two places were occupied in flight, the rest was used by
> the in-flight testing equipment.
>
> 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
>
>

[Matt Michael]

cernauta > wrote in message >...
> (Nyal Williams) wrote:
>
> >A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
> >Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?
>
> Somebody built a 4 place glider with twin fuselages. It was based on
> Blanik parts. A center section, two outside wings, two fuselages and
> tails.
> I believe it was built by a German Blanik repair station.
>
> Aldo Cernezzi

A 1/48 scale plastic model kit of this Twin Blanik can occasionally be
found on Ebay. I'd like to know what happened to the real one.
MM

[Bert Willing]

Ok :-)))

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Vaughn Simon" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
>
> "Bert Willing" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Urban legend ?
>
> Apparently not. I found a picture of it on the net at :
> http://users.skynet.be/nestofdragons/weird_09.htm On the same page you
> will
> see several twins of similar concept, including a twin Ercoupe that looks
> like the result of a nasty mid-air.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>

[Shawn]

ZASoars wrote:
> The glider you ask about may well have been the Gross 4 .The Purdue University
> glider club owned one way back when.

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dg-3000.html
Maybe you can fit two people in the middle seat.
;-)

Shawn

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> Apparently not. I found a picture of it on the net at :

Considering the recent discussion on placement of tow hooks. How was
this contraption launched?

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn.
Fon +49 228 624013, Fax +49 228 624031.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"Geiz ist doof"

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "Bert Willing" >
napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ...
> I was referring to the German Blanik.

I know, only the idea of 4 seater connect these two gliders, I just wanted
to continue thread, but didn't follow the story of Blanik reminded by You.

JK

[cernauta]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote:


> Apparently not. I found a picture of it on the net at :
>http://users.skynet.be/nestofdragons/weird_09.htm

Thank you, great page!

Aldo Cernezzi

[goneill]

Not an urban legend at all ,goto the Lak factory site and you will see
pictures of one built to test wing sections mounted between the two
fuselages .
gary
"Bert Willing" > wrote in
message ...
> Urban legend ?
>
> --
> Bert Willing
>
> ASW20 "TW"
>
>
> "cernauta" > a écrit dans le message de
> news: ...
>> (Nyal Williams) wrote:
>>
>>>A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
>>>Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?
>>
>> Somebody built a 4 place glider with twin fuselages. It was based on
>> Blanik parts. A center section, two outside wings, two fuselages and
>> tails.
>> I believe it was built by a German Blanik repair station.
>>
>> Aldo Cernezzi
>>
>
>

[goneill]

The idea of a joyride machine with multiple places was discussed
at our club a year back and some design ideas tossed around ,
the concensus was something like the DG505 wings attached to a
light tube and fabric fuse with either a triangle seat pattern or a
4 seater star pattern.
This concept was emailed to the owner of DG and the answer came back
that DG had discussed this very idea for a limited production run
but the engineering loads on the fuselage wing junction were very
high and would take a lot of redesigning to get it to work and secondly
the DG505 wingset were simply not strong enough to take those loads.
A Nimbus4D or an ASH25 wingset maybe?
gary
"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
news:wy0pd.141192$HA.53129@attbi_s01...
>I recall a recent discussion about the desirability of a 4-place glider for
> the ride business. The subject came up after stuffing two not so smallish
> people into the back seat of a 2-32 and sending them on a ride over the
> Rockies.
>
> The majority view was that the probability of one of the three paying
> passengers getting airsick and ruining it for the other two was just too
> high. I'm not too sure about that. A 4-place, 25 meter span ride glider
> might be a money maker.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> "Bert Willing" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Urban legend ?
>>
>> --
>> Bert Willing
>>
>> ASW20 "TW"
>>
>>
>> "cernauta" > a écrit dans le message de
>> news: ...
>> > (Nyal Williams) wrote:
>> >
>> >>A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
>> >>Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?
>> >
>> > Somebody built a 4 place glider with twin fuselages. It was based on
>> > Blanik parts. A center section, two outside wings, two fuselages and
>> > tails.
>> > I believe it was built by a German Blanik repair station.
>> >
>> > Aldo Cernezzi
>> >
>>
>>
>

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "goneill" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
> Not an urban legend at all ,goto the Lak factory site and you will see
> pictures of one built to test wing sections mounted between the two
> fuselages .

Just like the SZD I have mentioned earlier. :)

JK

[Bill Daniels]

A usable 4-seat ride glider would have to be engineered from a clean sheet
of paper. It would have to be rugged enough to survive years of stuffing
members of the general public into the seats.

Since it would be large, it would have to remain assembled which likely
means tied outside. I would insist on soft, shock absorbing landing gear.
A self launcher would make good sense in this role.

A 25 meter span would provide very good performance while introducing a lot
of people to soaring and making money for the business providing the rides.
I hope DG keeps thinking along these lines.

