SZD-56-2 Diana

[Yurek]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:56:01 +0000 (UTC),
(Michel Talon) wrote:

>If you don't benefit from this effect you have to sell cheaper or you
>don't sell. Take an example, the French glider Pegase was an
>excellent glider, very comparable to the LS4. It was 30% cheaper
>than the LS4 still it was difficult to sell, to say the least.

I can't agree with you again...
Pegase was nothing else, as a copy of ASW-19, which was a good
construction. Pegase was not easy to sell, because it was not better
as the original. As Andreas Maurer noticed, it was sometimes even
worse...
The difficulty we have in our sweet France is, that government is
trying to push some companies (like Centrair) and this kind of
protection does not make entreprises stronger. It makes them even
weaker, and when the protection stops, they disappear. Centrair
stopped the production of gliders, because this company didn't have
good stuff, nor a good commercial behavior and was unable to sell
without special help (like a bulk order of the French Gliding
Federation) . Novaday they are subcontractors of Airbus, and I hope
they will perform better...
In the same time, a really excellent French construction, which is
Crystal, took 10 years to be certified ! Commercially speaking, it is
dead before to be born...
20 years earlier, you could see the same situation, when the French
administration pushed forward the construction of Wassmers Bijave
against the Breguets Choucas... with the same kind of result.

The real question, Michel, is : what is the stuff worth, what are its
advantages, or qualities, and not if it is German, French, Polish,
or... Lithuanian!
I fully agree with Andreas : only the competition can improve
products, and this statement concerns gliders as well...

[[email protected]]

Yurek > wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:56:01 +0000 (UTC),
> (Michel Talon) wrote:

>>If you don't benefit from this effect you have to sell cheaper or you
>>don't sell. Take an example, the French glider Pegase was an
>>excellent glider, very comparable to the LS4. It was 30% cheaper
>>than the LS4 still it was difficult to sell, to say the least.

> I can't agree with you again...
> Pegase was nothing else, as a copy of ASW-19 (*), which was a good
> construction. Pegase was not easy to sell, because it was not better
> as the original. As Andreas Maurer noticed, it was sometimes even
> worse...

The Pegase was ways better than the ASW19. It was as good as the LS4 if not
better. Your comments are exactly the demonstration of the sort of crap people
think of non German gliders, hence of the difficulty of selling them.

(*) This is patently false. The Pegase has original wings, which is by far the
most important part of a glider.

--
Michel Talon

[Bert Willing]

The fact that the Pégase or ASW20F never sold in Germany are rather due to
the fact that Centrair went into licencing problems with Schleicher on the
number of ASW20 built under this lience, and that the Péegase fuselage as
well as the wing planiform are a 100% copy of the ASW20.

Pitty though because the Pégase is a very good glider - but with a company
like Centrair having lost all competitiveness lost over the heavy protection
by the FFVV, you just can't be in business.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


> a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> Yurek > wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:56:01 +0000 (UTC),
>> (Michel Talon) wrote:
>
>>>If you don't benefit from this effect you have to sell cheaper or you
>>>don't sell. Take an example, the French glider Pegase was an
>>>excellent glider, very comparable to the LS4. It was 30% cheaper
>>>than the LS4 still it was difficult to sell, to say the least.
>
>> I can't agree with you again...
>> Pegase was nothing else, as a copy of ASW-19 (*), which was a good
>> construction. Pegase was not easy to sell, because it was not better
>> as the original. As Andreas Maurer noticed, it was sometimes even
>> worse...
>
> The Pegase was ways better than the ASW19. It was as good as the LS4 if
> not
> better. Your comments are exactly the demonstration of the sort of crap
> people
> think of non German gliders, hence of the difficulty of selling them.
>
> (*) This is patently false. The Pegase has original wings, which is by far
> the
> most important part of a glider.
>
> --
> Michel Talon

[Robert Ehrlich]

Yurek wrote:
> ...
> The difficulty we have in our sweet France is, that government is
> trying to push some companies (like Centrair) and this kind of
> protection does not make entreprises stronger. It makes them even
> weaker, and when the protection stops, they disappear. Centrair
> stopped the production of gliders, because this company didn't have
> good stuff, nor a good commercial behavior and was unable to sell
> without special help (like a bulk order of the French Gliding
> Federation) . Novaday they are subcontractors of Airbus, and I hope
> they will perform better...
> In the same time, a really excellent French construction, which is
> Crystal, took 10 years to be certified ! Commercially speaking, it is
> dead before to be born...
> 20 years earlier, you could see the same situation, when the French
> administration pushed forward the construction of Wassmers Bijave
> against the Breguets Choucas... with the same kind of result.
> ...

