soaring into the future

[Brad[_2_]]

I was browsing thru one of the Yahoo glider N.G.'s today and read
where the World Class design may get ressurected. That got me to
thinking:

What would the ideal recreational next generation sailplane sailplane
look like? I imagine it won't look much different from what we are
seeing now in terms of slender body shapes with sexy wingtip
treatments. And with the price of carbon fiber coming down, the
expanding growth of the composites industry and the rising use and
availability of CNC machining, it seems that there might be a niche
market for a good performing, lightweight sailplane that could be
tailored for the recreational market.

Would it make sense to put a 2 stroke motor in it for self launch? Or
maybe look at the ever expanding world of electric motors and
batteries? Right now there is an electric motor that weighs 4.5 pounds
and puts out close to 20HP! I've seen it, in fact I have held it in my
hands..........it is amazing. It seems that 2-strokes could easily
start being banned for noise, pollution and for just not being green
enough. So perhaps electric would be the logical and environmentally
"correct" way to go. The non-flying public I think will start looking
very critically at some point in the future at sports and other
"hobby" uses of fuel and pollution sources: we should be ready for
that if and when it happens, since right or
wrong.............perception is a key driver in formulating public
opinion.

Or maybe forget self-launching and consider winch, auto or bungee
launch. All these methods have and are being used successfully now,
but here in the US the Aero Tow still is the preferred way to get
airborn. However with rising fuel prices I really feel that at some
point a lot of us won't be able to cover the expense of an aero tow.
The infrastructure must be strongly considered for these "alternative"
launch methods, but I believe these are not insurmountable
obstacles.........we need to be ready when the real need arises.

Perhaps a combination of auto tow and a "sustainer" electric motor
might work; where the auto tow gets you airborn and then the electric
motor get's you up to the lift, and then home again if you need it.

Sure, there are a ton of sailplanes out there right now. And the
Russia, Apis, Silent, Sparrowhawk and probably several more would be
suitable for filling this niche. But if there is going to be a push to
create a new "World Class" design, maybe instead of just making it a
shortwinger and that's it, consider the whole package of what it takes
to operate and enjoy flying a sailpane, and how we could generate
excitement in our sport and see the ranks of glider pilots expand.

My personal choice would be a ship that utilizes the right materials
for the right areas; make it strong and light. Design a cockpit like
the Apis; roomy and comfortable. Utilize simple and functional design
methods that leverages on AC-4 and Apis manufacturing techniques. Use
full span flaperons and upper Schempp-Hirth airbrakes. Overlapping
spars that use 2 main wing pins and fore and aft lift pin/tube
treatments. Simple automatic control hookups like DG uses. The list
goes on........

I would write more...................but the Christmas Ham is almost
done and dinner is near.

Merry Christmas!
Brad
199AK

[Ian]

On 25 Dec, 21:11, Brad > wrote:

> What would the ideal recreational next generation sailplane sailplane
> look like?

My guess is that things will continue much as they are: ever more
sophisticated and beautiful aircraft, ever fewer pilots flying them.
Gliding - in the UK anyway - will continue its inexorable progress
from one of the cheapest air sports to one of the more expensive.

It would be nice if modern design and construction techniques could
trickle down to give us low priced gliders of moderate performance ...
but the abject failure of the PW-5 and world class suggests that this
isn't a commercially viable hope.

Ian

[Newill\ \Mario Lazaga\]

On Dec 25, 4:11*pm, Brad > wrote:
> I was browsing thru one of the Yahoo glider N.G.'s today and read
> where the World Class design may get ressurected. That got me to
> thinking:
>
> What would the ideal recreational next generation sailplane sailplane
> look like? <<<I

I think this is an excellent subject for discussion - with SSA at 75
years - what will soaring look like in 25 years?

My own contribution - and commenting on another persons post as well -
perhaps we go the way of skiing? Snowboards changed the age and number
of players on the slopes - so I think we need something that is the
"snowboard" of soaring-

How about a trainer that cannot go higher than 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 feet? if
one had a way to have a primary glider - with self launch capability
[ or tow down the wire with a winch?] and it could not go high enought
to cause great damage on rough landings - then maybe the teens could
teach themselves along side the runway while the big ships launch -
and then play on the runway ( yeah, I know that won't work at some
sites ) and "hop" into the air ten or twenty times in 30 minutes to
get the idea of basic controls and landing understood. The craft would
be something any club could assemble, not registered, and repaired by
anyone on the field with foam and (epoxy - duct tape - bolts and
clamps??) I have sketched up some ideas along these lines -

Another thought would be a super low cost simulator - projectors
costing ~ $500 today combined with software that connects to a stick
and rudder pedals and runs on a used computer could let the students
fly each part of the mission many times before getting into the air.
At the Memphis convention, one group reported that such a simulator
took a non-pilot to the point they were ready to fly with only five
flights in an ASK-21 !!! (They did go for a few more circuts before
solo - but all IP's on the field felt the student was completely
ready.) Anything that gets the student to solo in less time is the
right answer.

Finally, watch out for the "Chinese" and similar low labor cost sites
getting into the general aviation business. Once an India or China
decides that soaring and gliding are fun - beneficial to the
generation of new needed pilots - and sellable on the open market -
the europeans are going to need to focus on only the highest
performance and most costly machines.

Over to the next writer!
DBN

[[email protected]]

The ideal recreational next generation sailplane?

Gliders that are self-launch and jet-powered.

Raul Boerner
DM
LS6-b

[Bill Daniels]

I'll vote for the use of simulators in training. There are sites using this
approach now and reporting good results.

Many students have fears about training maneuvers but they rarely tell their
instructors. Offering a syllibus where you teach each maneuver on a
simulator before performing it in the air removes this fear - and speeds
progress. I think this could reduce the many student dropouts. It also has
the benefit of keeping students and instructors busy in wintertime.

No simulator is a total and complete replacement for in-flight instruction
but they can be used to advantage.

Bill Daniels



"Newill" "Mario Lazaga"" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 25, 4:11 pm, Brad > wrote:
> I was browsing thru one of the Yahoo glider N.G.'s today and read
> where the World Class design may get ressurected. That got me to
> thinking:
>
> What would the ideal recreational next generation sailplane sailplane
> look like? <<<I

I think this is an excellent subject for discussion - with SSA at 75
years - what will soaring look like in 25 years?

My own contribution - and commenting on another persons post as well -
perhaps we go the way of skiing? Snowboards changed the age and number
of players on the slopes - so I think we need something that is the
"snowboard" of soaring-

How about a trainer that cannot go higher than 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 feet? if
one had a way to have a primary glider - with self launch capability
[ or tow down the wire with a winch?] and it could not go high enought
to cause great damage on rough landings - then maybe the teens could
teach themselves along side the runway while the big ships launch -
and then play on the runway ( yeah, I know that won't work at some
sites ) and "hop" into the air ten or twenty times in 30 minutes to
get the idea of basic controls and landing understood. The craft would
be something any club could assemble, not registered, and repaired by
anyone on the field with foam and (epoxy - duct tape - bolts and
clamps??) I have sketched up some ideas along these lines -

Another thought would be a super low cost simulator - projectors
costing ~ $500 today combined with software that connects to a stick
and rudder pedals and runs on a used computer could let the students
fly each part of the mission many times before getting into the air.
At the Memphis convention, one group reported that such a simulator
took a non-pilot to the point they were ready to fly with only five
flights in an ASK-21 !!! (They did go for a few more circuts before
solo - but all IP's on the field felt the student was completely
ready.) Anything that gets the student to solo in less time is the
right answer.

Finally, watch out for the "Chinese" and similar low labor cost sites
getting into the general aviation business. Once an India or China
decides that soaring and gliding are fun - beneficial to the
generation of new needed pilots - and sellable on the open market -
the europeans are going to need to focus on only the highest
performance and most costly machines.

Over to the next writer!
DBN

[Frank Whiteley]

On Dec 25, 5:54 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> I'll vote for the use of simulators in training. There are sites using this
> approach now and reporting good results.
>
> Many students have fears about training maneuvers but they rarely tell their
> instructors. Offering a syllibus where you teach each maneuver on a
> simulator before performing it in the air removes this fear - and speeds
> progress. I think this could reduce the many student dropouts. It also has
> the benefit of keeping students and instructors busy in wintertime.
>
> No simulator is a total and complete replacement for in-flight instruction
> but they can be used to advantage.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> "Newill" "Mario Lazaga"" > wrote in ...
> On Dec 25, 4:11 pm, Brad > wrote:
>
> > I was browsing thru one of the Yahoo glider N.G.'s today and read
> > where the World Class design may get ressurected. That got me to
> > thinking:
>
> > What would the ideal recreational next generation sailplane sailplane
> > look like? <<<I
>
> I think this is an excellent subject for discussion - with SSA at 75
> years - what will soaring look like in 25 years?
>
> My own contribution - and commenting on another persons post as well -
> perhaps we go the way of skiing? Snowboards changed the age and number
> of players on the slopes - so I think we need something that is the
> "snowboard" of soaring-
>
> How about a trainer that cannot go higher than 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 feet? if
> one had a way to have a primary glider - with self launch capability
> [ or tow down the wire with a winch?] and it could not go high enought
> to cause great damage on rough landings - then maybe the teens could
> teach themselves along side the runway while the big ships launch -
> and then play on the runway ( yeah, I know that won't work at some
> sites ) and "hop" into the air ten or twenty times in 30 minutes to
> get the idea of basic controls and landing understood. The craft would
> be something any club could assemble, not registered, and repaired by
> anyone on the field with foam and (epoxy - duct tape - bolts and
> clamps??) I have sketched up some ideas along these lines -
>
> Another thought would be a super low cost simulator - projectors
> costing ~ $500 today combined with software that connects to a stick
> and rudder pedals and runs on a used computer could let the students
> fly each part of the mission many times before getting into the air.
> At the Memphis convention, one group reported that such a simulator
> took a non-pilot to the point they were ready to fly with only five
> flights in an ASK-21 !!! (They did go for a few more circuts before
> solo - but all IP's on the field felt the student was completely
> ready.) Anything that gets the student to solo in less time is the
> right answer.
>
> Finally, watch out for the "Chinese" and similar low labor cost sites
> getting into the general aviation business. Once an India or China
> decides that soaring and gliding are fun - beneficial to the
> generation of new needed pilots - and sellable on the open market -
> the europeans are going to need to focus on only the highest
> performance and most costly machines.
>
> Over to the next writer!
> DBN

Simulators have some impact. Bill has used Condor as an effective
white board. YSA's was to move students ahead about six flights in
learning, not necessarily to solo earlier. Paul Moggach will have to
comment on whether they have achieved that. Their simulator budget
was a donated $25,000 for their Mk IV iteration as show on their web
site. I think the Mk I was at the convention. It was also used to
demonstarate instructor methods and outreach.

http://www.yorksoaring.com/FlightSimulator/ includes a short video.
Larger projection screens are now readily available.

Frank Whiteley

[Shawn[_4_]]

Brad wrote:
> I was browsing thru one of the Yahoo glider N.G.'s today and read
> where the World Class design may get ressurected. That got me to
> thinking:
>
> What would the ideal recreational next generation sailplane sailplane
> look like? I imagine it won't look much different from what we are
> seeing now in terms of slender body shapes with sexy wingtip
> treatments. And with the price of carbon fiber coming down, the
> expanding growth of the composites industry and the rising use and
> availability of CNC machining, it seems that there might be a niche
> market for a good performing, lightweight sailplane that could be
> tailored for the recreational market.

This subject has beaten the dead horse into dog food and baseballs by
now. More Purina than home runs I'm afraid ;-)
Nevertheless...
....We know what *shape* we want, that's pretty easy. What ever *It* is,
it should be shaped similarly to a Discus, LS-8, ASW-24 etc. Some solid
handling, 15 m span, flapless (I like flaps, but a volksglider should be
flapless IMHO), retractable gear, known quantity.
What would make such a beast unique, and affordable, is the way that
shape gets produced.
I suspect the prepreg technique used in the Sparrowhawk is in the right
direction. Farm out fabric cutting to someone who could laser cut many
ships worth of cloth when the price is low? Also, with all the wind
farms going up around the world, the technology involved in
manufacturing big composite wings should be improving rapidly. Perhaps
wings with a significant portion of constant cord/profile (half span?)
with a mass produced, extruded spar that is cut into a segment for each
wing (diverges from the Discus-esque shape but at what performance
cost?) could simplify production.
Posters here have said that a significant amount of the labor that goes
into the manufacture of gliders is in the sanding and polishing to get a
glassy smooth surface. On behalf of all the pilots who've happily flown
30 year old gliders with crappy finishes "Who cares?". If I could get
a solid performing glider with a dull white finish at 2/3 the price,
that's fine with me. Perhaps some decrease in surface waviness is
realized in the process, but modern gliders shrink significantly over
the first few years anyway, negating some of the benefit, so why pay for
sanding twice?

My $ 0.02 (On sale half price tomorrow only!)


Shawn


P.S. Sorry that this is so disjointed, dinner's ready :-)

[Brad[_2_]]

Hi Shawn,

Here are some replies to your excellent post:

> This subject has beaten the dead horse into dog food and baseballs by
> now. *More Purina than home runs I'm afraid ;-)
> Nevertheless...

Agree..................but the more water that goes over a ducks back,
eventually some water soaks in................I hope the same can be
said here, in a metaphorical sense.........:)


> ...We know what *shape* we want, that's pretty easy. *What ever *It* is,
> it should be shaped similarly to a Discus, LS-8, ASW-24 etc.

Working on the shapes now, that's pretty easy with modern CAD
programs.

>15 m span,

Agree completely, maybe even leave room for a 17m extension at the
tip.

>flapless (I like flaps, but a volksglider should be
> flapless IMHO),

Flaps would be easy enough to do, I think, but I would not rule out
your suggestion either, after all, it is a Volksglider.

>retractable gear, known quantity.

Agree.

> What would make such a beast unique, and affordable, is the way that
> shape gets produced.

Have that covered


> I suspect the prepreg technique used in the Sparrowhawk is in the right
> direction. *

Here is disagree. Greg is fortunate to have use of the huge autoclave
at the Lancair/Columbia factory, I think.
Although Out of Autoclave could be done with the right tooling and
materials. But I think wet layup and vacuum bagging would be cheaper.


>Farm out fabric cutting to someone who could laser cut many
> ships worth of cloth when the price is low?

Good idea............I would guess that this would depend on the
number of ships to be produced.


*>Also, with all the wind
> farms going up around the world, the technology involved in
> manufacturing big composite wings should be improving rapidly. *Perhaps
> wings with a significant portion of constant cord/profile (half span?)
> with a mass produced, extruded spar that is cut into a segment for each
> wing (diverges from the Discus-esque shape but at what performance
> cost?) could simplify production.

I would make a wing with an LS-3 planform. Carbon/H-60 foam core.
Graphlite spar caps.

> Posters here have said that a significant amount of the labor that goes
> into the manufacture of gliders is in the sanding and polishing to get a
> glassy smooth surface. *On behalf of all the pilots who've happily flown
> 30 year old gliders with crappy finishes *"Who cares?". *If I could get
> a solid performing glider with a dull white finish at 2/3 the price,
> that's fine with me. *Perhaps some decrease in surface waviness is
> realized in the process, but modern gliders shrink significantly over
> the first few years anyway, negating some of the benefit, so why pay for
> sanding twice?

Agree................throw a sandable primer coat into the molds and
have the buyer do the finishing to their standards/needs/requirements.

> My $ 0.02 (On sale half price tomorrow only!)

Thanks!

Brad


> P.S. *Sorry that this is so disjointed, dinner's ready *:-)

mines on hold................had to take a dog to the vets............:
(

[Shawn[_4_]]

Brad wrote:
> Hi Shawn,

snip

>> I suspect the prepreg technique used in the Sparrowhawk is in the right
>> direction.
>
> Here is disagree. Greg is fortunate to have use of the huge autoclave
> at the Lancair/Columbia factory, I think.
> Although Out of Autoclave could be done with the right tooling and
> materials. But I think wet layup and vacuum bagging would be cheaper.

Agreed, I'm thinking to make a big dent in glider price (I'm in the
depressed Dollar US, and I *won't* buy a Chinese glider) the method of
manufacturing will have to be very different.
More composite manufacturers making aircraft and wind turbine parts
might make more autoclave space available. Heated molds are a
possibility (read about it on a wind turbine site). I suspect new
composite technology is coming along all the time (not my field). A
fuselage formed by winding carbon fiber tape around a male mold seems
pretty straightforward, spars too. I don't know if a wing could be made
with a precise enough profile in this way, interesting thought though.
I know there are specialty companies applying all sorts of new composite
technology. Farming out rather than investing in house might make a lot
of sense in the small numbers world of sailplane manufacturing. Save on
tooling, benefit from the sub's economy of scale. Certainly not
business as usual in the glider industry.

snip

>> P.S. Sorry that this is so disjointed, dinner's ready :-)
>
> mines on hold.......had to take a dog to the vets......

Hope the pup's OK. Had to do this three weeks and four stitches to the
leg ago.


Shawn

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Shawn wrote:
> Brad wrote:
>> Here is disagree. Greg is fortunate to have use of the huge autoclave
>> at the Lancair/Columbia factory, I think.
>> Although Out of Autoclave could be done with the right tooling and
>> materials. But I think wet layup and vacuum bagging would be cheaper.
>
> Agreed, I'm thinking to make a big dent in glider price (I'm in the
> depressed Dollar US, and I *won't* buy a Chinese glider) the method of
> manufacturing will have to be very different.
> More composite manufacturers making aircraft and wind turbine parts
> might make more autoclave space available. Heated molds are a
> possibility (read about it on a wind turbine site). I suspect new
> composite technology is coming along all the time (not my field). A
> fuselage formed by winding carbon fiber tape around a male mold seems
> pretty straightforward, spars too. I don't know if a wing could be made
> with a precise enough profile in this way, interesting thought though. I
> know there are specialty companies applying all sorts of new composite
> technology. Farming out rather than investing in house might make a lot
> of sense in the small numbers world of sailplane manufacturing. Save on
> tooling, benefit from the sub's economy of scale. Certainly not
> business as usual in the glider industry.

The Edgley EA9 was primarily constructed from CNC laser cut composite
honeycomb panels, wrapped around and bonded to ribs and formers.
Clearly this can't produce a super accurate wing profile, but might
result in some reduction in the labor required to produce wing or
fuselage parts.

If I remember correctly, the EA9 kit was fairly inexpensive, and could
be built in a few hundred hours. Marketing a kit built single seat
ASK-18 look-alike during the 90s was clearly a mistake. I suspect there
would be a bit more of a market for a factory built US LSA two seat
glider, if the price could be kept closer to $50K than $100K...