Bill Daniels


"goneill" > wrote in message
...
> The idea of a joyride machine with multiple places was discussed
> at our club a year back and some design ideas tossed around ,
> the concensus was something like the DG505 wings attached to a
> light tube and fabric fuse with either a triangle seat pattern or a
> 4 seater star pattern.
> This concept was emailed to the owner of DG and the answer came back
> that DG had discussed this very idea for a limited production run
> but the engineering loads on the fuselage wing junction were very
> high and would take a lot of redesigning to get it to work and secondly
> the DG505 wingset were simply not strong enough to take those loads.
> A Nimbus4D or an ASH25 wingset maybe?
> gary
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> news:wy0pd.141192$HA.53129@attbi_s01...
> >I recall a recent discussion about the desirability of a 4-place glider
for
> > the ride business. The subject came up after stuffing two not so
smallish
> > people into the back seat of a 2-32 and sending them on a ride over the
> > Rockies.
> >
> > The majority view was that the probability of one of the three paying
> > passengers getting airsick and ruining it for the other two was just too
> > high. I'm not too sure about that. A 4-place, 25 meter span ride
glider
> > might be a money maker.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
> >
> > "Bert Willing" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> Urban legend ?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bert Willing
> >>
> >> ASW20 "TW"
> >>
> >>
> >> "cernauta" > a écrit dans le message de
> >> news: ...
> >> > (Nyal Williams) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
> >> >>Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?
> >> >
> >> > Somebody built a 4 place glider with twin fuselages. It was based on
> >> > Blanik parts. A center section, two outside wings, two fuselages and
> >> > tails.
> >> > I believe it was built by a German Blanik repair station.
> >> >
> >> > Aldo Cernezzi
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

[Robert Danewid]

Such a Blanik was built in Lithuania by the current LAK factory for
airfoil testing. I have photos of it (not digital). There is a copy of
it in the Swedish book "Segelflyg" (written by me and a good friend). It
is a 600 page book on gliding for student pilots, unfortunately in Swedish.

I have seen photos of a real 4 place sailplane, but I need a good malt
and some good music to help remember where I have seen those photos.

Robert

cernauta wrote:
> (Nyal Williams) wrote:
>
>
>>A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
>>Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?
>
>
> Somebody built a 4 place glider with twin fuselages. It was based on
> Blanik parts. A center section, two outside wings, two fuselages and
> tails.
> I believe it was built by a German Blanik repair station.
>
> Aldo Cernezzi
>

[Edward Lockhart]

If you're designing your own fuselage.....an ASH25/Nimbus/DG
biplane perhaps?

Be worth a trip down under just to see it.

If you put quad controls in it could be even more fun
- instructor says 'you have control...not you...you...no
you..'

Ed.

At 20:48 24 November 2004, Goneill wrote:
>The idea of a joyride machine with multiple places
>was discussed
>at our club a year back and some design ideas tossed
>around ,
>the concensus was something like the DG505 wings attached
>to a
>light tube and fabric fuse with either a triangle seat
>pattern or a
>4 seater star pattern.
>This concept was emailed to the owner of DG and the
>answer came back
>that DG had discussed this very idea for a limited
>production run
>but the engineering loads on the fuselage wing junction
>were very
>high and would take a lot of redesigning to get it
>to work and secondly
>the DG505 wingset were simply not strong enough to
>take those loads.
>A Nimbus4D or an ASH25 wingset maybe?
>gary

[Nyal Williams]

cernauta > wrote in message >...
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote:
>
>
> > Apparently not. I found a picture of it on the net at :
> >http://users.skynet.be/nestofdragons/weird_09.htm
>
> Thank you, great page!
>
> Aldo Cernezzi

I don't believe that Super Cub (not a J-3). There is no way to get
into the one on the left without switching the doors to the left side.
That means moving all the stuff on the left sidewall to the right
sidewall (What is there on this wall; I have forgot; trim? throttle?
what else?

[Ian Johnston]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:38:44 UTC, "Janusz Kesik"
> wrote:

: Not at all. There was an SZD design which consisted of two SZD-9 Bocian
: fuselages, each with left or right wing appropriatly, and the 'mid-section'
: between the fuselages where the tested airfoils were used.

Sounds a wee bit like the Slingsby type 27, though that was a two
seater and was never fabric covered or flown. Still managed to get
called "The Black Widow" ...

Ian

--

[Matt Michael]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message news:<WH4pd.141880$HA.27666@attbi_s01>...
> A usable 4-seat ride glider would have to be engineered from a clean sheet
> of paper. It would have to be rugged enough to survive years of stuffing
> members of the general public into the seats.
>
> Since it would be large, it would have to remain assembled which likely
> means tied outside. I would insist on soft, shock absorbing landing gear.
> A self launcher would make good sense in this role.
>
> A 25 meter span would provide very good performance while introducing a lot
> of people to soaring and making money for the business providing the rides.
> I hope DG keeps thinking along these lines.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>
> "goneill" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The idea of a joyride machine with multiple places was discussed
> > at our club a year back and some design ideas tossed around ,
> > the concensus was something like the DG505 wings attached to a
> > light tube and fabric fuse with either a triangle seat pattern or a
> > 4 seater star pattern.
> > This concept was emailed to the owner of DG and the answer came back
> > that DG had discussed this very idea for a limited production run
> > but the engineering loads on the fuselage wing junction were very
> > high and would take a lot of redesigning to get it to work and secondly
> > the DG505 wingset were simply not strong enough to take those loads.
> > A Nimbus4D or an ASH25 wingset maybe?
> > gary
> > "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> > news:wy0pd.141192$HA.53129@attbi_s01...
> > >I recall a recent discussion about the desirability of a 4-place glider
> for
> > > the ride business. The subject came up after stuffing two not so
> smallish
> > > people into the back seat of a 2-32 and sending them on a ride over the
> > > Rockies.
> > >
> > > The majority view was that the probability of one of the three paying
> > > passengers getting airsick and ruining it for the other two was just too
> > > high. I'm not too sure about that. A 4-place, 25 meter span ride
> glider
> > > might be a money maker.
> > >
> > > Bill Daniels
> > >
> > > "Bert Willing" > wrote in
> > > message ...
> > >> Urban legend ?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Bert Willing
> > >>
> > >> ASW20 "TW"
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "cernauta" > a écrit dans le message de
> > >> news: ...
> > >> > (Nyal Williams) wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
> > >> >>Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?
> > >> >
> > >> > Somebody built a 4 place glider with twin fuselages. It was based on
> > >> > Blanik parts. A center section, two outside wings, two fuselages and
> > >> > tails.
> > >> > I believe it was built by a German Blanik repair station.
> > >> >
> > >> > Aldo Cernezzi
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >

Hey, how about a Twin Schweizer 2-32! You could carry FIVE
passengers! And, if someone got airsick the ride wouldn't be spoiled
for everyone.

MM

[Bill Daniels]

Just some 'back of the envelope' calculations for a '2+2' seating glider.
(No controls in the back seats.)

Start with the need for 600 Kg cockpit payload. Assume that the best
composite materials and construction techniques are used. That would
suggest a GW of 1000 Kg. Further assume a 25 meter span and 30 Kg/sq. M
wing loading. That yields a wing area of 33.3 Sq. Meters and an aspect
ratio of 18.75. That gives good spar depth to carry the weight.

With retractable gear, flaps and winglets that would suggest ~45:1 L/D and a
min sink of about .55 M/Sec. If flown with a cockpit load of 300 Kg the min
sink would be less.

This is easily within the state-of-the-art. Every commercial ride operator
in the world would want one and so would some wealthy individuals and clubs.
Say, maybe a market for 300+ gliders?

Bill Daniels

"goneill" > wrote in message
...
> The idea of a joyride machine with multiple places was discussed
> at our club a year back and some design ideas tossed around ,
> the concensus was something like the DG505 wings attached to a
> light tube and fabric fuse with either a triangle seat pattern or a
> 4 seater star pattern.
> This concept was emailed to the owner of DG and the answer came back
> that DG had discussed this very idea for a limited production run
> but the engineering loads on the fuselage wing junction were very
> high and would take a lot of redesigning to get it to work and secondly
> the DG505 wingset were simply not strong enough to take those loads.
> A Nimbus4D or an ASH25 wingset maybe?
> gary
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> news:wy0pd.141192$HA.53129@attbi_s01...
> >I recall a recent discussion about the desirability of a 4-place glider
for
> > the ride business. The subject came up after stuffing two not so
smallish
> > people into the back seat of a 2-32 and sending them on a ride over the
> > Rockies.
> >
> > The majority view was that the probability of one of the three paying
> > passengers getting airsick and ruining it for the other two was just too
> > high. I'm not too sure about that. A 4-place, 25 meter span ride
glider
> > might be a money maker.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
> >
> > "Bert Willing" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> Urban legend ?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bert Willing
> >>
> >> ASW20 "TW"
> >>
> >>
> >> "cernauta" > a écrit dans le message de
> >> news: ...
> >> > (Nyal Williams) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one time.
> >> >>Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?
> >> >
> >> > Somebody built a 4 place glider with twin fuselages. It was based on
> >> > Blanik parts. A center section, two outside wings, two fuselages and
> >> > tails.
> >> > I believe it was built by a German Blanik repair station.
> >> >
> >> > Aldo Cernezzi
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:54:52 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
wrote:

>Start with the need for 600 Kg cockpit payload.

600?
Aren't 400 more appropriate?

>Assume that the best
>composite materials and construction techniques are used. That would
>suggest a GW of 1000 Kg. Further assume a 25 meter span and 30 Kg/sq. M
>wing loading. That yields a wing area of 33.3 Sq. Meters and an aspect
>ratio of 18.75. That gives good spar depth to carry the weight.
>
>With retractable gear, flaps and winglets that would suggest ~45:1 L/D and a
>min sink of about .55 M/Sec. If flown with a cockpit load of 300 Kg the min
>sink would be less.

L/D of 45:1 with such a low aspect ratio? Hardly...

>This is easily within the state-of-the-art. Every commercial ride operator
>in the world would want one and so would some wealthy individuals and clubs.
>Say, maybe a market for 300+ gliders?


:)
Cool idea. I like your 300+ number.
What are you going to use to tow this monster? A P-51 or an F4U? :)


I have another idea.
Take a proven self-launching glider with sufficient L/D (25 should be
sufficient for a glide) that already has a type-certificate and proven
to be able to perform a halfways safe landing with engine shut down
(Boeing 767, Airbus A 310, Airbus A 330, Space Shuttle), equip it with
a final glide computer (the Shuttle already has one), go to an
airfield with a runway of sufficient length, and you are able to give
several hundred passengers a glider ride. Not to forget the
stewardesses and the presence of a toilet.






Bye
Andreas

[Ralph Jones]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:54:52 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
wrote:

>Just some 'back of the envelope' calculations for a '2+2' seating glider.
>(No controls in the back seats.)
>
Interesting...how did the ride operators who bought up the 2-32s do?
Haven't heard about them in years.

rj

[Mark James Boyd]

Bill Daniels > wrote:

>With retractable gear, flaps and winglets that would suggest ~45:1 L/D and a
>min sink of about .55 M/Sec. If flown with a cockpit load of 300 Kg the min
>sink would be less.

I bet you'd sell a lot more at 1/4 the price with fixed gear,
no flaps, 30:1 glide and higher wing loading.

