Re: LS10 info

[Andy Blackburn]

At 13:48 30 January 2006, Bert Willing wrote:
>The difference in what you get today in comparison
>of what you've got 20
>years ago is not just 'a bit'.

I didn't know 'a bit' had a precise numerical definition!
(it was understatement). I think you were agreeing
with me in general. The price has gone up only slightly
for a new, top racing glider as a percent of gross
income and probably down as a function of disposable
income -- at least for the 'new glass' target demographic
of top ~5% income earners.

Plus you get more for your money - though it's all
relative to what the other guys are flying, so I don't
know that 'getting more for your money' shows up on
a contest scoresheet if you're just keeping up with
the Jonses. Certainly you'll see it in your absolute
cross-country performance and enjoyment.

Only problem is that much of the rise in HH income
is due to the rise in two-income families, so you may
be more likely to need to get some of the money from
your spouse. ;-)

9B

[Bob Whelan]

In a discussion of (performance) bang for the buck, was writ...
>>The difference in what you get today in comparison
>>of what you've got 20
>>years ago is not just 'a bit'.
>
>
> I didn't know 'a bit' had a precise numerical definition!
> (it was understatement). I think you were agreeing
> with me in general. <snips>
>
> Plus you get more for your money <snip...>
> Certainly you'll see it in your absolute
> cross-country <snip> enjoyment.

At the risk of anality (and not to pick on a statement probably
originally written somewhat from a contest perspective), for any newbies
pondering 'cross country enjoyment,' understand there ARE differing
views on what *constitutes* 'cross country enjoyment.'

Sure, on any given day longer distances are great for bragging rights,
and also serve wonderfully as motivation, but...

My own view is that cross country ENJOYMENT (at least in the continental
U.S. is NOT strongly related to either L/D, or its close cousin,
'penetration.' I've had as much fun flying XC in a 21:1 1-26 as I have
in a ~35:1 1st-generation 15-meter glass ship. IMHO, fun in XC relates
to one's comfort in *safely* doing it. Distance/speed 'merely' fall out
in the wash.

Since my first (inadvertent, safe) XC ca. 1973 in a 1-26 to my most
recent, I've seen many participants come and go, and I've seen many
participants lust-after/purchase flat L/D in what seemed to me to be a
hope of avoiding *any* landouts in their pursuit of 'fun XC.' I've also
seen some of these folks seriously bust their ships when
conditions/their L/D didn't work out. There's a lot to be said for
becoming comfortable in picking fields in less costly, lower performance
ships than *hoping* to never have to make an OFL in a high-dollar,
flat-gliding latest-n-greatest drool machine.

Worrying about distance before understanding how to pick - and being
comfortable picking - safe, likely-to-be-damage-free landing fields, is
to have one's priorities out of sequence, methinks.

Regards,
Bob - YMMV - W.

[J. N.]

Maybe performance isn`t an issue if you`re average cloud base is over
15.000 ft but over here (Netherlands) with an average cloudbase - xc -
of 800-1000 mtrs (2500-3500 ft) l/d ís important, especially because
you`re "always" flying into a headwind of 10 to 15 knots. You won`t
reach anything unless you can reach 1:30 @ 150 km/h. But ofcourse
there`re still the old open-class gliders, offering lots of performance
for relatively low money.

Performance is always an issue unless you won`t leave the circuit.

[Michel Talon]

Andy Blackburn > wrote:
> income -- at least for the 'new glass' target demographic
> of top ~5% income earners.
>

Sorry to say this is a very US centric point of view. Here most of the
practisers are members of clubs and don't belong to the top 5% income earners.
Of course increase of price of gliders implies that clubs are more expensive,
and so that people who don't earn a lot, particularly young people, have more
and more difficulties to soar. I think it is an obvious constatation that
clubs are more and more stuffed with old guys, and in my opinion, this is a
*very bad trend*.