Marc

[Bill Daniels]

There are many well known ways to reduce the manufacturing costs of
composite structures. It just takes sophisticated tooling. The problem
with gliders is that no one design has ever been made in sufficient numbers
to justify the up-front costs of that tooling. The result is hand made, low
production rate gliders and high unit costs.

The big advantage of a "one-design" is not so much in leveling the playing
field in contests, it's the hope that the design can be made in large enough
numbers for a manufacturer to justify the costs of advanced manufacturing
methods.

The wingspan or whether a glider has flaps or retractable gear doesn't
matter very much if the numbers are there. The solution doesn't lie in
designing a small, simple glider, it lies in a design that satisfies a large
number of buyers. Find that design, build it in large numbers and the unit
costs can be very low.

For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling for
$25,000 - quite a few I expect.

So, how do you get it started? Don't start a new competition class,
re-jigger an old one. For example, take the sports/club class and provide a
handicap advantage for the "one-design". Any pilot can still fly whatever
but the new design will have an advantage built into its handicap. Over
time, the population of the new design will increase until a real
"one-design" class emerges.

If the design is popular enough and the rules guarantee the handicap
advantage is permanent, the manufacturer may commit to the tooling and
processes that drive down the cost. Of course, you have to have a
commitment from the manufacturer that the price will follow costs down.
Maybe the handicap advantage is only available to gliders whose price is
less than a set figure.


Bill Daniels


"Shawn" > wrote in message
. ..
> Brad wrote:
>> Hi Shawn,
>
> snip
>
>>> I suspect the prepreg technique used in the Sparrowhawk is in the right
>>> direction.
>>
>> Here is disagree. Greg is fortunate to have use of the huge autoclave
>> at the Lancair/Columbia factory, I think.
>> Although Out of Autoclave could be done with the right tooling and
>> materials. But I think wet layup and vacuum bagging would be cheaper.
>
> Agreed, I'm thinking to make a big dent in glider price (I'm in the
> depressed Dollar US, and I *won't* buy a Chinese glider) the method of
> manufacturing will have to be very different.
> More composite manufacturers making aircraft and wind turbine parts might
> make more autoclave space available. Heated molds are a possibility (read
> about it on a wind turbine site). I suspect new composite technology is
> coming along all the time (not my field). A fuselage formed by winding
> carbon fiber tape around a male mold seems pretty straightforward, spars
> too. I don't know if a wing could be made with a precise enough profile
> in this way, interesting thought though. I know there are specialty
> companies applying all sorts of new composite technology. Farming out
> rather than investing in house might make a lot of sense in the small
> numbers world of sailplane manufacturing. Save on tooling, benefit from
> the sub's economy of scale. Certainly not business as usual in the glider
> industry.
>
> snip
>
>>> P.S. Sorry that this is so disjointed, dinner's ready :-)
>>
>> mines on hold.......had to take a dog to the vets......
>
> Hope the pup's OK. Had to do this three weeks and four stitches to the
> leg ago.
>
>
> Shawn
>

[Shawn[_4_]]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Shawn wrote:
>> Brad wrote:
>>> Here is disagree. Greg is fortunate to have use of the huge
>>> autoclave at the Lancair/Columbia factory, I think. Although Out
>>> of Autoclave could be done with the right tooling and materials.
>>> But I think wet layup and vacuum bagging would be cheaper.
>>
>> Agreed, I'm thinking to make a big dent in glider price (I'm in the
>> depressed Dollar US, and I *won't* buy a Chinese glider) the
>> method of manufacturing will have to be very different. More
>> composite manufacturers making aircraft and wind turbine parts
>> might make more autoclave space available. Heated molds are a
>> possibility (read about it on a wind turbine site). I suspect new
>> composite technology is coming along all the time (not my field).
>> A fuselage formed by winding carbon fiber tape around a male mold
>> seems pretty straightforward, spars too. I don't know if a wing
>> could be made with a precise enough profile in this way,
>> interesting thought though. I know there are specialty companies
>> applying all sorts of new composite technology. Farming out rather
>> than investing in house might make a lot of sense in the small
>> numbers world of sailplane manufacturing. Save on tooling, benefit
>> from the sub's economy of scale. Certainly not business as usual
>> in the glider industry.
>
> The Edgley EA9 was primarily constructed from CNC laser cut composite
> honeycomb panels, wrapped around and bonded to ribs and formers.
> Clearly this can't produce a super accurate wing profile, but might
> result in some reduction in the labor required to produce wing or
> fuselage parts.

Different altogether than winding tape around a mold.
Also the EA9 was another exercise in butt ugly glider. Maybe that was
just the green color :-p

From this site:
http://www.advancedcompositetraders.com/html/news.html

> Fiber placement and tape laying
>
> The fiber placement process automatically places multiple individual
> pre-impregnated tows onto a mandrel at high speed, using a
> numerically controlled placement head to dispense, clamp, cut and
> restart each tow during placement. Minimum cut length (the shortest
> tow length a machine can lay down) is the essential ply-shape
> determinant. The fiber placement heads can be attached to a 5-axis
> gantry or retrofitted to a filament winder or delivered as a turnkey
> custom system. Machines are available with dual mandrel stations to
> increase productivity. Advantages of fiber place~ ment fabrication
> include speed, reduced material scrap and labor costs, parts
> consolidation and improved part-to-part uniformity. The process is
> employed when producing large thermoset parts with complex shapes.
>
> Tape laying is an even speedier auto~ mated process in which
> prepregged tape, rather than single tows, is laid down con~
> continuously to form parts. It is often used for parts with highly
> complex contours or angles. Tape lay up is versatile, allowing breaks
> in the process and easy direction changes. Capital expenditures for
> computer-driven, automated equipment can be significant, however.
> Suitable for both simple and complex parts, tape laying is the
> current method of choice for wing skin panels on the F-22 Raptor
> fighter jet.

As I said before, this would be farmed out to a subcontractor who's
already made the capital investment, unless the glider world sees really
amazing growth.

Shawn

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling for
> $25,000 - quite a few I expect.

Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing
using traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in
materials and labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...

Marc

[Brad[_2_]]

Hi Guys,

I think that the tooling required to make the "simple" glider I
propose need not be overly "sophisticated" After being intimately
involved with the Russia kit and the Apis kit, and studying the TST-
Atlas, I really belive that these ships and manufacturing methods are
valid and produce nice aircraft. If all one looks at are the latest
from Europe, or even the racing glass over the last 20 years, you get
the impression that sophisticated tooling and elaborate parts are a
must-have. Indeed, they probably are a must have for these ships, and
these manufacturers have done a marvelous job with their tooling and
thus the parts. But a simple glider does not need all those "parts"

A fuselage plug can be made on a CNC router using REN board or any
suitable tooling medium. My put would be to use a HD REN board, make a
LH and RH plug split along BL-00, wax and PVA the heck out of it and
pull a mold. The fuselage if designed right, would not require vacuum
bagging, therefore several of the internal bits could be installed,
taped in place and co-cured along with the skin lay-up, saving a lot
of time and materials. A tool to wind a fuselage would require A LOT
of money and most likely would not appeal to anyone with high ROI
hopes. Wet lay-up is still a valid way to make a fuselage, I've layed
up several in the last few years and it is actually kinda fun!

As far as the wing goes, I think the LS-3 wing style is the way to go.
Perhaps aerodynamicaly speaking it may suffer over a modern planform,
but most of those modern planforms are on sailplanes that are state of
the art and their prices reflect that. A simple tapered planform
drives simplicity down the line: straight spar along the 40% C,
straight rear spar, straight hinge axis, straight
flaperon.................all these parts and their tooling/jigging
would be far simpler and cheaper to manufacture.

As Shawn shows in the link he posted, 3k carbon can now be found
relatively cheap, compared to a year ago when availability was scarce
and the price over $45 a yard. I would want to use the best material
for the job; if it required carbon or e-glass then use
it.................and of course a good epoxy.

I am a shop forman doing composites; we are daily designing, cutting,
and making tooling and parts and I know somthing like this can be
done. As Jaun Trippe said, it is a Sporting game...............who
wants to play?

Cheers,
Brad

PS................Shawn, glad to hear your pup is
OK.................ours is still at the vet..........:(

[Shawn[_4_]]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>> For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling
>> for $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
>
> Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing
> using traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in
> materials and labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...

IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.


Shawn

[Bill Daniels]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>> For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling for
>> $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
>
> Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing using
> traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in materials and
> labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...
>
> Marc

Exactly. Traditional hand labor can't produce any glider for that price.
But state-of-the-art composite manufacturing processes MAY be able to do it
if you can ramp up the production rate.

Hopefully, all the development going into windmill blade production will
result in the right manufacturing base.

BTW, it's not the LS-4 or the price - it's the combination.

Bill Daniels

[Brad[_2_]]

> Exactly. *Traditional hand labor can't produce any glider for that price..
> But state-of-the-art composite manufacturing processes MAY be able to do it
> if you can ramp up the production rate.


Bill,

I think you could do hand-layup and still have an attractive price. A
good portion of the work is the finish work, and with the high gloss
the new ships have, you pay for it.

Simple airframes with reduced part counts, are a start.

The up-front tooling costs to use automated processes would be way to
costly, at least for a small company to bootstrap itself into this
biz. IMHO.

Brad

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Shawn wrote:
> From this site:
> http://www.advancedcompositetraders.com/html/news.html
>
>> Fiber placement and tape laying
>>
>> The fiber placement process automatically places multiple individual
>> pre-impregnated tows onto a mandrel at high speed, using a
>> numerically controlled placement head to dispense, clamp, cut and
>> restart each tow during placement. Minimum cut length (the shortest
>> tow length a machine can lay down) is the essential ply-shape
>> determinant. The fiber placement heads can be attached to a 5-axis
>> gantry or retrofitted to a filament winder or delivered as a turnkey
>> custom system. Machines are available with dual mandrel stations to
>> increase productivity. Advantages of fiber place~ ment fabrication
>> include speed, reduced material scrap and labor costs, parts
>> consolidation and improved part-to-part uniformity. The process is
>> employed when producing large thermoset parts with complex shapes.
>>
>> Tape laying is an even speedier auto~ mated process in which
>> prepregged tape, rather than single tows, is laid down con~
>> continuously to form parts. It is often used for parts with highly
>> complex contours or angles. Tape lay up is versatile, allowing breaks
>> in the process and easy direction changes. Capital expenditures for
>> computer-driven, automated equipment can be significant, however.
>> Suitable for both simple and complex parts, tape laying is the
>> current method of choice for wing skin panels on the F-22 Raptor
>> fighter jet.
>
> As I said before, this would be farmed out to a subcontractor who's
> already made the capital investment, unless the glider world sees really
> amazing growth.

Given the competing customers for production time in such facilities, I
tend to doubt that "low cost" is being given much attention. But, in
any case, the only way to produce future gliders for an affordable price
will be through innovative manufacturing techniques...

Marc

[Brad[_2_]]

Marc,

I have some images of the latest concepts I can send you if you are
interested. Let me know and where to send them and I will.

Brad


On Dec 26, 10:04*am, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> Shawn wrote:
> > *From this site:
> >http://www.advancedcompositetraders.com/html/news.html
>
> >> Fiber placement and tape laying
>
> >> The fiber placement process automatically places multiple individual
> >> pre-impregnated tows onto a mandrel at high speed, using a
> >> numerically controlled placement head to dispense, clamp, cut and
> >> restart each tow during placement. Minimum cut length (the shortest
> >> tow length a machine can lay down) is the essential ply-shape
> >> determinant. The fiber placement heads can be attached to a 5-axis
> >> gantry or retrofitted to a filament winder or delivered as a turnkey
> >> custom system. Machines are available with dual mandrel stations to
> >> increase productivity. Advantages of fiber place~ ment fabrication
> >> include speed, reduced material scrap and labor costs, parts
> >> consolidation and improved part-to-part uniformity. The process is
> >> employed when producing large thermoset parts with complex shapes.
>
> >> Tape laying is an even speedier auto~ mated process in which
> >> prepregged tape, rather than single tows, is laid down con~
> >> continuously to form parts. It is often used for parts with highly
> >> complex contours or angles. Tape lay up is versatile, allowing breaks
> >> in the process and easy direction changes. Capital expenditures for
> >> computer-driven, automated equipment can be significant, however.
> >> Suitable for both simple and complex parts, tape laying is the
> >> current method of choice for wing skin panels on the F-22 Raptor
> >> fighter jet.
>
> > As I said before, this would be farmed out to a subcontractor who's
> > already made the capital investment, unless the glider world sees really
> > amazing growth.
>
> Given the competing customers for production time in such facilities, I
> tend to doubt that "low cost" is being given much attention. *But, in
> any case, the only way to produce future gliders for an affordable price
> will be through innovative manufacturing techniques...
>
> Marc- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Brad wrote:
> The up-front tooling costs to use automated processes would be way to
> costly, at least for a small company to bootstrap itself into this
> biz. IMHO.

I'd say that a big part of the necessary innovation will be in figuring
out how to fabricate low cost equipment and tooling that can automate
some aspects of the production process without breaking the bank. Given
commodity availability of laser-based precision 3D locating devices,
servos and associated controllers, plus ubiquitous computers, the main
thing that seems to missing is rethinking the nature of the tooling one
uses for these processes.

By the way, one of the classic arguments against the PW-5 and similar
"low end" gliders, was that it was possible to obtain decent used
gliders with greater performance for the same price. Unfortunately (or
fortunately, if you have one to sell) here in the US the supply of
decent used gliders in the $20K to $30K range has pretty much dried up.
This appears to be due to a combination of market forces, as the sky
high price of new gliders has increased the demand and price for the 10
to 15 year old gliders that used to be the "bread and butter" of the
market. The owners of decent 15 to 20 year old gliders appear to be
holding onto what they have, as they can't be replaced for a reasonable
price. Plus, every US gliderport has a number of 25+ year old glass
gliders rotting in trailers, as it is no longer economical to refinish
them...

Marc

[[email protected]]

There are many existing and potential soaring pilots who consider
$25000 a HUGE amount of money. Until people start talking about a
rugged 2 seat primary and XC trainer for under $15k with a
complimentary single seat XC capable machine for under $10k brand new,
this is just an academic exercise. Of course anything new would have
to be crashworthy, BRS, auto hookups, tough enough to land off field,
aerodynamic trailer and maybe even self launch too.

I may be crazy but you just wait and see. Until the above comes along
it's going to be business as usual.

I hate the 2-33 as much as the next guy but man those Schweizers
really had some things figured out. Without them I bet soaring would
have died in the US. Now we need the next generation of practical
innovations and solid leadership.

The Sparrow Hawk is awesome but it costs too freeking much! The Hart
Aero Turkey Vulture trainer is affordable but what a turkey! I don't
have the answers but I believe we have the materials and tools and
knowlede to synthesize some answers that are better than another
$25000 piece of glass. Come on! Think outside the freeking box! And
NO I don't want to see any stupid flying wing canard ultralight dacron
honeycomb cheese sandwich vacuum ziploc bagged ASW point zero two five
thousand glass cockpit modern marvel. Give me a simple solid safe
metal, wood or glass glider that doesn't cost a fortune.

MM

[Bill Daniels]

"Shawn" > wrote in message
. ..
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>> For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling for
>>> $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
>>
>> Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing using
>> traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in materials and
>> labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...
>
> IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
> fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.
>
>
> Shawn

It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of hand
lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.

The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's economic.
Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll get cheap (or
at least cheaper) gliders.

To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
Everything follows from those numbers.

Bill Daniels

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Shawn" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>>> For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling for
>>>> $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
>>> Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing using
>>> traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in materials and
>>> labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...
>> IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
>> fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.
>>
>>
>> Shawn
>
> It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
> really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of hand
> lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.
>
> The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's economic.
> Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll get cheap (or
> at least cheaper) gliders.
>
> To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
> Everything follows from those numbers.

How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking
market that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design? The
glider manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral
of building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population
that can afford them.

Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the
community starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think
Tony's adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I
doubt the traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider
addressing such a market...

Marc

[Bill Daniels]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
. net...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>> "Shawn" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>>>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>>>> For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling
>>>>> for $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
>>>> Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing
>>>> using traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in
>>>> materials and labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...
>>> IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
>>> fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.
>>>
>>>
>>> Shawn
>>
>> It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
>> really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of
>> hand lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.
>>
>> The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's
>> economic. Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll
>> get cheap (or at least cheaper) gliders.
>>
>> To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
>> Everything follows from those numbers.
>
> How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking market
> that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design? The glider
> manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral of
> building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population that
> can afford them.
>
> Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the community
> starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think Tony's
> adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I doubt the
> traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider addressing such a
> market...
>
> Marc

I love Tony's Cherokee adventures. However, the sad truth is that if the
Cherokee was to be put into commercial production today, it would cost even
more than the LS-4. When you take the route of a deliberately designing a
low performance glider, you set a trap for yourself by building a glider few
will buy. PW-5 is example "A".

With the exception of the large number of hours spent polishing the final
finish, there is really little inherent connection between performance and
cost in modern composite gliders.
A low performance glider, when you take everything like instruments into
account, has essentially the same parts count, empty weight and labor hours
as a high performance glider. The shapes are nearly the same and the
structures must meet the same safety margins. You might as well go for
relatively high performance to insure there will be buyers.

Maybe there is a niche for some "sweat equity". Deliver the glider as
airworthy but without the super finish. Then, provide the materials and
instructions for the new owner to do the finishing task himself.

More likely is the scheme of a 5% handicap advantage for an existing design.
With the price guaranteed, the manufacturer can wait for several hundred
secure escrow deposits before committing to anvanced production methods.
I'd bet there are 1000 people worldwide who would order a $25,000 40:1
glider that came with that built-in 5% advantage.

The win-win is that you would have a very successful "one-design" contest
class AND a very popular, cheap glider.

Bill Daniels

[Brad[_2_]]

I don't think the big manufacturers really care about the average joe
with a "medium class" wage. If you need to ask the price of these new
ships then you can't afford one. Not all of us are successful stock
market investors, bankers, real estate sharks, own companies,
etc................I would be willing to speculate that very few
people take out a loan for a $100k sailplane. I don't mean to offend
anyone here, so please don't take it that way.

I just feel, as a wage monkey, that there needs to be an advocate for
the little guy who want's to play, and not have to settle for someone
else's last-years-toy.

I bet a slick looking machine can be built for quite a bit under 40K,
especially if is built here in the US, and the workers enjoy what they
do. This will certainly spin off another discussion on
wages.................but didn't Tor use "cheap" labor to make the
Spirit?

Marc.............care to chime in what the design looks like?