In my experience, non-pilots are happier with glider rides,
and pilots want soaring rides. The 2-32 rides that succeed seem
to be in places with no lift or ridge lift, and are high tows
of short duration with little turbulence or "excitement."

The best part of these flights for the pax seem to be the great
visibility, smooth ride, and quiet sightseeing, for a reasonable price.
This isn't quite in line with the specs you suggest.

>This is easily within the state-of-the-art.
At what price? $200,000 each? $100,000 each? $50,000 each?
The venerable 2-32s sell briskly at $40-$50k.

>Every commercial ride operator
>in the world would want one and so would some wealthy individuals and clubs.
>Say, maybe a market for 300+ gliders?

At $50k yes, at $100k maybe, at $200k no.
--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Ralph Jones > wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:54:52 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
>wrote:
>
>>Just some 'back of the envelope' calculations for a '2+2' seating glider.
>>(No controls in the back seats.)
>>
>Interesting...how did the ride operators who bought up the 2-32s do?
>Haven't heard about them in years.



--

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

[Bill Daniels]

"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:54:52 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
> wrote:
>
> >Start with the need for 600 Kg cockpit payload.
>
> 600?
> Aren't 400 more appropriate?

Nope, it needs 600 Kg to allow for three 'super sized' customers.

>
> >Assume that the best
> >composite materials and construction techniques are used. That would
> >suggest a GW of 1000 Kg. Further assume a 25 meter span and 30 Kg/sq. M
> >wing loading. That yields a wing area of 33.3 Sq. Meters and an aspect
> >ratio of 18.75. That gives good spar depth to carry the weight.
> >
> >With retractable gear, flaps and winglets that would suggest ~45:1 L/D
and a
> >min sink of about .55 M/Sec. If flown with a cockpit load of 300 Kg the
min
> >sink would be less.
>
> L/D of 45:1 with such a low aspect ratio? Hardly...
>
Well, AR isn't everything. Sheer span contributes a lot to L/D. To get a
good ratio between GW and payload, the spar depth has to be larger so the
chord has to be larger. So, maybe 40:1.


> What are you going to use to tow this monster? A P-51 or an F4U? :)

What do you tow a fully ballasted ASH-25 with?

Bill Daniels

[Bill Daniels]

"Ralph Jones" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:54:52 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
> wrote:
>
> >Just some 'back of the envelope' calculations for a '2+2' seating glider.
> >(No controls in the back seats.)
> >
> Interesting...how did the ride operators who bought up the 2-32s do?
> Haven't heard about them in years.
>
> rj

They're still working day in, day out.

Bill Daniels

[Ian Johnston]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:54:52 UTC, "Bill Daniels" >
wrote:

: Every commercial ride operator
: in the world would want one and so would some wealthy individuals and clubs.

How many commercial ride operators are there in the world? I'll take a
guess at "none" for Europe.

Ian

--

[Ian Johnston]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:41:43 UTC, "Bill Daniels" >
wrote:

: What do you tow a fully ballasted ASH-25 with?

Odd gliding fact number 1: The ASH-25 uses a brown weak link on the
winch, not, as most people expect, the stronger black one.

Odd gliding fact number 2: ASH-25 pilots often get very, very cross if
you try to winch them on a brown weak link and not a black one

Ian

--

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "Bill Daniels" > wrote:

> Start with the need for 600 Kg cockpit payload...

A few random thoughts on this concept, which seems to pop up every few
years:

That averages 150 kg per seat, which is about 330 lbs. I'd think that
300 kg would be a more realistic maximum cockpit load. That would
average 75 kg (165 lbs) per seat, which I think would be more than
adequate for a typical group of 4 people. Remember that many flights
would be families that include relatively light children.

Since the intent of the aircraft would be commercial operation, I'd
think that the aircraft must be engineered and validated to the
certification standards of at least JAR 22/FAR 23. Amortizing the
development and validation and certification costs over the relatively
few aircraft you could expect to sell would make each very expensive.

Also, I think that it would be somewhat difficult to arrange the seats
and the wings and the fuselage so that everybody has a good view and
feels like they've had a glider ride. Adopting the sort of low-wing or
high-wing layout you see on a Cezzna or Piper Cherokee could be made
to work, but I think it impairs the visibility and makes it too much
like just another automobile ride. Clustering all four seats ahead of
the wing as if making a wide-body training glider would require either
lots of forward wing sweep (which is hard on laminar flow) or a very
long aft fuselage. I suppose you could put two seats ahead of the wing
and two behind, but I think that separating the passengers detracts
from the experience.

What suggests itself to me is sort of a parasol arrangement with the
wing on a short pylon over the cabin. That plus some forward sweep and
generous transparency area should give the sort of view and exposure
that riders would appreciate.