> Only problem is that much of the rise in HH income
> is due to the rise in two-income families, so you may
> be more likely to need to get some of the money from
> your spouse. ;-)

I will be happy to see a spouse who accepts that even small part
of her earnings goes to a sport that she dislikes by principle :-(

--

Michel TALON

[Willie]

>Bob Whelan wrote:

> My own view is that cross country ENJOYMENT (at least in the continental
> U.S. is NOT strongly related to either L/D, or its close cousin,
> 'penetration.'

I wholeheartedly agree.

I have had some wonderful cross country flights in my
so called "medium performance" ship. Triangles of
90 - 120 miles are common and all the more enjoyable
because of the challenge.

I'm not advocating everyone go back to 1-26's, I'm simply
saying you don't need the latest and greatest to enjoy
soaring.

>Hartley Falbaum wrote:
>If you can't afford the very best, buy the very best you
>can afford!

YES, that's the spirit.

Willie G
Silent-IN (EK)

[Bert Willing]

You can't necessarily blame the problems of clubs on the prices of new
gliders. The clubs could as well buy second hand gliders - it's the club
members (or managers) who *want* the most expensive toys, very often without
regard whether the club members really need the difference between 47:1 or
40:1.

But the effect is the same - less and less youngsters between 16 and 25 who
are supposed to be the future of soaring :-(


"Michel Talon" > wrote in message
...
> Andy Blackburn > wrote:
>> income -- at least for the 'new glass' target demographic
>> of top ~5% income earners.
>>
>
> Sorry to say this is a very US centric point of view. Here most of the
> practisers are members of clubs and don't belong to the top 5% income
> earners.
> Of course increase of price of gliders implies that clubs are more
> expensive,
> and so that people who don't earn a lot, particularly young people, have
> more
> and more difficulties to soar. I think it is an obvious constatation that
> clubs are more and more stuffed with old guys, and in my opinion, this is
> a
> *very bad trend*.
>
>> Only problem is that much of the rise in HH income
>> is due to the rise in two-income families, so you may
>> be more likely to need to get some of the money from
>> your spouse. ;-)
>
> I will be happy to see a spouse who accepts that even small part
> of her earnings goes to a sport that she dislikes by principle :-(
>
> --
>
> Michel TALON
>

[Stefan]

Bert Willing wrote:

> members (or managers) who *want* the most expensive toys, very often without
> regard whether the club members really need the difference between 47:1 or
> 40:1.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether a glider offers 1:40 or 1:48. I
*do* however care about its feel! I certainly enjoy a flight in an LS4,
but no way I volunteer for an LS4 at the briefing when there's that LS7
or LS8 nearby!

Stefan

[GK]

Bert Willing wrote:
> You can't necessarily blame the problems of clubs on the prices of new
> gliders. The clubs could as well buy second hand gliders - it's the club
> members (or managers) who *want* the most expensive toys, very often without
> regard whether the club members really need the difference between 47:1 or
> 40:1.
>
> But the effect is the same - less and less youngsters between 16 and 25 who
> are supposed to be the future of soaring :-(

- Problem in US that keeps a lot of youngsters from soaring is lack of
any decent equipment in most of the clubs. When couple years ago I was
visiting French club that only had 45 members they presented following
list of gliders available for club members: 1 Ka-6, Ask-21, Libelle
201, 2 - Ls-1's, 2 Pegasus 101's, 1 edelweiss, 1 Phoebus,1 std.Cirrus
and couple old French made trainers - all the club rates!
How many non-profit clubs in US are there that could stand up to such
equipment?
NONE, if you want to get serious about soaring in US you have to own a
glider and how many youngsters in US can afford to own a glider?

So called "soaring with Schweitzer" is an oxymoron in Midwest area...

GK

[Bert Willing]

I can relate to that - but there is a price tag to it, and nobody can blame
the sailplane manufacturer for the fact that you want it :-)

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Bert Willing wrote:
>
>> members (or managers) who *want* the most expensive toys, very often
>> without regard whether the club members really need the difference
>> between 47:1 or 40:1.
>
> Personally, I couldn't care less whether a glider offers 1:40 or 1:48. I
> *do* however care about its feel! I certainly enjoy a flight in an LS4,
> but no way I volunteer for an LS4 at the briefing when there's that LS7 or
> LS8 nearby!
>
> Stefan