Cheers,
Brad

On Dec 26, 12:05*pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "Shawn" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
> > Marc Ramsey wrote:
> >> Bill Daniels wrote:
> >>> For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling for
> >>> $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
>
> >> Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing using
> >> traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in materials and
> >> labor. *I don't think it can be done anymore...
>
> > IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
> > fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.
>
> > Shawn
>
> It won't take any convincing. *The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
> really bright guys. *I can assure they know all about the problems of hand
> lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.
>
> The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's economic.
> Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll get cheap (or
> at least cheaper) gliders.
>
> To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
> Everything follows from those numbers.
>
> Bill Daniels

[Shawn[_4_]]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>> "Shawn" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>>>>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>>>>> For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling
>>>>>> for $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
>>>>> Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing
>>>>> using traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in
>>>>> materials and labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...
>>>> IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
>>>> fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shawn
>>> It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
>>> really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of
>>> hand lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.
>>>
>>> The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's
>>> economic. Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll
>>> get cheap (or at least cheaper) gliders.
>>>
>>> To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
>>> Everything follows from those numbers.
>> How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking market
>> that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design? The glider
>> manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral of
>> building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population that
>> can afford them.
>>
>> Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the community
>> starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think Tony's
>> adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I doubt the
>> traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider addressing such a
>> market...
>>
>> Marc
>
> I love Tony's Cherokee adventures. However, the sad truth is that if the
> Cherokee was to be put into commercial production today, it would cost even
> more than the LS-4. When you take the route of a deliberately designing a
> low performance glider, you set a trap for yourself by building a glider few
> will buy. PW-5 is example "A".
>
> With the exception of the large number of hours spent polishing the final
> finish, there is really little inherent connection between performance and
> cost in modern composite gliders.
> A low performance glider, when you take everything like instruments into
> account, has essentially the same parts count, empty weight and labor hours
> as a high performance glider. The shapes are nearly the same and the
> structures must meet the same safety margins. You might as well go for
> relatively high performance to insure there will be buyers.
>
> Maybe there is a niche for some "sweat equity". Deliver the glider as
> airworthy but without the super finish. Then, provide the materials and
> instructions for the new owner to do the finishing task himself.
>
> More likely is the scheme of a 5% handicap advantage for an existing design.
> With the price guaranteed, the manufacturer can wait for several hundred
> secure escrow deposits before committing to anvanced production methods.
> I'd bet there are 1000 people worldwide who would order a $25,000 40:1
> glider that came with that built-in 5% advantage.

Build it in the US and Europe could buy it for $20K. Build it in the
third world and watch the glider community doubt its quality into
oblivion ;-)


Shawn

[Bill Daniels]

"Shawn" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>>> "Shawn" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>>>>>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>> For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling
>>>>>>> for $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
>>>>>> Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing
>>>>>> using traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in
>>>>>> materials and labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...
>>>>> IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the
>>>>> traditional fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business
>>>>> model.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Shawn
>>>> It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
>>>> really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of
>>>> hand lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.
>>>>
>>>> The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's
>>>> economic. Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll
>>>> get cheap (or at least cheaper) gliders.
>>>>
>>>> To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
>>>> Everything follows from those numbers.
>>> How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking
>>> market that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design? The
>>> glider manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral
>>> of building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population
>>> that can afford them.
>>>
>>> Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the
>>> community starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think
>>> Tony's adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I
>>> doubt the traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider
>>> addressing such a market...
>>>
>>> Marc
>>
>> I love Tony's Cherokee adventures. However, the sad truth is that if the
>> Cherokee was to be put into commercial production today, it would cost
>> even more than the LS-4. When you take the route of a deliberately
>> designing a low performance glider, you set a trap for yourself by
>> building a glider few will buy. PW-5 is example "A".
>>
>> With the exception of the large number of hours spent polishing the final
>> finish, there is really little inherent connection between performance
>> and cost in modern composite gliders.
>> A low performance glider, when you take everything like instruments into
>> account, has essentially the same parts count, empty weight and labor
>> hours as a high performance glider. The shapes are nearly the same and
>> the structures must meet the same safety margins. You might as well go
>> for relatively high performance to insure there will be buyers.
>>
>> Maybe there is a niche for some "sweat equity". Deliver the glider as
>> airworthy but without the super finish. Then, provide the materials and
>> instructions for the new owner to do the finishing task himself.
>>
>> More likely is the scheme of a 5% handicap advantage for an existing
>> design. With the price guaranteed, the manufacturer can wait for several
>> hundred secure escrow deposits before committing to anvanced production
>> methods. I'd bet there are 1000 people worldwide who would order a
>> $25,000 40:1 glider that came with that built-in 5% advantage.
>
> Build it in the US and Europe could buy it for $20K. Build it in the
> third world and watch the glider community doubt its quality into oblivion
> ;-)
>
>
> Shawn

Lotta truth in that. Even Airbus is talking about shifting production to
the US.

Bill Daniels

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
>> Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the community
>> starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think Tony's
>> adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I doubt the
>> traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider addressing such a
>> market...
>>
>> Marc
>
> I love Tony's Cherokee adventures. However, the sad truth is that if the
> Cherokee was to be put into commercial production today, it would cost even
> more than the LS-4. When you take the route of a deliberately designing a
> low performance glider, you set a trap for yourself by building a glider few
> will buy. PW-5 is example "A".

You're misreading what I'm saying. It makes no sense to commercially
produce a Cherokee using present day technology. But, I think the
soaring community has worked itself into a corner where little
compromise is possible.

Perhaps the PW-5 failed because it's performance just wasn't high
enough, but that suggests one either needs to find a way to drastically
reduce (50 to 75%) the production cost of a typical standard class
glider, or convince a sizable portion of the community that there is
more to soaring than glider performance. Somehow, the latter seems more
practical to me.

Marc

[Brad[_2_]]

Remember when the Sparrowhawk first came out. It had a price of under
25K. I am pretty sure that the cost of manufacturing the airframe has
not doubled in price, but the price of the sailplane has.

Sailplanes that go fast and are designed for racing have way more
parts than a glider designed for lower speed and sports flying.

Safety would not be compromised in this design, but at lower wing
loadings, lighter GW and lower speeds the need for elaborate "crash-
worthiness" structure could be reduced. Even then, I recall the ASW-24
won the OSTIV prize for cockpit safety, and yet one spun in from less
than 400ft and the pilot was killed. My friend was killed in his Atlas
in the same manner. I am sure if I did the same in my Apis the result
would be the same.............the moral of the story.....DON'T CRASH.

Brad

[Brad[_2_]]

I think that the success of the Russia proved that there was and maybe
still is a market for these lighter sports ships. I also sorta think
that they saturated the market, and I also think that if the Russia
had the "look" that we sailplane pilots have come to expect, that they
would still be in business. That is, if their price stayed somewhat
the same. If the Apis was around at the same time as the Russia, I
wonder how many Russia's would have been sold? Given that the price
point was very close and the appearance of the Apis is so close to
what we "expect" I think the Silent may have been around, but don't
think there was a US distributor at the time.

Brad

[[email protected]]

On Dec 26, 1:31 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> > "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
> >> Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the community
> >> starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think Tony's
> >> adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I doubt the
> >> traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider addressing such a
> >> market...
>
> >> Marc
>
> > I love Tony's Cherokee adventures. However, the sad truth is that if the
> > Cherokee was to be put into commercial production today, it would cost even
> > more than the LS-4. When you take the route of a deliberately designing a
> > low performance glider, you set a trap for yourself by building a glider few
> > will buy. PW-5 is example "A".
>
> You're misreading what I'm saying. It makes no sense to commercially
> produce a Cherokee using present day technology. But, I think the
> soaring community has worked itself into a corner where little
> compromise is possible.
>
> Perhaps the PW-5 failed because it's performance just wasn't high
> enough, but that suggests one either needs to find a way to drastically
> reduce (50 to 75%) the production cost of a typical standard class
> glider, or convince a sizable portion of the community that there is
> more to soaring than glider performance. Somehow, the latter seems more
> practical to me.
>
> Marc


> Perhaps the PW-5 failed because it's performance just wasn't high
> enough, but that suggests one either needs to find a way to drastically
> reduce (50 to 75%) the production cost of a typical standard class
> glider, or convince a sizable portion of the community that there is
> more to soaring than glider performance. Somehow, the latter seems more
> practical to me.

Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
glider with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as
the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not
understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in
the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific
purpose. And that is sad.

Jacek
Pasco, WA

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

wrote:
> Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
> requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
> glider with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as
> the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not
> understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in
> the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific
> purpose. And that is sad.

I agree, and that is why I say that some of us in the soaring community
need to rethink what we are doing (those of you with an Antares on
order, carry on 8^).

Marc

[Brad[_2_]]

Realistically speaking..................if the "subject" sailplane was
made of modern composites and made in China, and was available for
under $35k......would people buy it?

Brad

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Brad wrote:
> Realistically speaking..................if the "subject" sailplane was
> made of modern composites and made in China, and was available for
> under $35k......would people buy it?

Yes, but I think the yuan is heading for readjustment, which will drive
the price higher. You should consider Mexico or elsewhere in Central
America, it will provide some viable work down there, and make the
Republican glider pilots up here that much happier 8^)

Marc

[Brad[_2_]]

>You should consider Mexico or elsewhere in Central
> America, it will provide some viable work down there, and make the
> Republican glider pilots up here that much happier 8^)
>
> Marc

well, to tell the truth..................to make the repubs happy, I
could probably hire a bunch of illegal ones right here in Washington
State and make it right in town!

Brad
(tongue only slightly in cheek)

[Dan G]

On Dec 25, 9:11*pm, Brad > wrote:
> I was browsing thru one of the Yahoo glider N.G.'s today and read
> where the World Class design may get ressurected. That got me to
> thinking:
>
> What would the ideal recreational next generation sailplane sailplane
> look like?

I reckon it would be a Discus bT. Easy to fly, easy to rig, great
performance, doesn't need a crew.

As, well, everyone has says it's all down to production costs. Modern
gliders cost a lot because the skills to build one are expensive - the
cost is the labour, not the material. You can lower the labour costs
by sourcing production from where it's cheaper, just as DG and Schempp-
Hirth have done with contracts at factories in Eastern Europe with
labour costs are less than in Germany. However composite production
skills can't just be pulled out of thin air; I've seen first hand how
good Chinese and Taiwanese metal workers are (exquisite mountain bike
frames), but I'm not sure you could just rock up there and find a
factory that could build Discuses. Even the Eastern Europeans screwed
it up at least once with the DG300, which goes to show the challenges
involved.

I don't think automated production is a possibility for two reasons.
The first is the market - with the way the market for new gliders is,
and the way gliding itself is, you couldn't guarantee the production
run needed for the set-up costs.

The second is it's really not that simple to set up automatic
production of composites - I've been following the 787 production
story closely since well before things started going wrong. Boeing
went all around the world for partners ans their major contractors -
KHI, MHI, and Alenia - were the only people in the world who could
mass-produce large composite components, and even then those companies
have built factories with systems and processes (giant autoclaves,
laser cutters, automatic lay-up machines, robot trolleys etc.) which
simply didn't exist beforehand. (Which is why Airbus are so far behind
Boeing on composite technology - when Boeing was contracting the
Japanese for production, Airbus was contracting universities for basic
R&D on composite mass-production techniques they could use in-house,
knowing that Boeing had basically used up the world's supply of
possible composite contractors.) Some of the smaller contractors have
indeed messed up, partly leading to the now well-known production
problems Boeing is having.

Which is in no way bad news for the German manufacturers. Skilled hand-
built products command incredible profit margins; as long as the
company is well-managed (I've always wondered how RS managed to go
bust after the biggest glass production run in gliding history) and
has at least a sniff of a potential customer base it's possible to do
very well in such a market.

At the end of the day I have no problem with the market for new
gliders being almost entirely very expensive hand-built products. I'm
happy buying 30-year-old aircraft which still fly pretty well and are
perfectly affordable. Not sure the US ever saw the influx of glass
gliders the UK and Europe did though and if your used market looks
like ours.


Dan

[[email protected]]

Why did the 1-26 do so well and is STILL doing well. For crying out
loud, they still have their own contest a billion years after it was
introduced! I don't understand it but we ought to really take a hard
look at it.

I'm not saying that we want brand new 1-26s. I sure don't. Brand new
Cherokee IIs either. Tony and I have more fun per dollar in our
little wood ships than most out there but we wouldn't mind a little
more performance, modern materials and safety features, easier
rigging... But paying $25000 for it? Are you kidding?!

The PW-5 is a fun glider but it costs a fortune to most people and
looks wrong to most of the rest. I don't think performance is the
reason it didn't "take off"

The new people we need in soaring are only going to desire 40 or 50 to
1 if we teach them that's what they need to have fun, earn badges,
have great flights, keep up with their friends.

Why cant we design a higher performance homebuilt quick kit that has
basic components built by existing manufacturing processes then
quality checked and assembled by individuals,clubs, or commercial
operations? A modular homebuilt (that satisfies the 51% rule) that
handles well, gets better than 35/1, climbs like a woodstock, lands
like a PW, and runs like a Discus and costs $10k as a kit and $15k
finished.

Look at all the creativity and innovation that led to the Cherokee,
the BG-12, the Duster, Scanlon, Tern, Javalin, Bowlus, Carbon Dragon,
Woodstock, Monerai, the HPs... Sure most of those had "issues" some
were real dogs, some were great. But, they all showed a creativity
that seems lacking today. Imagine combining the best aspects of these
classic American homebuilts and applying modern materials,
engineering, and manufacturing to the result.

Somebody is going to do it. Some young genius glider kid in Aero E at
university with no money thinking outside the box. This isn't rocket
science. It's evolution. You can either be part of the new wave or a
dinosaur.

MM

[RL]

The major issues that made the World Class PW-5 a non-starter were;
1) an early FAI requirement that the glider be capable of being
homebuilt. 2) a "non-standard" design (at least in terms of modern
glider configurations). 3) Performance that doesn't get the average
pilot to the next thermal - 38:1 or 40:1 allows a pilot of average
skill to fly X-C on the average day. 4) The mistaken concept that a
small, lightweight glider can be produced at a lower cost than a
typical 15m ship.

Bill is right on the money about production requirements. The
materials in a glider are a much smaller portion of the cost than
labor. The materials cost difference between building a 13m glider and
a 15m ship in negligible. Assuming a viable design was available,
such as the LS-4, the key to building a reasonably economic version is
in production engineering and tooling. I did an extensive tooling
work-up for a client considering WorldClass production a number of
years ago and then a follow-up on another glider project at a later
date. The cost to produce serial production tooling is in the
$100-150K range; then about another $100K is required for production
support fixtures, etc. to create a workable current technology
manufacturing cell.

In the original World Class estimates the consultants predicted a
worldwide demand for I think it was something like 4,000 production
units. Obviously, numbers like that are not in the realm of reality. A
run of 400 gliders over say 10-15 years would be considered a great
success by typical glider production standards.

So the classic manufacturing dilemma is this: It might be possible to
build a glider with less than a $250K up- front investment in tooling,
but the per unit cost would be high because of the labor involved. The
labor can be reduced with a more sophisticated production set-up, but
then the capitol investment increases and the ROI becomes less
attractive. This doesn't even touch on the issues of actually
operating and managing a facility, then certification (ultimately
necessary for a serial production aircraft).

For the most part, the German (European) glider manufacturers operate
in a bubble that exists because they have evolved over a long period
of time. To duplicate that, and then improve it to modern production
capabilities, is a daunting task made more so by the real world
economics of the situation. With that said, we have the technology
and composites know-how to improve the manufacturing state-of-the-art...
what is required is funding that is developmental and long term. So
who has a pile of money they'd like to invest for the good of the
sport of soaring? By the way - Once it was in place, the
manufacturing techniques that could be used to "mass" produce a one-
class design could also be used to produce the most advanced current
design gliders.

Bob Lacovara

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:27:04 -0700, "Bill Daniels"
<bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Build it in the US and Europe could buy it for $20K. Build it in the
>> third world and watch the glider community doubt its quality into oblivion
>> ;-)
>>
>>
>> Shawn
>
>Lotta truth in that. Even Airbus is talking about shifting production to
>the US.
>
Say hello to the Cessna/Shenyang 162...

http://www.cessna.com/news/article.chtml?ID=Xdg9EKUhsb1cI57ikmmGK7x13mhGGCol9 paNMmg7MllCu8ZuHg

rj

[Shawn[_4_]]

Ralph Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:27:04 -0700, "Bill Daniels"
> <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Build it in the US and Europe could buy it for $20K. Build it in the
>>> third world and watch the glider community doubt its quality into oblivion
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Shawn
>> Lotta truth in that. Even Airbus is talking about shifting production to
>> the US.
>>
> Say hello to the Cessna/Shenyang 162...
>
> http://www.cessna.com/news/article.chtml?ID=Xdg9EKUhsb1cI57ikmmGK7x13mhGGCol9 paNMmg7MllCu8ZuHg

Cessna's gone commie, wonderful. Are they going to sell them in Walmart?



Shawn

[Shawn[_4_]]

wrote:
> On Dec 26, 1:31 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:

snip

>> Perhaps the PW-5 failed because it's performance just wasn't high
>> enough, but that suggests one either needs to find a way to drastically
>> reduce (50 to 75%) the production cost of a typical standard class
>> glider, or convince a sizable portion of the community that there is
>> more to soaring than glider performance. Somehow, the latter seems more
>> practical to me.
>
> Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
> requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
> glider with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as
> the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not
> understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in
> the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific
> purpose. And that is sad.

The consumer failed by not buying what they didn't want? Supply side at
its worst, sheesh!
"Them pilots shoulda' knowed what's good for 'em and buyed it, dad gummit!"
;-)


Shawn

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Shawn wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 1:31 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>> Perhaps the PW-5 failed because it's performance just wasn't high
>>> enough, but that suggests one either needs to find a way to drastically
>>> reduce (50 to 75%) the production cost of a typical standard class
>>> glider, or convince a sizable portion of the community that there is
>>> more to soaring than glider performance. Somehow, the latter seems more
>>> practical to me.
>>
>> Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
>> requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
>> glider with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as
>> the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not
>> understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in
>> the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific
>> purpose. And that is sad.
>
> The consumer failed by not buying what they didn't want? Supply side at
> its worst, sheesh!
> "Them pilots shoulda' knowed what's good for 'em and buyed it, dad gummit!"

It's called "marketing", that's why I got so much crap in my house I
don't need. But, it works both ways, it also sells $100,000 Standard
Class gliders 8^)

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:

> Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
> requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
> glider with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as
> the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not
> understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in
> the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific
> purpose. And that is sad.

I kind of agree with Jacek. The PW-5 did what it was supposed to do;
instead, I suggest it was the World Class idea that failed. I believe
the promoters of the World Class one-design concept badly misjudged the
interest in a one-design class, and what most pilots wanted out it, and
hoped for, was a new glider for half the going price. The price turned
out not as cheap as the promoters thought it would be, but worse, it had
to compete with plentiful gliders in the used market.