Thanks, and best regards to all

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

[goneill]

I only reported what DG had said on the return email .
The ASH25 was only projected to be a product run
of 25-30 gliders and they still proceeded.
A dedicated ride machine at a reasonable price was
the concept tossed around ,that is why a tube and fabric
fuse was touted attached to a production set of wings
that are able to carry the load, the DG 500/505 being used
for the Stemme and others was a natural suggestion.
I don't think the market is huge but I can think of 3 tourist spots
here in NZ that would make use of such an aircraft.
A self launching version would be an ideal but I have often
looked at tourist spots where I could do this with the idea of
an operation but back of the envelope calcs show ride price
would be too high.
Motor durability and lifespan is a big issue for a commercial
operation
The only economic way would be to winch launch but with its
problems of more staff plus land required plus difficulty with
other aviation operators re the dropping cables.

gary

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
news:%mmpd.459727$D%.420868@attbi_s51...
> Just some 'back of the envelope' calculations for a '2+2' seating glider.
> (No controls in the back seats.)
>
> Start with the need for 600 Kg cockpit payload. Assume that the best
> composite materials and construction techniques are used. That would
> suggest a GW of 1000 Kg. Further assume a 25 meter span and 30 Kg/sq. M
> wing loading. That yields a wing area of 33.3 Sq. Meters and an aspect
> ratio of 18.75. That gives good spar depth to carry the weight.
>
> With retractable gear, flaps and winglets that would suggest ~45:1 L/D and
> a
> min sink of about .55 M/Sec. If flown with a cockpit load of 300 Kg the
> min
> sink would be less.
>
> This is easily within the state-of-the-art. Every commercial ride
> operator
> in the world would want one and so would some wealthy individuals and
> clubs.
> Say, maybe a market for 300+ gliders?
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> "goneill" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The idea of a joyride machine with multiple places was discussed
>> at our club a year back and some design ideas tossed around ,
>> the concensus was something like the DG505 wings attached to a
>> light tube and fabric fuse with either a triangle seat pattern or a
>> 4 seater star pattern.
>> This concept was emailed to the owner of DG and the answer came back
>> that DG had discussed this very idea for a limited production run
>> but the engineering loads on the fuselage wing junction were very
>> high and would take a lot of redesigning to get it to work and secondly
>> the DG505 wingset were simply not strong enough to take those loads.
>> A Nimbus4D or an ASH25 wingset maybe?
>> gary
>> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
>> news:wy0pd.141192$HA.53129@attbi_s01...
>> >I recall a recent discussion about the desirability of a 4-place glider
> for
>> > the ride business. The subject came up after stuffing two not so
> smallish
>> > people into the back seat of a 2-32 and sending them on a ride over the
>> > Rockies.
>> >
>> > The majority view was that the probability of one of the three paying
>> > passengers getting airsick and ruining it for the other two was just
>> > too
>> > high. I'm not too sure about that. A 4-place, 25 meter span ride
> glider
>> > might be a money maker.
>> >
>> > Bill Daniels
>> >
>> > "Bert Willing" > wrote in
>> > message ...
>> >> Urban legend ?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Bert Willing
>> >>
>> >> ASW20 "TW"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "cernauta" > a écrit dans le message
>> >> de
>> >> news: ...
>> >> > (Nyal Williams) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>A friend keeps insisting that a 4-place glider was built at one
>> >> >>time.
>> >> >>Can anyone verify, identify, or point to a picture?
>> >> >
>> >> > Somebody built a 4 place glider with twin fuselages. It was based on
>> >> > Blanik parts. A center section, two outside wings, two fuselages and
>> >> > tails.
>> >> > I believe it was built by a German Blanik repair station.
>> >> >
>> >> > Aldo Cernezzi
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:41:43 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
wrote:

>Nope, it needs 600 Kg to allow for three 'super sized' customers.

These are really super sized customers... :)
170 kg per customer... wow. hard to find people that heavy here in
Germany I have to admit.


>> What are you going to use to tow this monster? A P-51 or an F4U? :)
>
>What do you tow a fully ballasted ASH-25 with?

I somehow have the impression that your 400 kg dry weight of the
glider are about factor 2 too small, considering the fact that my
club's DG-505 weighs already 426 kg. :)


Bye
Andreas

[soarski]

Andreas Maurer > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:54:52 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
> wrote:
>
> >Start with the need for 600 Kg cockpit payload.
>
> 600?
> Aren't 400 more appropriate?
>
> >Assume that the best
> >composite materials and construction techniques are used. That would
> >suggest a GW of 1000 Kg. Further assume a 25 meter span and 30 Kg/sq. M
> >wing loading. That yields a wing area of 33.3 Sq. Meters and an aspect
> >ratio of 18.75. That gives good spar depth to carry the weight.
> >
> >With retractable gear, flaps and winglets that would suggest ~45:1 L/D and a
> >min sink of about .55 M/Sec. If flown with a cockpit load of 300 Kg the min
> >sink would be less.
>
> L/D of 45:1 with such a low aspect ratio? Hardly...
>
> >This is easily within the state-of-the-art. Every commercial ride operator
> >in the world would want one and so would some wealthy individuals and clubs.
> >Say, maybe a market for 300+ gliders?
>
>
> :)
> Cool idea. I like your 300+ number.
> What are you going to use to tow this monster? A P-51 or an F4U? :)
>
>
> I have another idea.
> Take a proven self-launching glider with sufficient L/D (25 should be
> sufficient for a glide) that already has a type-certificate and proven
> to be able to perform a halfways safe landing with engine shut down
> (Boeing 767, Airbus A 310, Airbus A 330, Space Shuttle), equip it with
> a final glide computer (the Shuttle already has one), go to an
> airfield with a runway of sufficient length, and you are able to give
> several hundred passengers a glider ride. Not to forget the
> stewardesses and the presence of a toilet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

Possibly Bill meant 600 Lbs? for the cockpit. some additional for
usefull load...

There are some fuselages around that would lend themselves for your
project.

I would use the Stemme concept first, make the cab a little longer,
stick the new Diesel in front, right behind Stemme's Prop, they have a
23 m wing already, beef it up with the secondary spars, Retract
landing gear is there.