Opinions about the government sponsoring gliding and glider manufcturers
may be debated, but in my opinion one thing is sure : if we didn't
have this sponsoring in the past, France would certainly not be among
the 3 countries (with Germany and USA) where the number of glider pilots
exceeds (barely in France) 10000. The case of the USA is atypical,
considering the population the number is small. And in Germany the sponsoring
is much older, even if it stopped earlier, the trend it triggered is
much more important.

I don't think the commercial behaviour of Centrair had an incidence
on the end of production of gliders, but the lack of innovation and
performance improvement certainly was a factor, as the market for new
gliders is mainly lead by top competitors who are ready to put a lot
of money in a glider provided it gives a better chance to win.

Considering the choice of the Bijave, I agree it was a poor choice
when compared to Breguet, but the cost of Breguet was much higher
and the purpose of the sponsoring was to encourage cheap flying,
much more Bijave than Choucas could be buyed with this sponsoring.
Anyway it is well known the decision was based on political lobbying
and neither on performance nor on cost :-(

[[email protected]]

Bert Willing > wrote:
> The fact that the Pégase or ASW20F never sold in Germany are rather due to
> the fact that Centrair went into licencing problems with Schleicher on the
> number of ASW20 built under this lience, and that the Péegase fuselage as
> well as the wing planiform are a 100% copy of the ASW20.

Anyways, this is quite irrelevant to our discussion. Wether some elements are
copies or not the fact is that the Pegase was a good glider and cheap, but did
not sell out of France.

> Pitty though because the Pégase is a very good glider - but with a company
> like Centrair having lost all competitiveness lost over the heavy protection
> by the FFVV, you just can't be in business.

I agree completely, Centrair has never been a serious business.


--
Michel Talon

[Jack]

I read these comments with interest. I think the comments made about
the smaller, lower-performance, lower-price sailplanes not selling well
miss the mark. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the price,
but due to the lower appeal of their looks and performance. The fact is
that there isn't that much difference in the labor or materials needed
to make a PW-5 and the labor and materials to make an ASW-28. The
Germans are sitting on their laurels and making money. This is the
American, (and any other capitalist country,) way of making money. The
Germans have perfected everything except gel-coated finishes, and the
performance shows. I would do the same in their position. It still
doesn't negate the fact that the ASW-28 airframe really shouldn't be
much more expensive than a PW-5 airframe. Figure the weight of each,
and that's how much more material you're buying. Look at the wetted
area, and that's how much more labor you're buying. Oversimplified?
Sure it is. R&D costs are in there, but wait, most of that's done by
college students.

The last boat I bought cost about $1,000- per foot. That ratio went
down as the length went up. I could have bought a 21 foot boat for
about $940- per foot, with a bigger outboard, etc. It just didn't cost
that much more to build the 21 foot boat over the cost of the 19 foot
boat. The cost to produce them was nearly identical, according to the
guy at the factory when I took the tour. Why the higher price? Appeal.
Ego. What the market will bear.

Makes my old Pik look better every time I drag her out of the
trailer... The Germans are making money. They're staying in business,
for the most part. That will end if the pricing doesn't get better...
or will it? No, as long as there are egos, those egos will be played
upon by the performance peddlers. As much as I'd like to have an LS-10,
or an ASG-29, or... insert your favorite Diana 2 here... I'll never
spend that kind of cash on a sailplane... unless this lottery ticket
pays off... 8^)...

Jack Womack
Pik-20B (AZ)

[Andreas Maurer]

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:58:33 +0100, Asbjorn Hojmark
> wrote:


>Actually, it was more of an ASW-20F without the flaps.
My opinion too - so far I'm lacking the proof of the all-new Pegase
airfoil. The airfoil section on the Pegase fuselage looks *very*
similar. :)

I'm still wondering how an ASW-20 with flaps fixed in setting 3 had
compared to the LS-4. Schleicher tested that once (in an ASW-20 for
some US pilot - Karl Striedieck?), but I have not heard of any
conclusion.