I don't think the results would have been much different if the Russia
had been selected. I suspect even fewer World Class gliders would have
been sold had the requirements called for something with the performance
and looks of, say, a Std Cirrus, because the higher price of the glider
would have made the cost difference with used gliders even greater.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Shawn[_4_]]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Shawn wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Dec 26, 1:31 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>> Perhaps the PW-5 failed because it's performance just wasn't high
>>>> enough, but that suggests one either needs to find a way to drastically
>>>> reduce (50 to 75%) the production cost of a typical standard class
>>>> glider, or convince a sizable portion of the community that there is
>>>> more to soaring than glider performance. Somehow, the latter seems
>>>> more
>>>> practical to me.
>>>
>>> Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
>>> requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
>>> glider with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as
>>> the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not
>>> understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in
>>> the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific
>>> purpose. And that is sad.
>>
>> The consumer failed by not buying what they didn't want? Supply side
>> at its worst, sheesh!
>> "Them pilots shoulda' knowed what's good for 'em and buyed it, dad
>> gummit!"
>
> It's called "marketing", that's why I got so much crap in my house I
> don't need. But, it works both ways, it also sells $100,000 Standard
> Class gliders 8^)

I was thinking of "want" the way the Madison Ave. types define it. What
the consumer wants after the product is purchased is irrelevant. ;-)
People didn't want the PW-5 (i.e. it wasn't marketed well) enough to buy it.


Shawn

P.S. Seen many $100K Standard class ships at the field lately?

[Steve Davis]

At 21:49 26 December 2007, Brad wrote:
>I think that the success of the Russia proved that
>there was and maybe
>still is a market for these lighter sports ships. I
>also sorta think
>that they saturated the market, and I also think that
>if the Russia
>had the 'look' that we sailplane pilots have come to
>expect, that they
>would still be in business. That is, if their price
>stayed somewhat
>the same. If the Apis was around at the same time as
>the Russia, I
>wonder how many Russia's would have been sold? Given
>that the price
>point was very close and the appearance of the Apis
>is so close to
>what we 'expect' I think the Silent may have been around,
>but don't
>think there was a US distributor at the time.
>
>Brad

Any glider which has the 'look' that a bunch of old
geezer sailplane
pilots want is doomed to fail. Soaring has to evolve
into a fun
sport which is affordable to people in their early
working years and
what a bunch of old men want won't qualify. Soaring
in America needs
high altitude high capacity winch launch locations,
two seat trainers
which are economical to buy and operate and a single
seat glider with
launch and handling capabilities similar to the trainer
so a student
doesn't need to re-learn to fly so he/she can fly it.
The K21 has already
proven to be a great training aircraft and at US$64,000.
might be
economical to buy and operate. At over $100K it can't
earn enough to
pay for itself + instructor + insurance etc... That
design could be
brought to the US, made in larger volume, simplified,
rougher surface,
and no one learning to fly would care one iota about
its performance.
Ditto for a single seat glider which could handle a
large number of winch
launches and still have a return on investment. In
a club or rental
operation people would want to go flying, to hell with
performance if it
adds significantly to cost. And they won't care about
class because they
won't be flying in competitions. That's what old geezers
with plenty of
free time do.

[Steve Davis]

Hi Mat,
I'm in favor of a Marske or Genesis spar and frame
with
a PETG skin. PETG is the clear plastic that everything
comes packaged in. I can't bend it, scratch it and
can
barely cut it with scissors. The stuff is everywhere,
it
can be recycled, surely it can also fly? It can snap
together AND be ultrasonic welded. Graphlite spars,
PETG bulkheads, ribs and stringers and the strong
shape of the Genesis. It could be done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYDdEjloYJ0

At 00:01 27 December 2007, wrote:
>Why did the 1-26 do so well and is STILL doing well.
> For crying out
>loud, they still have their own contest a billion years
>after it was
>introduced! I don't understand it but we ought to
>really take a hard
>look at it.
>
>I'm not saying that we want brand new 1-26s. I sure
>don't. Brand new
>Cherokee IIs either. Tony and I have more fun per
>dollar in our
>little wood ships than most out there but we wouldn't
>mind a little
>more performance, modern materials and safety features,
>easier
>rigging... But paying $25000 for it? Are you kidding?!
>
>The PW-5 is a fun glider but it costs a fortune to
>most people and
>looks wrong to most of the rest. I don't think performance
>is the
>reason it didn't 'take off'
>
>The new people we need in soaring are only going to
>desire 40 or 50 to
>1 if we teach them that's what they need to have fun,
>earn badges,
>have great flights, keep up with their friends.
>
>Why cant we design a higher performance homebuilt quick
>kit that has
>basic components built by existing manufacturing processes
>then
>quality checked and assembled by individuals,clubs,
>or commercial
>operations? A modular homebuilt (that satisfies the
>51% rule) that
>handles well, gets better than 35/1, climbs like a
>woodstock, lands
>like a PW, and runs like a Discus and costs $10k as
>a kit and $15k
>finished.
>
>Look at all the creativity and innovation that led
>to the Cherokee,
>the BG-12, the Duster, Scanlon, Tern, Javalin, Bowlus,
>Carbon Dragon,
>Woodstock, Monerai, the HPs... Sure most of those
>had 'issues' some
>were real dogs, some were great. But, they all showed
>a creativity
>that seems lacking today. Imagine combining the best
>aspects of these
>classic American homebuilts and applying modern materials,
>engineering, and manufacturing to the result.
>
>Somebody is going to do it. Some young genius glider
>kid in Aero E at
>university with no money thinking outside the box.
>This isn't rocket
>science. It's evolution. You can either be part of
>the new wave or a
>dinosaur.
>
>MM
>

[Cats]

On Dec 26, 9:22*pm, Shawn > wrote:
<snip>
>
> Build it in the US and Europe could buy it for $20K. *Build it in the
> third world and watch the glider community doubt its quality into
> oblivion ;-)

*if* such a thing ever comes along, I suspect it will be built in
Poland, Slovakia or some other east Europe country.

[Cats]

On Dec 26, 10:54*pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
> > requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
> > glider *with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as
> > the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not
> > understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in
> > the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific
> > purpose. And that is sad.
>
> I agree, and that is why I say that some of us in the soaring community
> need to rethink what we are doing (those of you with an Antares on
> order, carry on 8^).

Most of us can't afford an Antares, but many second-hand good-
condition, well-equipped 40:1 ships are affordable, so why spend a lot
more money on a 30:1 ship than on a 40:1 ship?

Maybe the failure was the initial performance specification from the
FAI. I can't remember if the Junior was a contender or not, but it
fits a lot of the criteria - L/D, suitable for early solo, fixed gear
and so on - and having just started flying a 40:1 ship instead there's
no way I'd consider spending my hard-earned cash on a new PW5 instead
of a second-hand 40:1 Club Class ship.

Is it a failure of mine to want to be able to progress into wind? Or
to want a glider where serious XC (not that I'm capable of that yet!)
can be done in a wider range of conditions, not just on the 'day of
the year' which just about *always* is a working day?

[Peter Purdie]

Those with long memories, and who followed the 'World
Class' saga from the beginning will recall that an
initial part of the specification included a low production
price. The objective was for an International affordable
class.

IGC delegates who neither supported nor opposed the
concept didn't worry because any competent engineer
knew that you couldn't manufacture a new glider for
the target price, so the concept was a non-starter
anyway.

When that became obvious at a late stage, the price
requirement was quietly dropped and the World Class
had too much momentum to stop; meanwhile the very successful
Club Class had already filled the objectives and we
have a (albeit fun to fly) white elephant.

All somewhat reminiscent of the confusion which resulted
in 2 15 meter classes, and which took nearly 20 years
to get to the 18 meter class we could have had in the
70s.

At 08:48 27 December 2007, Cats wrote:
>On Dec 26, 10:54=A0pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to
>>>meet the
>> > requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That
>>>concept called for
>> > glider =A0with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't
>>>the glider as much as
>> > the pilots who failed by demanding more performance
>>>and not
>> > understanding the concept. The 'One Design' class
>>>will fail again in
>> > the future regardless of what kind of glider is used
>>>for that specific
>> > purpose. And that is sad.
>>
>> I agree, and that is why I say that some of us in
>>the soaring community
>> need to rethink what we are doing (those of you with
>>an Antares on
>> order, carry on 8^).
>
>Most of us can't afford an Antares, but many second-hand
>good-
>condition, well-equipped 40:1 ships are affordable,
>so why spend a lot
>more money on a 30:1 ship than on a 40:1 ship?
>
>Maybe the failure was the initial performance specification
>from the
>FAI. I can't remember if the Junior was a contender
>or not, but it
>fits a lot of the criteria - L/D, suitable for early
>solo, fixed gear
>and so on - and having just started flying a 40:1 ship
>instead there's
>no way I'd consider spending my hard-earned cash on
>a new PW5 instead
>of a second-hand 40:1 Club Class ship.
>
>Is it a failure of mine to want to be able to progress
>into wind? Or
>to want a glider where serious XC (not that I'm capable
>of that yet!)
>can be done in a wider range of conditions, not just
>on the 'day of
>the year' which just about *always* is a working day?
>

[Dan G]

On Dec 27, 7:01*am, Steve Davis >
wrote:
> At 21:49 26 December 2007, Brad wrote:
>Soaring
> in America needs
> high altitude high capacity winch launch locations,

I've always wondered why no-one in the US has imported a Skylaunch kit
sans engine and fitted it with a locally-sourced engine and
transmission. That would give you a powerful, controllable winch with
a reasonable outlay.

> two seat trainers
> which are economical to buy and operate

The PW6U and forthcoming Perkow spring to mind. The latter looks
particularly promising with 40:1 XC performance. As both are Polish
they don't come with the Germany premium.

> and a single
> seat glider with
> launch and handling capabilities similar to the trainer
> so a student
> doesn't need to re-learn to fly so he/she can fly it.

Astir; also the Junior too which is still made and designed for
precisely that role, that it does very well. For a cheap "hot" (well,
OK, mildly warm) ship get a Cirrus.

I think a lot of the solutions now exist, it just needs some motivated
people to make it happen and then tell the world (or at least the rest
of the US) of their success.


Dan

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 13:06 27 December 2007, Dan G wrote:
>On Dec 27, 7:01=A0am, Steve Davis
>wrote:
>> At 21:49 26 December 2007, Brad wrote:
>>Soaring
>> in America needs
>> high altitude high capacity winch launch locations,
>
>I've always wondered why no-one in the US has imported
>a Skylaunch kit
>sans engine and fitted it with a locally-sourced engine
>and
>transmission. That would give you a powerful, controllable
>winch with
>a reasonable outlay.
>
>Dan


It has always puzzled me why someone in the US hasn't
already approached Mike Grove at Skylaunch with a view
to building Skylaunches under licence instead of trying
to re-invent the winches that Skylaunch has eclipsed.
That way you would have a thoroughly proven system,
be able to source GM marine V8s and transmission units
locally, and not have to transport heavy mechanical
assemblies across the Atlantic at all.

John Galloway

[Bill Daniels]

"John Galloway" > wrote in message
...
> At 13:06 27 December 2007, Dan G wrote:
>>On Dec 27, 7:01=A0am, Steve Davis
>>wrote:
>>> At 21:49 26 December 2007, Brad wrote:
>>>Soaring
>>> in America needs
>>> high altitude high capacity winch launch locations,
>>
>>I've always wondered why no-one in the US has imported
>>a Skylaunch kit
>>sans engine and fitted it with a locally-sourced engine
>>and
>>transmission. That would give you a powerful, controllable
>>winch with
>>a reasonable outlay.
>>
>>Dan
>
>
> It has always puzzled me why someone in the US hasn't
> already approached Mike Grove at Skylaunch with a view
> to building Skylaunches under licence instead of trying
> to re-invent the winches that Skylaunch has eclipsed.
> That way you would have a thoroughly proven system,
> be able to source GM marine V8s and transmission units
> locally, and not have to transport heavy mechanical
> assemblies across the Atlantic at all.
>
> John Galloway
>
>

Let me predict that in the near future, one and perhaps two US based
manufacturers will be offering a FAR better winch design than the Skylaunch
at a similar price. Hang tight.

Bill Daniels

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Let me predict that in the near future, one and perhaps two US based
> manufacturers will be offering a FAR better winch design than the Skylaunch
> at a similar price. Hang tight.

What's the winch community's opinion on a "hybrid" winch, which uses an
electric motor and batteries to do the launch, and a generator to keep
the batteries charged? That might give a more easily controlled,
possibly automated, power system, but retain the indpendence of a
gas/diesel winch.

Lighter weight gliders, coupled with smaller, lower cost winches that
are dead simple to operate (or can perform the launch automatically)
might do more for growing the sport than a somewhat cheaper version of
the gliders we fly now.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Brad[_2_]]

> Lighter weight gliders, coupled with smaller, lower cost winches that
> are dead simple to operate (or can perform the launch automatically)
> might do more for growing the sport than a somewhat cheaper version of
> the gliders we fly now.

Hi Eric,

Maybe instead of the word "cheaper" we could use modern and
affordable!
These new Modern and Affordable sailplanes could be designed from the
start to take advantage of these "alternative" methods of launch!

Brad

[[email protected]]

Well Steve, you need to come to the convention and meet with Brad, me,
and some other like minded folks. I completely agree with your first
post about the geezers with money, (sorry guys).

BTW are you THE Steve Davis, Genesis guy from CO?

MM

On Dec 27, 1:56*am, Steve Davis >
wrote:
> Hi Mat,
> I'm in favor of a Marske or Genesis spar and frame
> with
> a PETG skin. *PETG is the clear plastic that everything
> comes packaged in. *I can't bend it, scratch it and
> can
> barely cut it with scissors. *The stuff is everywhere,
> it
> can be recycled, surely it can also fly? *It can snap
> together AND be ultrasonic welded. *Graphlite spars,
> PETG bulkheads, ribs and stringers and the strong
> shape of the Genesis. It could be done.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYDdEjloYJ0
>
> At 00:01 27 December 2007, wrote:
>
>
>
> >Why did the *1-26 do so well and is STILL doing well.
> > For crying out
> >loud, they still have their own contest a billion years
> >after it was
> >introduced! * I don't understand it but we ought to
> >really take a hard
> >look at it.
>
> >I'm not saying that we want brand new 1-26s. *I sure
> >don't. *Brand new
> >Cherokee IIs either. *Tony and I have more fun per
> >dollar in our
> >little wood ships than most out there but we wouldn't
> >mind a little
> >more performance, modern materials and safety features,
> >easier
> >rigging... *But paying $25000 for it? *Are you kidding?!
>
> >The PW-5 is a fun glider but it costs a fortune to
> >most people and
> >looks wrong to most of the rest. *I don't think performance
> >is the
> >reason it didn't 'take off'
>
> >The new people we need in soaring are only going to
> >desire 40 or 50 to
> >1 if we teach them that's what they need to have fun,
> >earn badges,
> >have great flights, keep up with their friends.
>
> >Why cant we design a higher performance homebuilt quick
> >kit that has
> >basic components built by existing manufacturing processes
> >then
> >quality checked and assembled by individuals,clubs,
> >or commercial
> >operations? *A modular homebuilt (that satisfies the
> >51% rule) that
> >handles well, gets better than 35/1, climbs like a
> >woodstock, lands
> >like a PW, and runs like a Discus and costs $10k as
> >a kit *and $15k
> >finished.
>
> >Look at all the creativity and innovation that led
> >to the Cherokee,
> >the BG-12, the Duster, Scanlon, Tern, Javalin, Bowlus,
> >Carbon Dragon,
> >Woodstock, Monerai, the HPs... *Sure most of those
> >had 'issues' some



> >were real dogs, some were great. *But, they all showed
> >a creativity
> >that seems lacking today. *Imagine combining the best
> >aspects of these
> >classic American homebuilts and applying modern materials,
> >engineering, and manufacturing to the result.
>
> >Somebody is going to do it. *Some young genius glider
> >kid in Aero E at
> >university with no money thinking outside the box.
> >This isn't rocket
> >science. *It's evolution. *You can either be part of
> >the new wave or a
> >dinosaur.
>
> >MM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Steve Davis]

At 18:30 27 December 2007, wrote:
>Well Steve, you need to come to the convention and
>meet with Brad,
me,
>and some other like minded folks. I completely agree
>with your first
>post about the geezers with money, (sorry guys).
>
>BTW are you THE Steve Davis, Genesis guy from CO?
>
>MM

Hi Matt,
Yea, it's me. I have teenage relatives in town so
I'm making daily trips to Keystone. I think the
earlier snowboarding analogy was right on.
Snowboarding wasn't developed by older skiers
and it isn't as fast or exciting to watch as downhill
or slalom. Older skiers, the 'purists' tried very
hard for many years to keep snowboards off the
slopes. Riders were young, with limited money,
who wanted to have fun and they invented and
transformed the sport. By the mid nineties
even the old geezers with bad knees and ankles
were learning to ride. If skiing had been a club
sport I doubt that riding would have had a chance
to take off. The older club members would have
banded together to prevent it. Soaring is in the
same pickle. It won't be rescued by clubs.

[Steve Davis]

At 18:30 27 December 2007, wrote:
>Well Steve, you need to come to the convention and
>meet with Brad,
me,
>and some other like minded folks. I completely agree
>with your first
>post about the geezers with money, (sorry guys).
>
>BTW are you THE Steve Davis, Genesis guy from CO?
>
>MM

Hi Matt,
Yea, it's me. I have teenage relatives in town so
I'm making daily trips to Keystone. I think the
earlier snowboarding analogy was right on.
Snowboarding wasn't developed by older skiers
and it isn't as fast or exciting to watch as downhill
or slalom. Older skiers, the 'purists' tried very
hard for many years to keep snowboards off the
slopes. Riders were young, with limited money,
who wanted to have fun and they invented and
transformed the sport. By the mid nineties
even the old geezers with bad knees and ankles
were learning to ride. If skiing had been a club
sport I doubt that riding would have had a chance
to take off. The older club members would have
banded together to prevent it. Soaring is in the
same pickle. It won't be rescued by clubs.

[Bill Daniels]

Eric, George Moore of Spokane is working on exactly the approach you
suggest. Electric drive offers a seamless CVT drive that lets a computer
control the launch to a degree of precision no human winch driver can
approach. That precision allows the use of much higher rope tension with
much greater safety than the old automobile V8 and non-electronic 4-speed
transmission.

The key enabler for electric winches is the frenetic work being done on
electric, and electric hybrid cars. The required parts are available now
but not at attractive prices. The hope is that once these vehicles are in
mass production in 5 - 10 years, the component prices will drop
substantially.

Oh yes, I should mention the rather elegant ESW-2B from Germany which uses
50 car starting batteries as a buffer to store enough power for ~20
launches. This winch is usually connected to the grid to keep the huge
battery pack topped up but it can also use a diesel generator. A grid tap
or a generator adds substantially to the cost but where electricity is
available or where there are extremely noise sensitive airfield neighbors,
it's a viable choice.