Diamond has 4 place Fuselages, several, even the new jet. is that a 6
seater? make everything lighter, leave all the junk out for high
altitude flight pressure,... and stick a great wing on it. Maybe use
the jet. There ARE possibilities.

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41a6305a$1@darkstar...
> Bill Daniels > wrote:
>
> >With retractable gear, flaps and winglets that would suggest ~45:1 L/D
and a
> >min sink of about .55 M/Sec. If flown with a cockpit load of 300 Kg the
min
> >sink would be less.
>
> I bet you'd sell a lot more at 1/4 the price with fixed gear,
> no flaps, 30:1 glide and higher wing loading.
>
> In my experience, non-pilots are happier with glider rides,
> and pilots want soaring rides. The 2-32 rides that succeed seem
> to be in places with no lift or ridge lift, and are high tows
> of short duration with little turbulence or "excitement."
>
> The best part of these flights for the pax seem to be the great
> visibility, smooth ride, and quiet sightseeing, for a reasonable price.
> This isn't quite in line with the specs you suggest.
>
One of my pilot friends humped a bunch of rides in Hawaii. He thought there
was a market for a terminal to the numbers 2-32 ride. Climb to 3000agl then
due a vertical dive (with speed limiting brakes open) and pull out above the
numbers and land. Of course for this, the chutes are required, which limits
the load again.

In the UK, we did some evening rides for a group of fireman from the local
fire college. Not much lift late in the date, but some really got off on a
four-loop cloverleaf with a beatup at the end.

A club near Houston reports having been approached by Six Flags about a
concept for winch launch and soar back. I suppose a couple of loops or
something similar might be the icing on cake.

Granted, this type of operation may not appeal to many of us, but there may
be some other interest there.

Frank Whiteley

[Bill Daniels]

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
> news:41a6305a$1@darkstar...
> > Bill Daniels > wrote:
> >
> > >With retractable gear, flaps and winglets that would suggest ~45:1 L/D
> and a
> > >min sink of about .55 M/Sec. If flown with a cockpit load of 300 Kg
the
> min
> > >sink would be less.
> >
> > I bet you'd sell a lot more at 1/4 the price with fixed gear,
> > no flaps, 30:1 glide and higher wing loading.
> >
> > In my experience, non-pilots are happier with glider rides,
> > and pilots want soaring rides. The 2-32 rides that succeed seem
> > to be in places with no lift or ridge lift, and are high tows
> > of short duration with little turbulence or "excitement."
> >
> > The best part of these flights for the pax seem to be the great
> > visibility, smooth ride, and quiet sightseeing, for a reasonable price.
> > This isn't quite in line with the specs you suggest.
> >
> One of my pilot friends humped a bunch of rides in Hawaii. He thought
there
> was a market for a terminal to the numbers 2-32 ride. Climb to 3000agl
then
> due a vertical dive (with speed limiting brakes open) and pull out above
the
> numbers and land. Of course for this, the chutes are required, which
limits
> the load again.
>
> In the UK, we did some evening rides for a group of fireman from the local
> fire college. Not much lift late in the date, but some really got off on
a
> four-loop cloverleaf with a beatup at the end.
>
> A club near Houston reports having been approached by Six Flags about a
> concept for winch launch and soar back. I suppose a couple of loops or
> something similar might be the icing on cake.
>
> Granted, this type of operation may not appeal to many of us, but there
may
> be some other interest there.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>

Naw, this stuff isn't to entertain the ride customers, it's to stave off
boredom for the ride pilots. You can give a ride customer all the thrills
they can handle with a steep turn and maybe a low-G pushover.

I fly as smoothly as possible while working any lift available. I babble on
about beautiful scenery, long flights, high flights, using energy from the
sun and how wonderful it is that we can make our way across the sky with
just piloting skills. Then I point out that they too can become a pilot in
a few weeks or months. They enjoy their ride and a few sign up for lessons.

It seems to work a lot better in a Grob than in a 2-32 though.

Bill Daniels

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
news:Zqwpd.85993$V41.54449@attbi_s52...
>
> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
> > news:41a6305a$1@darkstar...
> > > Bill Daniels > wrote:
> > >
> > > >With retractable gear, flaps and winglets that would suggest ~45:1
L/D
> > and a
> > > >min sink of about .55 M/Sec. If flown with a cockpit load of 300 Kg
> the
> > min
> > > >sink would be less.
> > >
> > > I bet you'd sell a lot more at 1/4 the price with fixed gear,
> > > no flaps, 30:1 glide and higher wing loading.
> > >
> > > In my experience, non-pilots are happier with glider rides,
> > > and pilots want soaring rides. The 2-32 rides that succeed seem
> > > to be in places with no lift or ridge lift, and are high tows
> > > of short duration with little turbulence or "excitement."
> > >
> > > The best part of these flights for the pax seem to be the great
> > > visibility, smooth ride, and quiet sightseeing, for a reasonable
price.
> > > This isn't quite in line with the specs you suggest.
> > >
> > One of my pilot friends humped a bunch of rides in Hawaii. He thought
> there
> > was a market for a terminal to the numbers 2-32 ride. Climb to 3000agl
> then
> > due a vertical dive (with speed limiting brakes open) and pull out above
> the
> > numbers and land. Of course for this, the chutes are required, which
> limits
> > the load again.
> >
> > In the UK, we did some evening rides for a group of fireman from the
local
> > fire college. Not much lift late in the date, but some really got off
on
> a
> > four-loop cloverleaf with a beatup at the end.
> >
> > A club near Houston reports having been approached by Six Flags about a
> > concept for winch launch and soar back. I suppose a couple of loops or
> > something similar might be the icing on cake.
> >
> > Granted, this type of operation may not appeal to many of us, but there
> may
> > be some other interest there.
> >
> > Frank Whiteley
> >
>
> Naw, this stuff isn't to entertain the ride customers, it's to stave off
> boredom for the ride pilots. You can give a ride customer all the thrills
> they can handle with a steep turn and maybe a low-G pushover.
>
> I fly as smoothly as possible while working any lift available. I babble
on
> about beautiful scenery, long flights, high flights, using energy from the
> sun and how wonderful it is that we can make our way across the sky with
> just piloting skills. Then I point out that they too can become a pilot
in
> a few weeks or months. They enjoy their ride and a few sign up for
lessons.
>
> It seems to work a lot better in a Grob than in a 2-32 though.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
We talking about two different things, carnival ride vs soaring promo. I
don't think the 4-seater really fits the soaring promo arena, but would be
just the ticket for Mr. Bill's or the Continental Divide ride. I don't see
300 sales though.