Since the 20 climbs better than the LS-4 (with flaps 3) and has a
significantly better L/D, this might have been an interesting
competition.

Unfortunately Schleicher decided to build the all-new ASW-24 then, and
the days of comfortable Schleicher cockpits for big guys were gone
..... :(






Bye
Andreas

[Michel Talon]

Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:58:33 +0100, Asbjorn Hojmark
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Actually, it was more of an ASW-20F without the flaps.
> My opinion too - so far I'm lacking the proof of the all-new Pegase
> airfoil. The airfoil section on the Pegase fuselage looks *very*
> similar. :)
>

Would you say that the people at ONERA who have done the job are liars?
Here is the reference:
http://www.onera.fr/daap/reussites.html
I will translate for non french speaking people:
"Light aircraft also benefited from these work, which led to the definition
of the wings of the glider Pegase"
Let me recall that ONERA is a public research organisation who has worked
in particular on the Airbus wings. Also note that German glider factories
work in collaboration with universities to refine their aerodynamical designs.
Anyways the Pegase wing has a very good compromise, so that it climbs well
and still has good behavior at high speed.

> I'm still wondering how an ASW-20 with flaps fixed in setting 3 had
> compared to the LS-4. Schleicher tested that once (in an ASW-20 for
> some US pilot - Karl Striedieck?), but I have not heard of any
> conclusion.

In principle a flapped glider should be better at both ends, very low speed
and very high speed. The people who designed the Pegase wing could not do
miracles.



--

Michel TALON

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 13:56:09 +0000 (UTC),
(Michel Talon) wrote:

>Would you say that the people at ONERA who have done the job are liars?
>Here is the reference:
>http://www.onera.fr/daap/reussites.html
>I will translate for non french speaking people:
>"Light aircraft also benefited from these work, which led to the definition
>of the wings of the glider Pegase"

Thx for the link - my French is good enough that I understand the
text. :)
Yet I have not seen a source what airfoil was actually used on the
Pegase...

>>In principle a flapped glider should be better at both ends, very low speed
>and very high speed. The people who designed the Pegase wing could not do
>miracles.

I was speaking about an unmodified ASW-20 wing (airfoil Wortmann FX
62-K131) without flaps (or rather: with the flap lever fixed in
neutral position. According to Ferriere Schleicher named this glider
"ASW-24 prototype".



Bye
Andreas

[Michel Talon]

Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> Thx for the link - my French is good enough that I understand the
> text. :)
> Yet I have not seen a source what airfoil was actually used on the
> Pegase...
>

For me it is clear, it is an original design obtained following the numerical
work they have done for the airbus wings. So you will not find reference to
a catalogued model.

> >>In principle a flapped glider should be better at both ends, very low speed
> >and very high speed. The people who designed the Pegase wing could not do
> >miracles.
>
> I was speaking about an unmodified ASW-20 wing (airfoil Wortmann FX
> 62-K131) without flaps (or rather: with the flap lever fixed in
> neutral position. According to Ferriere Schleicher named this glider
> "ASW-24 prototype".
>

I suppose that if it was a well known airfoil as the one you cite, they would
not take credit of it. Probably also the performance is better than this
classic airfoil, or they would have nothing to be proud of. Now the
performance of our Polish friends show that it is possible to do much much
better, more than twenty years later, with computers infinitely more
powerful, using very rigid materials which allow very thin wings, etc.

>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

--

Michel TALON

[Robert Ehrlich]

Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:37:02 +0000, Robert Ehrlich
> > wrote:
>
> > if we didn't have this sponsoring in the past, France would certainly
> > not be among the 3 countries (with Germany and USA) where the number
> > of glider pilots exceeds (barely in France) 10000.
>
> Actually that isn't very much. I believe there are approx 60M people
> in France, and you say you have 10K glider pilots. There are in the
> order of 5½M people in Denmark and we have close to 2K glider pilots.
>

I completely agree, this is not very much. The ratio pilots/people is often
higher in small countries, Finland is another good example. Maybe this
is due to the fact that this nevertherless put the number of pilots near
to the minimum workable number, i.e. if it were lower, gliding would have
vanished in that country and so the country would not show in the statistics.
Anyway my point was only that without public sponsoring, this number would
certainly be lower, if even gliding would still be practised here. According
to a book about gliding history in France, the number was 23000 in 1990, but
8500 among them were short time "licences" (in the sense of registration to
the national organisation (FFVV), not pilots certificates, even an intro ride
has such a registration).