So, the concept of an electric winch is very elegant but not quite
economically attractive at this point. It's worth point out that diesel -
hydrostatic drive (Hydraulic pumps and motors) achieves the same degree of
controllability and the components are almost a commodity. My guess is that
hydrostatic drive is the near term solution and electric is a good bet for
the middle future if the component prices can drop below hydrostatic
components.

Bill Daniels

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:wlRcj.2733$si6.2097@trndny08...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> > Let me predict that in the near future, one and perhaps two US based
>> manufacturers will be offering a FAR better winch design than the
>> Skylaunch at a similar price. Hang tight.
>
> What's the winch community's opinion on a "hybrid" winch, which uses an
> electric motor and batteries to do the launch, and a generator to keep the
> batteries charged? That might give a more easily controlled, possibly
> automated, power system, but retain the indpendence of a gas/diesel winch.
>
> Lighter weight gliders, coupled with smaller, lower cost winches that are
> dead simple to operate (or can perform the launch automatically) might do
> more for growing the sport than a somewhat cheaper version of the gliders
> we fly now.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Dan G wrote:
> On Dec 27, 7:01 am, Steve Davis >
> wrote:
>> At 21:49 26 December 2007, Brad wrote:
>> Soaring in America needs
>> high altitude high capacity winch launch locations,

We need enough glider pilots concentrated in specific geographic areas
to justify a high capacity winch launch operations, sort of a chicken
and egg problem.

> I've always wondered why no-one in the US has imported a Skylaunch kit
> sans engine and fitted it with a locally-sourced engine and
> transmission. That would give you a powerful, controllable winch with
> a reasonable outlay.

I'm trying to pull together a syndicate to do precisely that. The
economics make it difficult to justify for existing clubs and commercial
operations, which were structured and located based on the (past)
availability of low cost aero tows. Importing a Skylaunch kit and
completing it wth locally sourced engine, transmission, etc., still
costs around US $80K, or roughly 2.5 low time Pawnees (or 1 Pawnee, an
engine, and a good bit of avgas). I suspect you can imagine the way the
discussion goes at most clubs here...

>> two seat trainers
>> which are economical to buy and operate
>
> The PW6U and forthcoming Perkow spring to mind. The latter looks
> particularly promising with 40:1 XC performance. As both are Polish
> they don't come with the Germany premium.

With the exchange rate as it is (and it isn't going to get better any
time soon), a properly equipped PW6 with trailer costs something over US
$90K, the Perkow will cost even more. Once again, those prices are well
beyond what most clubs and commercial operations can readily afford or
justify.

>> and a single
>> seat glider with
>> launch and handling capabilities similar to the trainer
>> so a student
>> doesn't need to re-learn to fly so he/she can fly it.
>
> Astir; also the Junior too which is still made and designed for
> precisely that role, that it does very well. For a cheap "hot" (well,
> OK, mildly warm) ship get a Cirrus.

Many US clubs now have ships like that. The problem now is that the
high prices for new gliders are having a ripple effect, which means
demand now outstrips supply for good mid-range ($25K to $35K) single
seat gliders. There are a lot of gliders around that should have been
refinished 10 years ago (and now can't be economically), but not as many
good low cost gliders to build a club around.

> I think a lot of the solutions now exist, it just needs some motivated
> people to make it happen and then tell the world (or at least the rest
> of the US) of their success.

I wish it was as easy as you think...

Marc

[Z Goudie]

At 14:24 27 December 2007, John Galloway wrote:

>It has always puzzled me why someone in the US hasn't
>already approached Mike Grove at Skylaunch with a view
>to building Skylaunches under licence instead of trying
>to re-invent the winches that Skylaunch has eclipsed.
> That way you would have a thoroughly proven system,
>be able to source GM marine V8s and transmission units
>locally, and not have to transport heavy mechanical
>assemblies across the Atlantic at all.

I've heard that Skylaunch don't want to know as they
realise that the first time some numpty in America
spins off one of their winches (or winch designs) they're
liable to get their ass sued to the ends of the earth
by an ambulance chasing lawyer.

[kirk.stant]

I think this discussion is going the wrong way. If you are going to
redefine soaring in the future, you don't start with the hardware -
you have to define what the sport of soaring is going to evolve
into.

As far as low cost gliders, guys, they already exist - been to a local
paraglider/hangglider field lately?

But as long (and I want to caveat this statement by emphasizing that
I'm talking about soaring in the US, not other countries) as we
attempt to push soaring as "a cheap way to fly" it will continue to
stagnate.

You see it at all but a few enlightened glider operations: Emphasis
on "how inexpensive" soaring is compared to power flying; training in
beat-up low performance antique gliders, availability of similar beat-
up low performance antique gliders for post-solo/ post license flying
- and the new glider pilot gets bored and wanders off to spend his
money on a pair of new quads, or a bass boat, etc. And you are left
with the old codgers who leaned to fly in primaries and think a 1-26
is the bees knees, or total glassholes who get serious on their own
and discover the dark side - that soaring is a SPORT, not just a way
to fly.

You want to grow soaring? Look at all those clowns riding their $3000
carbon fiber bicycles wearing gaudy spandex. Most will never actually
race, but they enjoy pretending, and socializing, and riding with
their friends in race-like conditions.

Or check out all the motocross bikes being ridden for fun - most never
actually race, but it's fun to pretend, and it's even more fun to play
with the same hardware the pro's use!

Yet at many glider clubs, just try to suggest that the club should
push XC, or racing, or that every student should be required to get
his Silver. The howls of "we don't want to race", "XC is dangerous",
"that's not what the club should be teaching", and "soaring isn't
about XC and racing" get deafening.

Interestingly, this attitude often from some old codger, as he gets
into his pristine ASW-20 for a 3 hour local flight, while the newly
minted glider pilot struggles through his mandated 1-hour flight in
the club single seater (glass, if he's lucky), knowing that if he
DARES to landout, there will be hell to pay (since there isn't a
trailer for the glider, and nobody knows how to derig it anyway...).

So - While new developments in gliders are always welcome (and we
desperately need to replace all those horrible 2-33s and 1-26s in club
fleets), we also have to define our sport, and get that image out
where the people with the time and money to soar are waiting to be
discovered

A final thought - when was the last time there was a cover story about
soaring in Sports Illustrated? Or any story? SSA, what's your
excuse?

Kirk
66

PS: Winch launching is the future. 2000' with no noise, fun even
when there isn't any lift, green (get those Prius buyers
interested...). Combine with sexy glass ships, and people will stop
by to watch the show....

[Tuno]

<snip>PS: *Winch launching is the future. </snip>

Watching a winch launch is what got me into this sport (*).

Racing and x/c are what got me hooked on it (**).

-ted/2NO

* Wiener Neustadt, Austria, July 2002.
** Drinking beer while watching sunsets and talking about the day's
flights didn't hurt either!

[Bill Daniels]

"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
...
>I think this discussion is going the wrong way. If you are going to
> redefine soaring in the future, you don't start with the hardware -
> you have to define what the sport of soaring is going to evolve
> into.
>
> As far as low cost gliders, guys, they already exist - been to a local
> paraglider/hangglider field lately?
>
> But as long (and I want to caveat this statement by emphasizing that
> I'm talking about soaring in the US, not other countries) as we
> attempt to push soaring as "a cheap way to fly" it will continue to
> stagnate.
>
> You see it at all but a few enlightened glider operations: Emphasis
> on "how inexpensive" soaring is compared to power flying; training in
> beat-up low performance antique gliders, availability of similar beat-
> up low performance antique gliders for post-solo/ post license flying
> - and the new glider pilot gets bored and wanders off to spend his
> money on a pair of new quads, or a bass boat, etc. And you are left
> with the old codgers who leaned to fly in primaries and think a 1-26
> is the bees knees, or total glassholes who get serious on their own
> and discover the dark side - that soaring is a SPORT, not just a way
> to fly.
>
> You want to grow soaring? Look at all those clowns riding their $3000
> carbon fiber bicycles wearing gaudy spandex. Most will never actually
> race, but they enjoy pretending, and socializing, and riding with
> their friends in race-like conditions.
>
> Or check out all the motocross bikes being ridden for fun - most never
> actually race, but it's fun to pretend, and it's even more fun to play
> with the same hardware the pro's use!
>
> Yet at many glider clubs, just try to suggest that the club should
> push XC, or racing, or that every student should be required to get
> his Silver. The howls of "we don't want to race", "XC is dangerous",
> "that's not what the club should be teaching", and "soaring isn't
> about XC and racing" get deafening.
>
> Interestingly, this attitude often from some old codger, as he gets
> into his pristine ASW-20 for a 3 hour local flight, while the newly
> minted glider pilot struggles through his mandated 1-hour flight in
> the club single seater (glass, if he's lucky), knowing that if he
> DARES to landout, there will be hell to pay (since there isn't a
> trailer for the glider, and nobody knows how to derig it anyway...).
>
> So - While new developments in gliders are always welcome (and we
> desperately need to replace all those horrible 2-33s and 1-26s in club
> fleets), we also have to define our sport, and get that image out
> where the people with the time and money to soar are waiting to be
> discovered
>
> A final thought - when was the last time there was a cover story about
> soaring in Sports Illustrated? Or any story? SSA, what's your
> excuse?
>
> Kirk
> 66
>
> PS: Winch launching is the future. 2000' with no noise, fun even
> when there isn't any lift, green (get those Prius buyers
> interested...). Combine with sexy glass ships, and people will stop
> by to watch the show....

Well said.

Bill Daniels

[Dan G]

On Dec 27, 8:18*pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:

<big snip>

> I wish it was as easy as you think...

What's interesting to me is that you seem to be looking at the same
prices we are. A PW6U is £45,000 over here; a factory built Skylaunch
is ~£60,000. The former has seen a couple of sales and the latter are
being snapped up all over the place. How can we can afford to buy kit
like this and you guys can't? Most of the clubs I know have bought
this equipment cash.

A club which has bought a Skylaunch recently might have about 100
members paying £300 a year each and about £7 a winch launch, plus
around £25 an hour glider hire. An aerotow, btw, costs about £25 to
2,000'. What are US club membership numbers and costs like?


Dan

[Bill Daniels]

"Tuno" > wrote in message
...
<snip>PS: Winch launching is the future. </snip>

Watching a winch launch is what got me into this sport (*).

Racing and x/c are what got me hooked on it (**).

-ted/2NO

* Wiener Neustadt, Austria, July 2002.
** Drinking beer while watching sunsets and talking about the day's
flights didn't hurt either!

If you run the numbers, it looks like if you redirect a significant fraction
of the money now spent on aero tows into new gliders, with the remainder
going to support a winch, you can afford nice two seaters - even ASK-21's
with no increasse in the total dollars spent.

The problem is getting your mind around the huge up-front cost of a modern
winch.

If you again run the numbers to see the per-launch costs by amortizing that
up-front cost over a 30 year life you see that the per-launch capital costs
are on the order of $1. The operating costs may be as much as $3 per. If
you charge $10 - $15 per launch and apply the excess to retire a loan taken
out to buy the winch, you should pay it off in two or three years if the
winch is used frequently. Once the winch is paid off, the price could be
dropped to $5 per launch or kept at $15 to pay off all those K-21's and
DG1000's you bought.

The only 'gotcha' is that you have to use the winch agressively so it
generates the cash flow.

By 'agressively' I mean averaging 50 or so launches every day you fly. That
shouldn't be a problem since a lot of pilots will buy several $15 launches
even when there is no hope of lift. One German club did just under 400
launches in one day with a two-drum winch. An RAF cadet group did over 600
launches in a day with a 6-drum winch. 50 shouldn't stress anybody out.

It seems to me that scenario is a win-win-win-win........

Bill Daniels

[[email protected]]

Very interesting thread.

Im glad to see that a few people enjoy my reports of cheap dirty fun
flying in the upper midwest. I'll keep it up.

Sometimes someone asks me when im going to buy a different glider. my
standard response is "when i can afford something better than what I
have!" Fact is we all are going to buy the best glider we can for the
money. I didnt buy the Cherokee cause I was in love with a 40 year
old wood glider. Or because i thought the forward swept tail (like a
mooney) looked cool. I didnt even buy it because it had stellar 25:1
performance. I only bought it because the price tag equalled the
amount of money I could scrape up over a summer of working, and I
really wanted a glider!

Saying that 40:1 + is necessary for going cross country is a great way
to kill enthusiasm and interest in the sport. now now now, i know that
there is a lot of unlandable terrain out west and it may be a good
idea to either have good performance or lots of alititude out there,
but I have had great fun on some pretty short low altitude flights
here in the midwest. Obviously you can go out there with low
performance but you must tip toe.

If composite construction is so difficult then why not make it metal?
pulling rivets is a pretty simple task.

carry on...

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> Oh yes, I should mention the rather elegant ESW-2B from Germany which uses
> 50 car starting batteries as a buffer to store enough power for ~20
> launches. This winch is usually connected to the grid to keep the huge
> battery pack topped up but it can also use a diesel generator. A grid tap
> or a generator adds substantially to the cost but where electricity is
> available or where there are extremely noise sensitive airfield neighbors,
> it's a viable choice.

I googled it - awesome winch! One for aircraft under 1000 pounds
(instead 1900 pounds like the ESW) should be practical now, including
launching L-13 Blaniks, 2-33, unballasted 15 meter gliders, and all the
Russia/SparrowHawk/Apis/1-26/Ka-6e/etc that you can find.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[[email protected]]

Great stuff Kirk. I agree with nearly every point you make. I've
personally suffered under the "old codger" effect, have heard the
howls of "XC is dangerous", and have spent some considerable hours
clowning around on expensive bicycles too.

But I think that we DO have to address the hardware side of things in
terms of costs. Those cycling clowns are riding $3000 bikes not
$30000 bikes. The hang and paraglider ships dont necessarily offer
the safety or performance of a sailplane. The low cost gliders that
exist are the vintage neglected birds that can be bought for used car
prices.

Guys like the Cherokee Kid, Tony on this forum, ARE the future of this
sport. He's flying a nearly antique glider cross country nearly every
time he launches. He can do this because his glider and trailer cost
about what a typical college kid could spend on a decent used car. I
hate to think of all the people out there who would love to do what
he's doing but don't have a glider available to them.

And on the topic of launch methods... I believe the future of the
sport is in electric self launch for single seaters and maybe winch
for training and event centers. But that is really another topic.

MM

MM

[Brad[_2_]]

Hi Tony,

I learned to fly sailplanes in 1979. Trained in a 2-33, a Blanik and
occasionally in a Lark IS-28B2. Most of my training was in the 2-33. I
loved it. I had several instructors but my favorite was an old guy
named Stan. He was firm and fair and rode me hard when needed. The
2-33 was the most beautiful thing I had ever seen. I didn't like the
Blanik and the Lark seemed like somthing only astronauts would be able
to fly. But...........along with the 2-33, the little 1-26 was there
and I knew one day I would fly that ship. R.A.S. did not exist back
then, so I didn't know that the 2-33 sucked, and the 1-26 was just a
piece of tin, so it was in total ignorance when, as a student, I took
the 2-33 up to cloudbase and flew it all the way from Issaquah to
Marymore Park and back, under a 4500' cloudstreet. She seemed eager
and up to the task, and I was dumb enough to go for it. Later I got to
fly the 1-26. I flew it many times up on Tiger Mountain, the most
memorable flight was in strong south winds and strong ridge lift. I
was hooked.

Occasionally the guys with the ASW-15's would show up at the field and
I felt I was in the presence of greatness, and badly wanted to fly one
of those someday, but that never tarnished my opinions of those 2
metal birds that gave me so much fun.

Fast forward............I became a hang glider pilot. Advancing
quickly to my advanced rating with all the special check-offs, even
got my winch rating. Some of my favorite flights were drifting at low
level in light ridge lift, just above the trees and feeling every tiny
breeze. Landing in peoples back yards became common place, and I never
feared "going for it"

Today, I fly an Apis-13 that I built from a kit. It gets maybe 35:1.
Like your Cherokee, it can effortlessley drift at low altitudes and if
I need to put her in a small field, I can land in less than 200'. I
can also center a thermal at 200' and continue with the flight.

I am a proponent of this kind of flying, and of gliders that can do
this kind of flying. It is not for everybody, and the guys with the
heavier wing loadings blow by me everytime, but for me..............a
"light" ship that handles well, is easy to rig, easy to fly and climbs
like an eagle is my cup of tea.

Might there be some more folks that like that kind of flying out
there?

Brad
199AK





On Dec 27, 3:36*pm, wrote:
> Very interesting thread.
>
> Im glad to see that a few people enjoy my reports of cheap dirty fun
> flying in the upper midwest. *I'll keep it up.
>
> Sometimes someone asks me when im going to buy a different glider. *my
> standard response is "when i can afford something better than what I
> have!" *Fact is we all are going to buy the best glider we can for the
> money. *I didnt buy the Cherokee cause I was in love with a 40 year
> old wood glider. *Or because i thought the forward swept tail (like a
> mooney) looked cool. *I didnt even buy it because it had stellar 25:1
> performance. *I only bought it because the price tag equalled the
> amount of money I could scrape up over a summer of working, and I
> really wanted a glider!
>
> Saying that 40:1 + is necessary for going cross country is a great way
> to kill enthusiasm and interest in the sport. now now now, i know that
> there is a lot of unlandable terrain out west and it may be a good
> idea to either have good performance or lots of alititude out there,
> but I have had great fun on some pretty short low altitude flights
> here in the midwest. *Obviously you can go out there with low
> performance but you must tip toe.
>
> If composite construction is so difficult then why not make it metal?
> pulling rivets is a pretty simple task.
>
> carry on...

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Dan G wrote:
> On Dec 27, 8:18 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>
> <big snip>
>
>> I wish it was as easy as you think...
>
> What's interesting to me is that you seem to be looking at the same
> prices we are. A PW6U is £45,000 over here; a factory built Skylaunch
> is ~£60,000. The former has seen a couple of sales and the latter are
> being snapped up all over the place. How can we can afford to buy kit
> like this and you guys can't? Most of the clubs I know have bought
> this equipment cash.
>
> A club which has bought a Skylaunch recently might have about 100
> members paying £300 a year each and about £7 a winch launch, plus
> around £25 an hour glider hire. An aerotow, btw, costs about £25 to
> 2,000'. What are US club membership numbers and costs like?

Our fees are similar ($600/year, $30/2000' tow, $20/flight), we have
fewer members (around 60, I believe), but the economics are quite
different. We operate from a public airport, and have to rent a hangar
for the tow plane, along with space for glider tie downs and a club
house. I don't know the exact figure, but I suspect airport rent alone
is as much as $1500/month. We have enough money in the bank to stave
off disaster if the tow plane has a major maintenance issue, but that's
about it. We recently bought a newer glider (Grob Twin III), which
required substantial loans from members to cover it until we manage to
sell off one of our older Twin IIs. Some members would like to get a
DG-1000 or similar, but the club simply can't afford it at the moment.