Frank

[soarski]

The Soaring ride Business is an interesting one! Many glider pilots
may not really know it and between the ride Pilots/instructors there
seem to be differences of opinion.

The seat arrangement should not be any problem. Remember, the 2-32 was
able to
cary two in the back. Another person in the front makes 4, three
passengers.
The Aircraft should be selflaunching, thus able to fly off any public
airport.

Soaring should be always attempted, showing off the sport. It is up to
the pilot to feel out what would be most impressive for the riders. My
Passengers are always amazed when they get an hr flight with an 8 min
engine run. This depends on how good local soaring conditions are.
When you have a passenger next to you, or a student the pilot can
really see the state of mind of the passenger.

Almost all the clubs in Europe give rides, this is how they keep the
kitty from getting empty. There are at least 3 com. operations in
Germany. More in France. The Clubs call them Schnupperfluege. Sniff
out the activity.

This kind of aircraft could be of more interest when Fuel goes up
more, not only for rides. Wanderflug! The powerplant prop
configuration has to be simple and flawless....I bet it is coming.

Think up!

Stemme S10V N 600PL
ASE

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Andreas Maurer > wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:54:52 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
> wrote:
>
> >Start with the need for 600 Kg cockpit payload.
>
> 600?
> Aren't 400 more appropriate?

Bob suggested 300. But I think 400 is a good number unless you want to
fly it with an empty seat a lot of the time.


> :)
> Cool idea. I like your 300+ number.
> What are you going to use to tow this monster? A P-51 or an F4U? :)

One of these NZ jump-planes would work well:

http://www.utilityaircraft.com/

It can take a load of skydivers weighing 4400 lbs (up to 17 jumpers) to
12,000 ft in 12 mins. Stall is around 60 knots, best climb angle at 85
knots. So it's reasonably compatable with glider tow speeds and
certainly has the power.

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

[Mark James Boyd]

F.L. Whiteley > wrote:

>In the UK, we did some evening rides for a group of fireman from the local
>fire college. Not much lift late in the date, but some really got off on a
>four-loop cloverleaf with a beatup at the end.
>
>A club near Houston reports having been approached by Six Flags about a
>concept for winch launch and soar back. I suppose a couple of loops or
>something similar might be the icing on cake.
>
>Granted, this type of operation may not appeal to many of us, but there may
>be some other interest there.

I think that one could make a glider which did both fairly well.
The higher wing loading and less aspect ratio which appeals to the
pleasant ride also lend well for aerobatics. Perhaps not enough
for easy rolls, but certainly for loops.

So I certainly wouldn't want to restrict such a glider from loops, if
this didn't greatly increase the cost. It just seems from my experience
that most of the time when someone wants a "spicy" ride, steep turns,
30 degree dives with 30 degree pullup (apogee arcs), and full forward slips
seem to be exciting enough.

I personally think non-aerobatic glider flying is so interesting on its
own, especially the launch where you hear only the air going by
(no offense to the self-power guys) that it's neat enough.

Sure there are some hard cores who want a full aerobatic as their
very first ride, but the ones who can take it seem few and far between...
;)
--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

Bill Daniels > wrote:
>
>Naw, this stuff isn't to entertain the ride customers, it's to stave off
>boredom for the ride pilots.

I know some ASEL CFIs guys who've spins on their intro rides just
to ease their boredom. 0/4 return customers on that one. :(

>You can give a ride customer all the thrills
>they can handle with a steep turn and maybe a low-G pushover.
>
>I fly as smoothly as possible while working any lift available. I babble on
>about beautiful scenery, long flights, high flights, using energy from the
>sun and how wonderful it is that we can make our way across the sky with
>just piloting skills. Then I point out that they too can become a pilot in
>a few weeks or months. They enjoy their ride and a few sign up for lessons.

Yep. It seems if a customer wants gliding vs. airplane, the serenity is
more of a seller...

>It seems to work a lot better in a Grob than in a 2-32 though.

2-32 seems like a couples thing, really. And you take the stick
out of the back anyway, so not really a seller for lessons as much...
--

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

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "Bill Daniels" > wrote:

> ...Nope, it needs 600 Kg to allow for
> three 'super sized' customers.