[Michel Talon]

Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
> Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:37:02 +0000, Robert Ehrlich
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > if we didn't have this sponsoring in the past, France would certainly
> > > not be among the 3 countries (with Germany and USA) where the number
> > > of glider pilots exceeds (barely in France) 10000.
> >
> > Actually that isn't very much. I believe there are approx 60M people
> > in France, and you say you have 10K glider pilots. There are in the
> > order of 5?M people in Denmark and we have close to 2K glider pilots.
> >
>
> I completely agree, this is not very much. The ratio pilots/people is often
> higher in small countries, Finland is another good example. Maybe this
> is due to the fact that this nevertherless put the number of pilots near
> to the minimum workable number, i.e. if it were lower, gliding would have
> vanished in that country and so the country would not show in the statistics.
> Anyway my point was only that without public sponsoring, this number would
> certainly be lower, if even gliding would still be practised here. According
> to a book about gliding history in France, the number was 23000 in 1990, but
> 8500 among them were short time "licences" (in the sense of registration to
> the national organisation (FFVV), not pilots certificates, even an intro ride
> has such a registration).

Robert,
what was the number in 1980, 1970, etc? I have the impression these numbers
have incredibly diminished. When i was at school there even existed programs
to help youngs practising power flying, i had several pals doing that.
Gliding costed next to nothing, when i began at Montpellier, half of the club
was peasants and factory workers from the surroundings. Now things have
changed so much ...


--

Michel TALON

[Robert Ehrlich]

Andreas Maurer wrote:
> ...
> Thx for the link - my French is good enough that I understand the
> text. :)
> Yet I have not seen a source what airfoil was actually used on the
> Pegase...
>

In the database at http://www.aae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html
Pegase and Marianne are mentionned with airfoil "COAP 1" at wing root
and "COAP 2" at wing tip.

[Robert Ehrlich]

Michel Talon wrote:
> ...
> However, it seems to me
> that the LS4 is a glider which is as easy and benign as the ASK23
> but has the advantage of not being a flying brick.
>

During the last season which was my first one as an instructor,
I sent my first student to solo flight. After his first solo
flight in the same ASK21 in which he did his last dual flight
with me, I had no problem to send him solo for the next flights
in an ASK23, so freeing the ASK21 for other dual flights. I would
probably not have sent him solo in any other glider I know, certainly
not in a LS4. I agree that the LS4 is easy and benign, but anyway
it is sufficienty different from the ASK21 that a student need
to gain experience in more solo flights before this transition.
And this is the current practice in all clubs I know : students
build hours by flying solo the two seater in which they learned
before flying a single seater, except the case above. As a
flying brick, the ASK23 is not worse than the ASK21 with the reduced
wing loading due to the empty back seat. Anyway penetration is not
very important for these first solo flights, as the student remains
in the cone of 10:1 glide slope, in close proximity to the field and
preferably upwind.

I agree, the price of this glider is a shame, or rather was, as it
is no more in production, just fot this reason.

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:58:12 +0000, Robert Ehrlich
> wrote:

>During the last season which was my first one as an instructor,
>I sent my first student to solo flight. After his first solo
>flight in the same ASK21 in which he did his last dual flight
>with me, I had no problem to send him solo for the next flights
>in an ASK23, so freeing the ASK21 for other dual flights.

You did exactly what the Wasserkuppe flying school has been doing
successfully for many years - they even let the student pilot do his
first solo on the ASK-23.
We also did a similar thing in my once when our ASK-21 was damaged -
first solo flight in the Ka-8 after primary training on Twin 2.

> As a
>flying brick, the ASK23 is not worse than the ASK21 with the reduced
>wing loading due to the empty back seat. Anyway penetration is not
>very important for these first solo flights, as the student remains
>in the cone of 10:1 glide slope, in close proximity to the field and
>preferably upwind.

The ASK-23 was a replacement for the Ka-8, therefore it didn't need an
LD superior to its basic trainer, the ASK-21. Unfortunately this is
what broke the 23's neck. My club also intended to buy an ASK-23 -
instead we ended up with a DG-300 for similar price and kept our Ka-8.

Bye
Andreas