The tow plane and airport fees eat the majority of the fees collected.
A winch would be a great revenue generator and cut or even eliminate the
need for the tow plane. However, it would require a big pile of money
(for us) up front, intensive training of instructors and members, cause
grumbling from the tow pilot members and those who like to tow miles in
search of better conditions, and we'd be likely be forced to move to a
location farther out from the population centers, resulting in a loss of
membership. While a winch may be a "win-win-win-win" scenario, as a
practical matter it is difficult to implement at many sites in the US.

Marc

[Brad[_2_]]

>While a winch may be a "win-win-win-win" scenario, as a
> practical matter it is difficult to implement at many sites in the US.
>
> Marc-

Some of the members in our club are looking at winch launching. I
suspect that they will come to the same conclusions. "Cheap" tows that
a winch offer is really a matter of perspective.

We did some double towing a few years ago and got quite good at it.
Typical double tows were for 15+ mile treks to the mountains to
connect with the lift. Our double tow fee structure made it
"economical" to do and we were rewarded with long flights and awesome
forays into the Cascade Mountains.

The winch.................well, it ain't gonna do it.

Brad

[Frank Whiteley]

On Dec 27, 5:57 pm, wrote:
> Great stuff Kirk. I agree with nearly every point you make. I've
> personally suffered under the "old codger" effect, have heard the
> howls of "XC is dangerous", and have spent some considerable hours
> clowning around on expensive bicycles too.
>
> But I think that we DO have to address the hardware side of things in
> terms of costs. Those cycling clowns are riding $3000 bikes not
> $30000 bikes. The hang and paraglider ships dont necessarily offer
> the safety or performance of a sailplane. The low cost gliders that
> exist are the vintage neglected birds that can be bought for used car
> prices.
>
> Guys like the Cherokee Kid, Tony on this forum, ARE the future of this
> sport. He's flying a nearly antique glider cross country nearly every
> time he launches. He can do this because his glider and trailer cost
> about what a typical college kid could spend on a decent used car. I
> hate to think of all the people out there who would love to do what
> he's doing but don't have a glider available to them.
>
> And on the topic of launch methods... I believe the future of the
> sport is in electric self launch for single seaters and maybe winch
> for training and event centers. But that is really another topic.
>
> MM
>
> MM

Partnerships, m'boy, partnerships.

Been in four over the years, and it's always been a rewarding
experience. I expect to be in a couple more in the next year or so.

Frank Whiteley

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Frank Whiteley wrote:
> Partnerships, m'boy, partnerships.
>
> Been in four over the years, and it's always been a rewarding
> experience. I expect to be in a couple more in the next year or so.

10 years ago I was able afford a new glider on my own. 5 years ago I
was able to buy a new glider with a partner. Now, I'll consider myself
lucky to be able to get a decent 20 year old glider with a partner. I
don't even want to think about the situation 5 years from now...

Marc

[Brad[_2_]]

Marc....................your future lies in dogs.

My wife quit her Microsoft job a few years ago and we started a custom
dog boarding business................she was a product manager at
MS.................now she's feeds dogs and makes more than she did a
MS!

I'm the official pooper-scooper and get to fly over 120 hours a year!

Brad

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Brad wrote:
> Marc....................your future lies in dogs.
>
> My wife quit her Microsoft job a few years ago and we started a custom
> dog boarding business................she was a product manager at
> MS.................now she's feeds dogs and makes more than she did a
> MS!
>
> I'm the official pooper-scooper and get to fly over 120 hours a year!
>
> Brad

LOL 8^)

[Bill Daniels]

"Brad" > wrote in message
...
> >While a winch may be a "win-win-win-win" scenario, as a
>> practical matter it is difficult to implement at many sites in the US.
>>
>> Marc-
>
> Some of the members in our club are looking at winch launching. I
> suspect that they will come to the same conclusions. "Cheap" tows that
> a winch offer is really a matter of perspective.
>
> We did some double towing a few years ago and got quite good at it.
> Typical double tows were for 15+ mile treks to the mountains to
> connect with the lift. Our double tow fee structure made it
> "economical" to do and we were rewarded with long flights and awesome
> forays into the Cascade Mountains.
>
> The winch.................well, it ain't gonna do it.
>
> Brad

No one says winches will totally replace aero tows which will always have a
place in the situation you describe. There are places where any soaring is
miles away from the airfield. Only an aero tow will get you there.

But your situation won't save the sport, nor is it really typical. Most
sites have local soaring - having been located there because of that. It is
really not difficult to soar away from a winch launch. When attempting to
soar, my lifetime average is better than 80%. If you don't happen to
connect with lift, another launch is cheap and quick.

It can be difficult to implement winch launch at sites selected for aero tow
and that is a challenge. But it's a challenge we have to meet and win.
Our sport may well depend on it.

Aero tow costs are increasing dramatically. You have to ask if those "long
tow" site will be there much longer.

Bill Daniels

[Brad[_2_]]

Bill,

You're absolutley right.
The land situation for locating a really "practical" winch is the key
issue.
In fact, there is a guy in our club that is on a fact-finding mission
on winch towing in the USA. I suspect he has gotten a lot of really
good info recently. My angle on this is: OK, I like the
winch................but it has to be practical to make it truly
successful. I.E. locate it where there is a likelyhood of lift and get
you there high enough to safely use it.

Got an interesting place close to where I live. Might make an
interesting study to see just what kind of hoops one must jump
through........not only with the club members, but also in dealing
with the local government and "landowners" to develop a chunk of arid
and dry ridgetop land into a local gliderjockey hangout. There's no
doubt about it........it would create attention!

Brad


On Dec 27, 6:52*pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "Brad" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > >While a winch may be a "win-win-win-win" scenario, as a
> >> practical matter it is difficult to implement at many sites in the US.
>
> >> Marc-
>
> > Some of the members in our club are looking at winch launching. I
> > suspect that they will come to the same conclusions. "Cheap" tows that
> > a winch offer is really a matter of perspective.
>
> > We did some double towing a few years ago and got quite good at it.
> > Typical double tows were for 15+ mile treks to the mountains to
> > connect with the lift. Our double tow fee structure made it
> > "economical" to do and we were rewarded with long flights and awesome
> > forays into the Cascade Mountains.
>
> > The winch.................well, it ain't gonna do it.
>
> > Brad
>
> No one says winches will totally replace aero tows which will always have a
> place in the situation you describe. *There are places where any soaring is
> miles away from the airfield. *Only an aero tow will get you there.
>
> But your situation won't save the sport, nor is it really typical. *Most
> sites have local soaring - having been located there because of that. *It is
> really not difficult to soar away from a winch launch. *When attempting to
> soar, my lifetime average is better than 80%. *If you don't happen to
> connect with lift, another launch is cheap and quick.
>
> It can be difficult to implement winch launch at sites selected for aero tow
> and that is a challenge. * But it's a challenge we have to meet and win.
> Our sport may well depend on it.
>
> Aero tow costs are increasing dramatically. *You have to ask if those "long
> tow" site will be there much longer.
>
> Bill Daniels- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Frank Whiteley]

On Dec 27, 9:07 pm, Brad > wrote:
> Bill,
>
> You're absolutley right.
> The land situation for locating a really "practical" winch is the key
> issue.
> In fact, there is a guy in our club that is on a fact-finding mission
> on winch towing in the USA. I suspect he has gotten a lot of really
> good info recently. My angle on this is: OK, I like the
> winch................but it has to be practical to make it truly
> successful. I.E. locate it where there is a likelyhood of lift and get
> you there high enough to safely use it.
>
> Got an interesting place close to where I live. Might make an
> interesting study to see just what kind of hoops one must jump
> through........not only with the club members, but also in dealing
> with the local government and "landowners" to develop a chunk of arid
> and dry ridgetop land into a local gliderjockey hangout. There's no
> doubt about it........it would create attention!
>
> Brad
>
> On Dec 27, 6:52 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
> > "Brad" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > >While a winch may be a "win-win-win-win" scenario, as a
> > >> practical matter it is difficult to implement at many sites in the US.
>
> > >> Marc-
>
> > > Some of the members in our club are looking at winch launching. I
> > > suspect that they will come to the same conclusions. "Cheap" tows that
> > > a winch offer is really a matter of perspective.
>
> > > We did some double towing a few years ago and got quite good at it.
> > > Typical double tows were for 15+ mile treks to the mountains to
> > > connect with the lift. Our double tow fee structure made it
> > > "economical" to do and we were rewarded with long flights and awesome
> > > forays into the Cascade Mountains.
>
> > > The winch.................well, it ain't gonna do it.
>
> > > Brad
>
> > No one says winches will totally replace aero tows which will always have a
> > place in the situation you describe. There are places where any soaring is
> > miles away from the airfield. Only an aero tow will get you there.
>
> > But your situation won't save the sport, nor is it really typical. Most
> > sites have local soaring - having been located there because of that. It is
> > really not difficult to soar away from a winch launch. When attempting to
> > soar, my lifetime average is better than 80%. If you don't happen to
> > connect with lift, another launch is cheap and quick.
>
> > It can be difficult to implement winch launch at sites selected for aero tow
> > and that is a challenge. But it's a challenge we have to meet and win.
> > Our sport may well depend on it.
>
> > Aero tow costs are increasing dramatically. You have to ask if those "long
> > tow" site will be there much longer.
>
> > Bill Daniels- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Negotiate a landing spot at the bottom of the ridge also if you locate
at the top. Wasn't there an alternate ridge top site at Wenatchee
years ago? Is it still accessible?

Ridge sites will require the least space, be they at the top or bottom
of the ridge. A ridge doesn't have to be high, just oriented to the
prevailing winds. I was in Hood River, Oregon, recently. The folks
at NW Skysports take the ridge to the wave. Interesting site.

Frank Whiteley

[Frank Whiteley]

On Dec 27, 8:01 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> Frank Whiteley wrote:
> > Partnerships, m'boy, partnerships.
>
> > Been in four over the years, and it's always been a rewarding
> > experience. I expect to be in a couple more in the next year or so.
>
> 10 years ago I was able afford a new glider on my own. 5 years ago I
> was able to buy a new glider with a partner. Now, I'll consider myself
> lucky to be able to get a decent 20 year old glider with a partner. I
> don't even want to think about the situation 5 years from now...
>
> Marc

I was usually able to afford a better glider earlier in my soaring
life with partners, or have other options, like multiple gliders
available. So if one was down for maintenance, annual, or in use by a
partner, I still had a ride most times for the entire day when I
wanted. I miscounted, there have been five partnerships.

Frank

[Dan G]

On Dec 28, 12:37*am, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> Dan G wrote:
> > A club which has bought a Skylaunch recently might have about 100
> > members paying £300 a year each and about £7 a winch launch, plus
> > around £25 an hour glider hire. An aerotow, btw, costs about £25 to
> > 2,000'. What are US club membership numbers and costs like?
>
> Our fees are similar ($600/year, $30/2000' tow, $20/flight), we have
> fewer members (around 60, I believe), but the economics are quite
> different. *We operate from a public airport, and have to rent a hangar
> for the tow plane, along with space for glider tie downs and a club
> house. *I don't know the exact figure, but I suspect airport rent alone
> is as much as $1500/month.

Our site rent is three times yours, plus we pay staff costs (one full
time employee and a couple of part-timers both instructors and in the
office) and of course have costs on tow planes (two) as well. I think
there's two big differences, 1) you charge half the price per aerotow
we do (though our avgas is around $8 a gallon) and if $20/flight is
$20 for one hour, again we charge about double, and 2) we winch, doing
about 5,000 launches a year, with big profit on each one.

There might also be a third - we heavily promote "trial flights",
which cost about $150 and obviously have high margins. We aim for
something like 150 trial flights a year. Is there a US equivalent?

> The tow plane and airport fees eat the majority of the fees collected.
> A winch would be a great revenue generator and cut or even eliminate the
> need for the tow plane. *However, it would require a big pile of money
> (for us) up front, intensive training of instructors and members, cause
> grumbling from the tow pilot members and those who like to tow miles in
> search of better conditions, and we'd be likely be forced to move to a
> location farther out from the population centers, resulting in a loss of
> membership. *While a winch may be a "win-win-win-win" scenario, as a
> practical matter it is difficult to implement at many sites in the US.

There's several ways of looking at this. Does you club do much ab
intio training or is it mainly established pilots? We have lots of
trainees at any one time (few become long-term members, there's a high
turnover), and we train them entirely on the winch. To go aerotow solo
they take a tow or two after solo.

You can also soar off the winch in the right conditions, but I find it
becomes hard once cloud base get to around 5,000' AGL. In Britain such
days are exceptional so I have a winch launch/soar rate of 93% :-).
I'm guessing your cloud bases are much higher.

Not sure how you'd get the pilot experience and competence for winch
launching though. Judging by the Winch Fest video, there's still a lot
of ground to cover to get to BGA safety standards, which have almost
eliminated winch launching accidents.


Dan

[[email protected]]

On Dec 27, 6:14*pm, Brad > wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> I learned to fly sailplanes in 1979. Trained in a 2-33, a Blanik and
> occasionally in a Lark IS-28B2. Most of my training was in the 2-33. I
> loved it. I had several instructors but my favorite was an old guy
> named Stan. He was firm and fair and rode me hard when needed. The
> 2-33 was the most beautiful thing I had ever seen. I didn't like the
> Blanik and the Lark seemed like somthing only astronauts would be able
> to fly. But...........along with the 2-33, the little 1-26 was there
> and I knew one day I would fly that ship. R.A.S. did not exist back
> then, so I didn't know that the 2-33 sucked, and the 1-26 was just a
> piece of tin, so it was in total ignorance when, as a student, I took
> the 2-33 up to cloudbase and flew it all the way from Issaquah to
> Marymore Park and back, under a 4500' cloudstreet. She seemed eager
> and up to the task, and I was dumb enough to go for it. Later I got to
> fly the 1-26. I flew it many times up on Tiger Mountain, the most
> memorable flight was in strong south winds and strong ridge lift. I
> was hooked.

Ignorance truly is bliss. One of our clubs most enthusiastic members
trained exclusively in our old beat up 2-22 as he's too tall for the
blanik. He is looking forward to doing some cross country this
spring. Hell, my legally blind grandma can't wait to fly cross
country with me this spring in the 22. One of Matt's first cross
country flights was in our 2-22 or 2-33 under a booming cloud street,
nearly a 20 mile out and return, with a passenger! do NOT tell us
that "it cannot be done"!!

> Occasionally the guys with the ASW-15's would show up at the field and
> I felt I was in the presence of greatness, and badly wanted to fly one
> of those someday, but that never tarnished my opinions of those 2
> metal birds that gave me so much fun.
>
> Fast forward............I became a hang glider pilot. Advancing
> quickly to my advanced rating with all the special check-offs, even
> got my winch rating. Some of my favorite flights were drifting at low
> level in light ridge lift, just above the trees and feeling every tiny
> breeze. Landing in peoples back yards became common place, and I never
> feared "going for it"
>
> Today, I fly an Apis-13 that I built from a kit. It gets maybe 35:1.
> Like your Cherokee, it can effortlessley drift at low altitudes and if
> I need to put her in a small field, I can land in less than 200'. I
> can also center a thermal at 200' and continue with the flight.

i dont feel i can safely thermal out that low, but I have done many
cross countries drifting along. most of these never got me more than
20 or 30 miles from home but shoot it was fun. Doing this kind of
thing in the middle of summer when corn is 8 feet tall required me to
'tip toe through the tulips' and being able to land in tiny pastures
defintely was a good thing!

>
> I am a proponent of this kind of flying, and of gliders that can do
> this kind of flying. It is not for everybody, and the guys with the
> heavier wing loadings blow by me everytime, but for me..............a
> "light" ship that handles well, is easy to rig, easy to fly and climbs
> like an eagle is my cup of tea.
>
> Might there be some more folks that like that kind of flying out
> there?
>
> Brad
> 199AK

Brad - I think that if we can get the cost down to what I managed to
pull off on the Cherokee (under 5000 for the glider and trailer) they
will be pouring out of the woodwork. Can't wait to see you in
Albuquerque, I think we're going to get along just fine :)

[[email protected]]

*One of Matt's first cross
> country flights was in our 2-22 or 2-33 under a booming cloud street,
> nearly a 20 mile out and return, with a passenger!

Actually, it was a 35 mile triangle with the first leg INTO a 25 knot
wind. Even a 2-33 can go the distance under a great cloud street at
7000 agl.

MM

[toad]

Sorry that I'm late to the discussion, but I think the issue about
winches in the US is primarily about land. I doubt that there are
very few public use airports in the US that would allow winch
operations. There are only a few that put up with aero tow glider
operations. So to start a winch operation in the US you would have
to own enough land and be able to get it designated an airport (hard
to do politically) to allow winch operation. In the northeastern US,
there is only one glider clubs that I know of that has the space to do
it, at Philadelphia.

The land for such an operation would cost several million dollars at
todays prices. Aero tow doesn't sound so expensive compared to paying
for that mortgage.

Todd Smith
3S

[Shawn[_4_]]

toad wrote:
> Sorry that I'm late to the discussion, but I think the issue about
> winches in the US is primarily about land. I doubt that there are
> very few public use airports in the US that would allow winch
> operations. There are only a few that put up with aero tow glider
> operations. So to start a winch operation in the US you would have
> to own enough land and be able to get it designated an airport (hard
> to do politically) to allow winch operation. In the northeastern US,
> there is only one glider clubs that I know of that has the space to do
> it, at Philadelphia.
>
> The land for such an operation would cost several million dollars at
> todays prices. Aero tow doesn't sound so expensive compared to paying
> for that mortgage.

Maybe soaring will see an upside to the real estate bubble pop. With
the glut of foreclosures, demand for land to build subdivisions is
probably right around zero. Then again with the value of corn, farmers
may start buying up subdivisions and "plowing them under". ;-)


Shawn

[Bill Daniels]

"toad" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry that I'm late to the discussion, but I think the issue about
> winches in the US is primarily about land. I doubt that there are
> very few public use airports in the US that would allow winch
> operations. There are only a few that put up with aero tow glider
> operations. So to start a winch operation in the US you would have
> to own enough land and be able to get it designated an airport (hard
> to do politically) to allow winch operation. In the northeastern US,
> there is only one glider clubs that I know of that has the space to do
> it, at Philadelphia.
>
> The land for such an operation would cost several million dollars at
> todays prices. Aero tow doesn't sound so expensive compared to paying
> for that mortgage.
>
> Todd Smith
> 3S

Todd, I think you overstate the situation.

I have asked three airport managers about winch launch and the response was
"bring it on". It seems almost universal that glider pilots assume winch
operations would be turned down so they don't actually ask. Ask in a
reasonable way and you may be surprised at the answer.