I believe that trying to accommodate the maximum doesn't make good
economic sense. I still think that the way to maximize the economic
return is to optimize the vehicle for a cockpit weight that falls near
the middle of the bell curve for groups of four. And I'll bet that's
no where near 600 kg.

Bob K.

[Bill Daniels]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
om...
> Earlier, "Bill Daniels" > wrote:
>
> > ...Nope, it needs 600 Kg to allow for
> > three 'super sized' customers.
>
> I believe that trying to accommodate the maximum doesn't make good
> economic sense. I still think that the way to maximize the economic
> return is to optimize the vehicle for a cockpit weight that falls near
> the middle of the bell curve for groups of four. And I'll bet that's
> no where near 600 kg.
>
> Bob K.

OK, I give up. How about 400 Kg cockpit load.

Bill Daniels

[Vaughn]

"soarski" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Soaring should be always attempted, showing off the sport. It is up to
> the pilot to feel out what would be most impressive for the riders.

Yes, and figuring that out is a bit of an art. I like to indirectly ask,
starting by asking if they had ever been in a small plane before. Some like to
take the controls, some not. I learn more by hanging back and listening to
customers talk among themselves than any other way!

While doing rides, never miss a chance to soar with birds. I have
converted more than one nervous rider into an enthusiastic participant by simply
forming up on a bird. It also gives you a chance to explain that we are doing
the exact same thing that they are; thermalling. They also often ask if we can
fly into a cloud; I have to gently explain why that is not a great idea.

Vaughn

[Robert Ehrlich]

----------
Dans l'article >,
(soarski) a écrit :
really see the state of mind of the passenger.
> ...
> Almost all the clubs in Europe give rides, this is how they keep the
> kitty from getting empty. There are at least 3 com. operations in
> Germany. More in France. The Clubs call them Schnupperfluege. Sniff
> out the activity.
>

As far as I know, except Quo Vadis, the commercial operating organization
of Klaus Ohlmann, there are no commercial operations in France. The CNVV
(Centre National de Vol à Voile) in Saint Auban may seem very similar to
a commercial operation, as it is operated by full time professionals, but
it is a non profit organization. Almost all the clubs in France give rides,
but very few make any profit on that, as this is forbidden by the law, so
this cannot be used to keep the kitty from getting empty.

[soarski]

"Robert Ehrlich" > wrote in message >...
> ----------
> Dans l'article >,
> (soarski) a écrit :
> really see the state of mind of the passenger.
> > ...
> > Almost all the clubs in Europe give rides, this is how they keep the
> > kitty from getting empty. There are at least 3 com. operations in
> > Germany. More in France. The Clubs call them Schnupperfluege. Sniff
> > out the activity.
> >
>
> As far as I know, except Quo Vadis, the commercial operating organization
> of Klaus Ohlmann, there are no commercial operations in France. The CNVV
> (Centre National de Vol à Voile) in Saint Auban may seem very similar to
> a commercial operation, as it is operated by full time professionals, but
> it is a non profit organization. Almost all the clubs in France give rides,
> but very few make any profit on that, as this is forbidden by the law, so
> this cannot be used to keep the kitty from getting empty.

I wonder what the French charge for an hr ride in a '25 ? Those Pros.
Good Lawyers involved?

[Stefan]

soarski wrote:

> I wonder what the French charge for an hr ride in a '25 ? Those Pros.
> Good Lawyers involved?

No, but reasonable judges outside the USA.

Stefan

[Robert Ehrlich]

----------
Dans l'article >,
(soarski) a écrit :


> "Robert Ehrlich" > wrote in message
> >...
> ...
>> Almost all the clubs in France give rides,
>> but very few make any profit on that, as this is forbidden by the law, so
>> this cannot be used to keep the kitty from getting empty.
>
> I wonder what the French charge for an hr ride in a '25 ? Those Pros.
> Good Lawyers involved?

I don't know for an hr ride in a '25 (ASH 25 ?). In my club rides are
on ASK21, cost is 55 euros (45 per person for groups of 2 or more) for
20 to 30 minutes. I confess that when I am the pilot for a ride, when
this is the last ride of the day, i.e. there is nobody waiting for the
glider and thermels are still there, I tend to make the flight longer
than these 30 minutes.

The question of profit is watched much more by the French equivalent
of IRS, as making profit should mean paying taxes. Anyway the question
of profit just on rides is disputable if it just compensates deficit
on other acivities. I know that such things exist in some club and are
toleraterd as long as it is not to important.

[Bert Willing]

You are right on the fact that besides Klaus, nobody runs a commercial
operation in France (and there are very few in Germany).
However, rides are a very good source of income for clubs, and they make
good money out of it - which is in turn used to pay the bills...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Robert Ehrlich" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
>
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article >,
> (soarski) a écrit :
> really see the state of mind of the passenger.
>> ...
>> Almost all the clubs in Europe give rides, this is how they keep the
>> kitty from getting empty. There are at least 3 com. operations in
>> Germany. More in France. The Clubs call them Schnupperfluege. Sniff
>> out the activity.
>>
>
> As far as I know, except Quo Vadis, the commercial operating organization
> of Klaus Ohlmann, there are no commercial operations in France. The CNVV
> (Centre National de Vol à Voile) in Saint Auban may seem very similar to
> a commercial operation, as it is operated by full time professionals, but
> it is a non profit organization. Almost all the clubs in France give
> rides,
> but very few make any profit on that, as this is forbidden by the law, so
> this cannot be used to keep the kitty from getting empty.