Managers of small airports that have traditionally served small, single
engine airplanes have seen the number of operations at their airports drop
dramatically as the price of 100LL avgas has soared. (Many predict 100LL
will become non-existant within the next three years.) That drop in
operations has them worried about their jobs which, to a degree, depends on
public demand for airport services.

Against this background, a proposal that would bring 100's of operations per
day, even if they are gliders, can look pretty good, particularly if those
operations don't generate noise complaints.

Work up an reasonable winch operations plan with lots of information about
other successful operations and present it. Can't hurt.

Bill Daniels
p.s. I you want help, e-mail me.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Dec 28, 9:37 am, toad > wrote:
> Sorry that I'm late to the discussion, but I think the issue about
> winches in the US is primarily about land. I doubt that there are
> very few public use airports in the US that would allow winch
> operations. There are only a few that put up with aero tow glider
> operations. So to start a winch operation in the US you would have
> to own enough land and be able to get it designated an airport (hard
> to do politically) to allow winch operation. In the northeastern US,
> there is only one glider clubs that I know of that has the space to do
> it, at Philadelphia.
>
> The land for such an operation would cost several million dollars at
> todays prices. Aero tow doesn't sound so expensive compared to paying
> for that mortgage.
>
> Todd Smith
> 3S

Finger Lakes bought the old PGC winch and is using it at Dansville, a
mixed use airport, since 2007. The Soaring Sooners are winching,
since 2007, from a rather under utilized public airport with a nice
new hangar full of gliders mostly. Greater Houston Soaring
Association built a gliderport in recent years and winches regularly.
They did great PR with the local government and locals before moving
ahead to defuse any objections as they also self-launch and have
multiple tow planes.

You will get much less objection to establishing a new gliderport with
a winch than a tow plane. Land can also be mixed use, and leased,
rather than purchased. Local regulations can be problematic or not.
If you are in a club, you will likely get more objection from your
geezer members to setting up a winch only club than you will from
neighbors.

There are geographic limitations to flat land availability in many
areas, so it can be challenging. Suitable ridge and hill top sites
generally require less land than flat land sites for winching.

Somehow the Europeans have been able do this with generally higher
population densities and intense governmental restrictions. I know
they don't set up new sites often, but they have done so since I've
been soaring.

Frank Whiteley

[Frank Whiteley]

On Dec 28, 10:24 am, Shawn > wrote:
> toad wrote:
> > Sorry that I'm late to the discussion, but I think the issue about
> > winches in the US is primarily about land. I doubt that there are
> > very few public use airports in the US that would allow winch
> > operations. There are only a few that put up with aero tow glider
> > operations. So to start a winch operation in the US you would have
> > to own enough land and be able to get it designated an airport (hard
> > to do politically) to allow winch operation. In the northeastern US,
> > there is only one glider clubs that I know of that has the space to do
> > it, at Philadelphia.
>
> > The land for such an operation would cost several million dollars at
> > todays prices. Aero tow doesn't sound so expensive compared to paying
> > for that mortgage.
>
> Maybe soaring will see an upside to the real estate bubble pop. With
> the glut of foreclosures, demand for land to build subdivisions is
> probably right around zero. Then again with the value of corn, farmers
> may start buying up subdivisions and "plowing them under". ;-)
>
> Shawn

If/when cellulosic biofuel production becomes main stream, it may
become somewhat more expensive to complete with switch grass for
suitable land. Widespread cultivation of switch grass might also
impact available land out areas in areas where corn is not already
grown as it's irrigation requirements are substantially less. The
upside is that it's energy return is several times that of corn
ethanol production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switchgrass-profile.html

Frank Whiteley

Frank Whiteley

[Brad[_2_]]

Frank,

I think the Wenatechee ridge site is still there, but am not aware if
it is still being used.

The area I am talking about is in the town of Monroe WA and the valley
land is all pasture and flood plain, so there will never be any
development there. Do you remember a few months agao all tha flood
coverage in WA state? well, the Skykomish valley and the Carnation
valley were covered quite a bit in the news......these are 2 prime
"valley floor" areas that are at the base of the long ridge I am
referring too. I suppose you could google earth up the area and see
the topo view of the place. I think it has great promise. There are
acres of flat valley land that might be attractive for a farmer to
lease out to a local soaring group.

Perfect place for a winch already, and if the land on top could be
made into some kind of flying park; for gliders, hang gliders and
paragliders, we could prepare a really nice facility. Years ago there
were 2 great places to hang glide in that area. I still hold a few
local records from those sites.

Another thing that I find attractive is using SLA aircraft with super
quiet and efficient engines towing up lightweight sailplanes. This
combination might assuage the local populations fears about noise.

I hope our club will investigate these options and locations.

Brad

[Brad[_2_]]

Hey Tony,

Yup...........this get-together at ABQ s going to be really fun. I
look forward to meeting you and Matt and everyone else.

Since I am a composites guy my put will be towards a composite ship. I
have seen the Hart aircraft and you're right, they are at the other
end of the spectrum, but are still valid contributors to soaring.

The wisdom being shared via this thread is really
exciting...................Soaring into the Future indeed!

Brad

[Sam Discusflyer]

Our club operates a winch from a public airport. The
FOB manager is very supportive. It takes some planning.
It requires you to discuss with your club and discuss
directly with the FOB manager. Prepare a presentation
(BTW nothing fancy), prepare a written agreement, discuss
safety, operations, and the airports revenue sharing
amount. This is a critical step as most FOB managers
must report the activity to the city/county airport
board. The BGA has emmense experience and offer a lot
of documentation to assist you. USE IT. Back up what
you tell the FOB. Bring in some experienced winch operators
for your first weekend. It works.

I was thinking about the bait switch today and how
that works. I laughed when I thought about a reverse
way to use it. One of our students had been training
on aero tow. Paying about $30/tow. He was only doing
2-3 tows every couple of weeks. You could see he was
on the edge of losing interest. Our winch operations
came along at just the right time. We only charge $10/waunch.
This student took 3 waunches the first day and 9 waunches
the next. He was so hooked he then ran for a club officer
position. He exclaimed '9 flights for the price of
3'. WOW.
So have a new student pay for 3 aero tows for $90,
then introduce them to 9 waunches for the same price.
And guess what, they also get 3 times the practice.

If you want a copy of our presentation and other materials,
drop me a line.


SAM


At 16:42 28 December 2007, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>'toad' wrote in message
.
>>com...
>> Sorry that I'm late to the discussion, but I think
>>the issue about
>> winches in the US is primarily about land. I doubt
>>that there are
>> very few public use airports in the US that would
>>allow winch
>> operations. There are only a few that put up with
>>aero tow glider
>> operations. So to start a winch operation in the
>>US you would have
>> to own enough land and be able to get it designated
>>an airport (hard
>> to do politically) to allow winch operation. In the
>>northeastern US,
>> there is only one glider clubs that I know of that
>>has the space to do
>> it, at Philadelphia.
>>
>> The land for such an operation would cost several
>>million dollars at
>> todays prices. Aero tow doesn't sound so expensive
>>compared to paying
>> for that mortgage.
>>
>> Todd Smith
>> 3S
>
>Todd, I think you overstate the situation.
>
>I have asked three airport managers about winch launch
>and the response was
>'bring it on'. It seems almost universal that glider
>pilots assume winch
>operations would be turned down so they don't actually
>ask. Ask in a
>reasonable way and you may be surprised at the answer.
>
>Managers of small airports that have traditionally
>served small, single
>engine airplanes have seen the number of operations
>at their airports drop
>dramatically as the price of 100LL avgas has soared.
> (Many predict 100LL
>will become non-existant within the next three years.)
>That drop in
>operations has them worried about their jobs which,
>to a degree, depends on
>public demand for airport services.
>
>Against this background, a proposal that would bring
>100's of operations per
>day, even if they are gliders, can look pretty good,
>particularly if those
>operations don't generate noise complaints.
>
>Work up an reasonable winch operations plan with lots
>of information about
>other successful operations and present it. Can't
>hurt.
>
>Bill Daniels
>p.s. I you want help, e-mail me.
>
>
>

[Sam Discusflyer]

Our club operates a winch from a public airport. The
FOB manager is very supportive. It takes some planning.
It requires you to discuss with your club and discuss
directly with the FOB manager. Prepare a presentation
(BTW nothing fancy), prepare a written agreement, discuss
safety, operations, and the airports revenue sharing
amount. This is a critical step as most FOB managers
must report the activity to the city/county airport
board. The BGA has emmense experience and offer a lot
of documentation to assist you. USE IT. Back up what
you tell the FOB. Bring in some experienced winch operators
for your first weekend. It works.

I was thinking about the bait switch today and how
that works. I laughed when I thought about a reverse
way to use it. One of our students had been training
on aero tow. Paying about $30/tow. He was only doing
2-3 tows every couple of weeks. You could see he was
on the edge of losing interest. Our winch operations
came along at just the right time. We only charge $10/waunch.
This student took 3 waunches the first day and 9 waunches
the next. He was so hooked he then ran for a club officer
position. He exclaimed '9 flights for the price of
3'. WOW.
So have a new student pay for 3 aero tows for $90,
then introduce them to 9 waunches for the same price.
And guess what, they also get 3 times the practice.

If you want a copy of our presentation and other materials,
drop me a line.


SAM


At 16:42 28 December 2007, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>'toad' wrote in message
.
>>com...
>> Sorry that I'm late to the discussion, but I think
>>the issue about
>> winches in the US is primarily about land. I doubt
>>that there are
>> very few public use airports in the US that would
>>allow winch
>> operations. There are only a few that put up with
>>aero tow glider
>> operations. So to start a winch operation in the
>>US you would have
>> to own enough land and be able to get it designated
>>an airport (hard
>> to do politically) to allow winch operation. In the
>>northeastern US,
>> there is only one glider clubs that I know of that
>>has the space to do
>> it, at Philadelphia.
>>
>> The land for such an operation would cost several
>>million dollars at
>> todays prices. Aero tow doesn't sound so expensive
>>compared to paying
>> for that mortgage.
>>
>> Todd Smith
>> 3S
>
>Todd, I think you overstate the situation.
>
>I have asked three airport managers about winch launch
>and the response was
>'bring it on'. It seems almost universal that glider
>pilots assume winch
>operations would be turned down so they don't actually
>ask. Ask in a
>reasonable way and you may be surprised at the answer.
>
>Managers of small airports that have traditionally
>served small, single
>engine airplanes have seen the number of operations
>at their airports drop
>dramatically as the price of 100LL avgas has soared.
> (Many predict 100LL
>will become non-existant within the next three years.)
>That drop in
>operations has them worried about their jobs which,
>to a degree, depends on
>public demand for airport services.
>
>Against this background, a proposal that would bring
>100's of operations per
>day, even if they are gliders, can look pretty good,
>particularly if those
>operations don't generate noise complaints.
>
>Work up an reasonable winch operations plan with lots
>of information about
>other successful operations and present it. Can't
>hurt.
>
>Bill Daniels
>p.s. I you want help, e-mail me.
>
>
>

[Dan G]

On Dec 28, 3:37*pm, toad > wrote:
> Sorry that I'm late to the discussion, but I think the issue about
> winches in the US is primarily about land. *I doubt that there are
> very few public use airports in the US that would allow winch
> operations. There are only a few that put up with aero tow glider
> operations. * So to start a winch operation in the US you would have
> to own enough land and be able to get it designated an airport (hard
> to do politically) to allow winch operation.

Has anyone in the states considered using Rotax-powered aircraft for
towing? The Rotax Falke has a tow limit of 650 kg (around 1,400 lbs I
think) and a surprisingly good climb rate with just 100 hp - though it
is a motor glider afterall (and you can use it for land out training
too, amortizing the costs). The beauty of Rotax-powered aircraft is
their running costs - around 1/4 of those of a Pawnee. That's a
seriously big increase in your profit margin per tow.

If you're at a hot n high airport there is a turbo variant of the
Rotax, but I don't think it's been fitted to the Falke. There is the
G109 which is a GRP motor glider with the turbo engine, but when the
high-boost period (five minutes) is used up the climb rate drops
dramatically.

Though by the sounds of later replies, beginning winch launching
sounds a lot more realistic in the US than some might think.


Dan

[Eric Greenwell]

Frank Whiteley wrote:

> You will get much less objection to establishing a new gliderport with
> a winch than a tow plane. Land can also be mixed use, and leased,
> rather than purchased. Local regulations can be problematic or not.
> If you are in a club, you will likely get more objection from your
> geezer members to setting up a winch only club than you will from
> neighbors.

I'd like to ask a favor of everyone: let's find a more accurate and less
prejudicial term than "geezer" for people that don't want change or
reflexively favor aerotow. It's gratuitous, and disparagement apparently
based on age isn't going to win any of the friends we'll need to improve
soaring. It may also blind people to the fact that a lot of us "geezers"
support smaller, simpler, lighter, and cheaper soaring.

Maybe "reflexive aerotow promoters", "anti-change group", or
"short-sighted club officers"?

Or even skip the label entirely. The above statement could have used
"some members" just as effectively as "geezer", especially since the
poster was just speculating.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Frank Whiteley]

On Dec 28, 12:15 pm, Brad > wrote:
> Frank,
>
> I think the Wenatechee ridge site is still there, but am not aware if
> it is still being used.
>
> The area I am talking about is in the town of Monroe WA and the valley
> land is all pasture and flood plain, so there will never be any
> development there. Do you remember a few months agao all tha flood
> coverage in WA state? well, the Skykomish valley and the Carnation
> valley were covered quite a bit in the news......these are 2 prime
> "valley floor" areas that are at the base of the long ridge I am
> referring too. I suppose you could google earth up the area and see
> the topo view of the place. I think it has great promise. There are
> acres of flat valley land that might be attractive for a farmer to
> lease out to a local soaring group.
>
> Perfect place for a winch already, and if the land on top could be
> made into some kind of flying park; for gliders, hang gliders and
> paragliders, we could prepare a really nice facility. Years ago there
> were 2 great places to hang glide in that area. I still hold a few
> local records from those sites.
>
> Another thing that I find attractive is using SLA aircraft with super
> quiet and efficient engines towing up lightweight sailplanes. This
> combination might assuage the local populations fears about noise.
>
> I hope our club will investigate these options and locations.
>
> Brad

A few months ago? It was less than a month. I drove through there
the Sunday after Thanksgiving then north on the Jordan Road by Deer
Mountain then Hwy 9 to enter Canada at Sumas. Glad we got out of
there before the big storm. I agree, that area has potential and a
population base.

Frank

[Brad[_2_]]

Frank,

Yep, how time seems to fly.............Jordan Road eh...........you
were right along the foothills we use to stair step our way back to
the mountains when we tow out of Arlington. If that's the same Jordan
road just east of Arlington.

If you came over US-2 then just as you came thru Sultan you were
looking slightly SW to the ridge I am talking about.

Call me next time you are in the area!

Brad




On Dec 28, 12:57*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Dec 28, 12:15 pm, Brad > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Frank,
>
> > I think the Wenatechee ridge site is still there, but am not aware if
> > it is still being used.
>
> > The area I am talking about is in the town of Monroe WA and the valley
> > land is all pasture and flood plain, so there will never be any
> > development there. Do you remember a few months agao all tha flood
> > coverage in WA state? well, the Skykomish valley and the Carnation
> > valley were covered quite a bit in the news......these are 2 prime
> > "valley floor" areas that are at the base of the long ridge I am
> > referring too. I suppose you could google earth up the area and see
> > the topo view of the place. I think it has great promise. There are
> > acres of flat valley land that might be attractive for a farmer to
> > lease out to a local soaring group.
>
> > Perfect place for a winch already, and if the land on top could be
> > made into some kind of flying park; for gliders, hang gliders and
> > paragliders, we could prepare a really nice facility. Years ago there
> > were 2 great places to hang glide in that area. I still hold a few
> > local records from those sites.
>
> > Another thing that I find attractive is using SLA aircraft with super
> > quiet and efficient engines towing up lightweight sailplanes. This
> > combination might assuage the local populations fears about noise.
>
> > I hope our club will investigate these options and locations.
>
> > Brad
>
> A few months ago? *It was less than a month. *I drove through there
> the Sunday after Thanksgiving then north on the Jordan Road by Deer
> Mountain then Hwy 9 to enter Canada at Sumas. *Glad we got out of
> there before the big storm. *I agree, that area has potential and a
> population base.
>
> Frank- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Ian]

On 25 Dec, 23:05, "Newill\" \"Mario Lazaga\""
> wrote:

> How about a trainer that cannot go higher than 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 feet? if
> one had a way to have a primary glider - with self launch capability
> [ or tow down the wire with a winch?] and it could not go high enought
> to cause great damage on rough landings - then maybe the teens could
> teach themselves along side the runway while the big ships launch -
> and then play on the runway ( yeah, I know that won't work at some
> sites ) and "hop" into the air ten or twenty times in 30 minutes to
> get the idea of basic controls and landing understood.

Traditional primaries (SG-38, Eon Primary, Slingsby T38 and lots more)
had an elevator stop for exactly this reason. Ground slides, low hops,
high hops, full launch. Ann Welch was one of the most vocal advocates
of two-seater training because of the high level of accidents and
injuries with solo training. However, modern design might improve
things a lot ... it would be interesting to see what a 2008 Primary
might look like.

Ian

[Ian]

On 25 Dec, 23:39, wrote:
> The ideal recreational next generation sailplane?
>
> Gliders that are self-launch and jet-powered.

I can't see the point in jets, really. They are much better at higher
altitudes - when you get lower down you really need a propellor. Small
jet sustainers might be fun, though and the 200N thrust required to
keep a 1000kg 50:1 glider up should be quite achievable.

Ian

[Frank Whiteley]

On Dec 28, 2:45 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Frank Whiteley wrote:
> > You will get much less objection to establishing a new gliderport with
> > a winch than a tow plane. Land can also be mixed use, and leased,
> > rather than purchased. Local regulations can be problematic or not.
> > If you are in a club, you will likely get more objection from your
> > geezer members to setting up a winch only club than you will from
> > neighbors.
>
> I'd like to ask a favor of everyone: let's find a more accurate and less
> prejudicial term than "geezer" for people that don't want change or
> reflexively favor aerotow. It's gratuitous, and disparagement apparently
> based on age isn't going to win any of the friends we'll need to improve
> soaring. It may also blind people to the fact that a lot of us "geezers"
> support smaller, simpler, lighter, and cheaper soaring.
>
> Maybe "reflexive aerotow promoters", "anti-change group", or
> "short-sighted club officers"?
>
> Or even skip the label entirely. The above statement could have used
> "some members" just as effectively as "geezer", especially since the
> poster was just speculating.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org

Even though I am one, I apologize. Resistence to change comes at any
age when someone's comfort level is challenged.

Frank

[Bill Daniels]

This thread sent me searching for quotes and I found three I liked - two
attributed to Charles Darwin and one by John Maxwell.

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most
intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to
change."

And:

"To change is difficult. Not to change is fatal."

And from John maxwell:

"People underestimate their capacity for change. There is never a right time
to do a difficult thing. A leader's job is to help people have vision of
their potential."

Whether we like it or not, winch launch will be part of our future - we have
no real alternative. To paraphrase Darwin, the survivors will winch launch.

There may be improvements in aero tow and motorgliders will continue to be
popular but winch launch has by far the greatest potential to impact the
economics of gliding.

Adopting winch launch is NOT easy. Almost everything we know about aero tow
either doesn't apply or requires significant change. Even things we think
we know about winch launch is likely to be wrong or even dangerous. Winch
launch must be approached with knowledge and dicipline at both the
individual and organizational level.

Suggestions made here that US operations adopt the BGA winch launch manuals
is something I strongly support. I would suggest equal emphasis on the
German DAeC winch manuals which are available in English. The German
manuals tend to be more engineering orientated and less traditional than the
British. Keep in mind all these manuals assume the reader has a significant
knowledge of winch launch. Here usenet discussions can be very helpful.

Access to "winch friendly" airfields will be a problem for a long time.
Many have said this is the toughest nut to crack and they may be right. The
only "right time" to start solving this problem is now. I think every club
should have a standing committee tasked with "winch site search".

Bill Daniels

[Bill Daniels]

"Ian" > wrote in message
...
> On 25 Dec, 23:05, "Newill\" \"Mario Lazaga\""
> > wrote:
>
>> How about a trainer that cannot go higher than 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 feet? if
>> one had a way to have a primary glider - with self launch capability
>> [ or tow down the wire with a winch?] and it could not go high enought
>> to cause great damage on rough landings - then maybe the teens could
>> teach themselves along side the runway while the big ships launch -
>> and then play on the runway ( yeah, I know that won't work at some
>> sites ) and "hop" into the air ten or twenty times in 30 minutes to
>> get the idea of basic controls and landing understood.
>
> Traditional primaries (SG-38, Eon Primary, Slingsby T38 and lots more)
> had an elevator stop for exactly this reason. Ground slides, low hops,
> high hops, full launch. Ann Welch was one of the most vocal advocates
> of two-seater training because of the high level of accidents and
> injuries with solo training. However, modern design might improve
> things a lot ... it would be interesting to see what a 2008 Primary
> might look like.
>
> Ian

I think the 2008 version of this is a flight simulator.

Bill Daniels

[Ian]

On 26 Dec, 20:26, Marc Ramsey > wrote:

> How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking
> market that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design?

Over 2,500 Blaniks, 1,400 Ka-6's (all variants) and 1,100 Ka-8's were
built. I can't offhand think of (or find) any other 1,000+ runs, but
there have been some pretty big productions. There were at least 800
Grunau Babies, 776 Pirats, 700 Schweizer 1-26's, 700 ASK13's, 620
Bocians and 600 Standard Libelles.

> The
> glider manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral
> of building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population
> that can afford them.

And just to make matters worse, the long lifespans of plastic gliders
mean that second-hand performance is comparatively cheap. Glider
pilots generally - I think - prefer performance to newness, so a
£15,000 mass-produced glider would be up against hordes of second hand
Libelles, ASW-19's, Pegases, Astirs, Jantars and so on. That, I think,
is what killed the PW-5. About the only country where it did well was
New Zealand where - as I understand it - there was a large fleet of
elderly Ka-6's and the like and little by way of more modern
fibreglass trickling down through the market.

Ian

[Ian]

On 26 Dec, 22:31, wrote:

> Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
> requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
> glider with L/D in low 30-ties.

But the FAI didn't specify the price, did they? If the PW-5 had cost
£7,500 fully instrumented and with trailer they'd have sold lots here.
But priced alongside second hand Pegases they didn't stand a chance.

Ian

[Tom Gardner]

On Dec 28, 10:06 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> There may be improvements in aero tow and motorgliders will continue to be
> popular but winch launch has by far the greatest potential to impact the
> economics of gliding.

I hope left-of-pond people don't emphasise the cost to the
exclusion of other important points:
- winch launches are *fun*, both to watch and to do.
My 15yo liked her trial flight in an aerotow, but was
hooked by her first winch launch
- winches are great for training - lots of circuits in a
short time
- even training for launch failures is fun
- when you're learning, the short time in the air isn't
seen as a negative

Of course aerotows have advantages as well :)

> Adopting winch launch is NOT easy. Almost everything we know about aero tow
> either doesn't apply or requires significant change. Even things we think
> we know about winch launch is likely to be wrong or even dangerous. Winch
> launch must be approached with knowledge and dicipline at both the
> individual and organizational level.
> Suggestions made here that US operations adopt the BGA winch launch manuals
> is something I strongly support. I would suggest equal emphasis on the
> German DAeC winch manuals which are available in English. The German
> manuals tend to be more engineering orientated and less traditional than the
> British. Keep in mind all these manuals assume the reader has a significant
> knowledge of winch launch.

All very true, of course.

> Here usenet discussions can be very helpful.

And also misleading at times. Witness the recent AoA thread.

[Nyal Williams]

[From the Wiktionary]
Geezer is a British slang term, in its simplest form
meaning a man.

Derived from the differently pronounced 'guiser', a
name for an actor in a mime. [1] Possibly related to
disguise. In this sense it refers to a kind of everyman.

It may be used in a number of senses; to refer to a
man whose name you do not know, similar to use of the
word guy. It is also used to refer to a man who is
overtly manly, masculine, or heterosexual, also someone
noticeably capable, reliable, plainspeaking or down-to-earth.
Although essentially a masculine quality it is not
synonymous with macho however, and its usage may be
thought of as very similar to that of the US English
word dude. Example: Joe Cole referred to Prince William
as a 'nice, relaxed geezer.' [2] In the British 1971
pop song by the Piglets, aka Jonathon King, 'Johnny
Reggae' was described as being 'a real tasty geezer'.

In the United States and Canada, geezer generally refers
to an old man, or more liberally, any old person, usually
eccentric. This may derive from redundant use of the
word old in English as in: who's that old geezer? where
the subject is not necessarily an elderly person. [3].
This is an example of etymological contamination.

In Australia, the term geezer is often used to refer
to someone from England, due to the belief that the
English say geezer a lot; however, it is not as popular
as the term pommy.[citation needed]

Because the population is aging in America, the term
is slowly being broadened to include older women as
well and imply a kind of colorful eccentricity, as
well. For example, The Geezer Brigade, an online humor
organization for 'clever old people', is split between
men and women whose average age is 70.
[End of quote]

The Germans have a term Geise which means an old man
and it is a very respectful term.

[edit] Other usesAt 21:54 28 December 2007, Frank Whiteley
wrote:
>On Dec 28, 2:45 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Frank Whiteley wrote:
>> > You will get much less objection to establishing
>>>a new gliderport with
>> > a winch than a tow plane. Land can also be mixed
>>>use, and leased,
>> > rather than purchased. Local regulations can be
>>>problematic or not.
>> > If you are in a club, you will likely get more objection
>>>from your
>> > geezer members to setting up a winch only club than
>>>you will from
>> > neighbors.
>>
>> I'd like to ask a favor of everyone: let's find a
>>more accurate and less
>> prejudicial term than 'geezer' for people that don't
>>want change or
>> reflexively favor aerotow. It's gratuitous, and disparagement
>>apparently
>> based on age isn't going to win any of the friends
>>we'll need to improve
>> soaring. It may also blind people to the fact that
>>a lot of us 'geezers'
>> support smaller, simpler, lighter, and cheaper soaring.
>>
>> Maybe 'reflexive aerotow promoters', 'anti-change
>>group', or
>> 'short-sighted club officers'?
>>
>> Or even skip the label entirely. The above statement
>>could have used
>> 'some members' just as effectively as 'geezer', especially
>>since the
>> poster was just speculating.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>> * Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>> * 'Transponders in Sailplanes'http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
>> * 'A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation'
>>atwww.motorglider.org
>
>Even though I am one, I apologize. Resistence to change
>comes at any
>age when someone's comfort level is challenged.
>
>Frank
>

[Nyal Williams]

Where is 'here?' Does =A37,500 mean Australian 'Thalers?'

Most of us think r.a.s. is at home.

At 22:24 28 December 2007, Ian wrote:
>On 26 Dec, 22:31,
>wrote:
>
>> Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to
>>meet the
>> requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That
>>concept called for
>> glider with L/D in low 30-ties.
>
>But the FAI didn't specify the price, did they? If
>the PW-5 had cost
>=A37,500 fully instrumented and with trailer they'd
>have sold lots here.
>But priced alongside second hand Pegases they didn't
>stand a chance.
>
>Ian
>

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:45:32 GMT, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

>Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
>> You will get much less objection to establishing a new gliderport with
>> a winch than a tow plane. Land can also be mixed use, and leased,
>> rather than purchased. Local regulations can be problematic or not.
>> If you are in a club, you will likely get more objection from your
>> geezer members to setting up a winch only club than you will from
>> neighbors.
>
>I'd like to ask a favor of everyone: let's find a more accurate and less
>prejudicial term than "geezer" for people that don't want change or
>reflexively favor aerotow. It's gratuitous, and disparagement apparently
>based on age isn't going to win any of the friends we'll need to improve
>soaring. It may also blind people to the fact that a lot of us "geezers"
>support smaller, simpler, lighter, and cheaper soaring.
>
>Maybe "reflexive aerotow promoters", "anti-change group", or
>"short-sighted club officers"?
>
>Or even skip the label entirely. The above statement could have used
>"some members" just as effectively as "geezer", especially since the
>poster was just speculating.

My definition of "geezer" is "pilot who has more hours on fire than I
have on actual instruments." An honorable title.

rj

[kirk.stant]

> My definition of "geezer" is "pilot who has more hours on fire than I
> have on *actual instruments." An honorable title.

YEAH BABY!

I love it. We have a few "geezer" pilots at our club who have been
there - done that - and are my role models.

This is all about having fun, after all..

Kirk
66

[Mike Schumann]

The moral of that story is make a ballastic recovery chut a standard option.

Mike Schumann

"Brad" > wrote in message
...
> Remember when the Sparrowhawk first came out. It had a price of under
> 25K. I am pretty sure that the cost of manufacturing the airframe has
> not doubled in price, but the price of the sailplane has.
>
> Sailplanes that go fast and are designed for racing have way more
> parts than a glider designed for lower speed and sports flying.
>
> Safety would not be compromised in this design, but at lower wing
> loadings, lighter GW and lower speeds the need for elaborate "crash-
> worthiness" structure could be reduced. Even then, I recall the ASW-24
> won the OSTIV prize for cockpit safety, and yet one spun in from less
> than 400ft and the pilot was killed. My friend was killed in his Atlas
> in the same manner. I am sure if I did the same in my Apis the result
> would be the same.............the moral of the story.....DON'T CRASH.
>
> Brad
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Del C]

It's nice to hear that winch launching is possible
at an existing US airport/gliderport. Over here in
Europe the vast majority of training flights at many
clubs are by winch. Learning to fly gliders up to solo
standard is probably the most expensive part of gliding,
so for the circuit bashing stuff winch launches are
ideal. Generally we also mix in some aerotowing for
the exercises that need a bit of altitude, and so that
students learn how to aerotow, which is a considerable
skill in itself.

There also seems to be a view in the States that soaring
away from a winch launch is only possible if you have
a site right next to, or on top of, a ridge, or if
you can get 2500ft+ launches. In fact many winch launching
sites in Europe are in flat areas. You just have to
learn to soar away in thermals from fairly low altitudes.
I fly from a flatland club in the south of England.
Our winch runs vary from 3500 to 4500 feet, depending
on the wind strength and direction, and we normally
get launches in the range 1400 to 2000ft. On days when
there are thermals, our better soaring pilots will
probably get away 8 times out of 10. Even if they fall
down, another winch launch is not going to break the
bank.

Airfields are usually placed on high, well drained
land, so are often good thermal sources in themselves,
especially if there are hard runways. The trick is
to fly just downwind of the airfield looking for thermal
markers, such as other gliders circling higher up,
birds taking off and, in hotter climates, dust devils.
In the absence of any of these markers just try to
cover as much ground as you can before getting down
to circuit height. Even in the circuit you still may
still encounter lift, but only use it if it doesn't
compromise the safety of the flight.

Del Copeland

At 19:42 28 December 2007, Sam Discusflyer wrote:
>Our club operates a winch from a public airport. The
>FOB manager is very supportive. It takes some planning.
>It requires you to discuss with your club and discuss
>directly with the FOB manager. Prepare a presentation
>(BTW nothing fancy), prepare a written agreement, discuss
>safety, operations, and the airports revenue sharing
>amount. This is a critical step as most FOB managers
>must report the activity to the city/county airport
>board. The BGA has emmense experience and offer a lot
>of documentation to assist you. USE IT. Back up what
>you tell the FOB. Bring in some experienced winch operators
>for your first weekend. It works.
>
>I was thinking about the bait switch today and how
>that works. I laughed when I thought about a reverse
>way to use it. One of our students had been training
>on aero tow. Paying about $30/tow. He was only doing
>2-3 tows every couple of weeks. You could see he was
>on the edge of losing interest. Our winch operations
>came along at just the right time. We only charge $10/waunch.
> This student took 3 waunches the first day and 9 waunches
>the next. He was so hooked he then ran for a club officer
>position. He exclaimed '9 flights for the price of
>3'. WOW.
>So have a new student pay for 3 aero tows for $90,
>then introduce them to 9 waunches for the same price.
>And guess what, they also get 3 times the practice.
>
>If you want a copy of our presentation and other materials,
>drop me a line.
>
>
>SAM
>
>
>At 16:42 28 December 2007, Bill Daniels wrote:
>>
>>'toad' wrote in message
.
>>>
>>>com...
>>> Sorry that I'm late to the discussion, but I think
>>>the issue about
>>> winches in the US is primarily about land. I doubt
>>>that there are
>>> very few public use airports in the US that would
>>>allow winch
>>> operations. There are only a few that put up with
>>>aero tow glider
>>> operations. So to start a winch operation in the
>>>US you would have
>>> to own enough land and be able to get it designated
>>>an airport (hard
>>> to do politically) to allow winch operation. In the
>>>northeastern US,
>>> there is only one glider clubs that I know of that
>>>has the space to do
>>> it, at Philadelphia.
>>>
>>> The land for such an operation would cost several
>>>million dollars at
>>> todays prices. Aero tow doesn't sound so expensive
>>>compared to paying
>>> for that mortgage.
>>>
>>> Todd Smith
>>> 3S
>>
>>Todd, I think you overstate the situation.
>>
>>I have asked three airport managers about winch launch
>>and the response was
>>'bring it on'. It seems almost universal that glider
>>pilots assume winch
>>operations would be turned down so they don't actually
>>ask. Ask in a
>>reasonable way and you may be surprised at the answer.
>>
>>Managers of small airports that have traditionally
>>served small, single
>>engine airplanes have seen the number of operations
>>at their airports drop
>>dramatically as the price of 100LL avgas has soared.
>> (Many predict 100LL
>>will become non-existant within the next three years.)
>>That drop in
>>operations has them worried about their jobs which,
>>to a degree, depends on
>>public demand for airport services.
>>
>>Against this background, a proposal that would bring
>>100's of operations per
>>day, even if they are gliders, can look pretty good,
>>particularly if those
>>operations don't generate noise complaints.
>>
>>Work up an reasonable winch operations plan with lots
>>of information about
>>other successful operations and present it. Can't
>>hurt.
>>
>>Bill Daniels
>>p.s. I you want help, e-mail me.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Mike Schumann]

The problem with winch launching in the US is the inherent fear of change in
the average person. Most pilots in the US have never experienced a winch
launch, so they only look at the downsides. The potential launch cost
savings aren't significant enough to interest the guys who already own
private ships and have decent incomes. The same guys don't realize how much
fun winching can be, as they've never tried it.

In order to be a safe and successful with winch launching, you need to make
a 100% commitment. You can't run winches and tows in parallel, if people
are going to get and stay proficient in winch launching. In addition, the
only way winches are economically justifiable is if you totally eliminate
the overhead, operating, and maintenance costs associated with a tow plane.

The other problem in the US, is that most glider operations take place at
public airports. The coexistence of winches with power traffic can lead to
real, as well as imaginary issues. With the cost of farmland going thru the
roof, thanks to ethanol and urban sprawl, the feasibility of buying or
leasing land for a winch only strip reasonably close to major metropolitan
areas, where the pilots live, is quite problematic.

To overcome this hurdle, it's going to take a very imaginative marketing
effort, the most important element of which has to be touring the country
giving winch demos to clubs, so people start looking at how much FUN winch
launches are, instead of focusing on the cost savings.

Mike Schumann

P.S. I'm firmly convinced that the most promising market for winch
launching is with commercial operators, who are heavily focused on selling
rides. Not only would their margins increase dramatically, but so would the
ride experience and the marketability of their product.

"Dan G" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 27, 8:18 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:

<big snip>

> I wish it was as easy as you think...

What's interesting to me is that you seem to be looking at the same
prices we are. A PW6U is £45,000 over here; a factory built Skylaunch
is ~£60,000. The former has seen a couple of sales and the latter are
being snapped up all over the place. How can we can afford to buy kit
like this and you guys can't? Most of the clubs I know have bought
this equipment cash.

A club which has bought a Skylaunch recently might have about 100
members paying £300 a year each and about £7 a winch launch, plus
around £25 an hour glider hire. An aerotow, btw, costs about £25 to
2,000'. What are US club membership numbers and costs like?


Dan



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Schumann]

Another selling proposition for existing airports is the reduction in noise
when using winches. If you couple that with starting an after school
aviation program at the local High School, you've got a good political base,
an eager workforce, and you can expand your equipment utilization from
primarily weekends to every day.

Mike Schumann

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
...
>
> "toad" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Sorry that I'm late to the discussion, but I think the issue about
>> winches in the US is primarily about land. I doubt that there are
>> very few public use airports in the US that would allow winch
>> operations. There are only a few that put up with aero tow glider
>> operations. So to start a winch operation in the US you would have
>> to own enough land and be able to get it designated an airport (hard
>> to do politically) to allow winch operation. In the northeastern US,
>> there is only one glider clubs that I know of that has the space to do
>> it, at Philadelphia.
>>
>> The land for such an operation would cost several million dollars at
>> todays prices. Aero tow doesn't sound so expensive compared to paying
>> for that mortgage.
>>
>> Todd Smith
>> 3S
>
> Todd, I think you overstate the situation.
>
> I have asked three airport managers about winch launch and the response
> was "bring it on". It seems almost universal that glider pilots assume
> winch operations would be turned down so they don't actually ask. Ask in
> a reasonable way and you may be surprised at the answer.
>
> Managers of small airports that have traditionally served small, single
> engine airplanes have seen the number of operations at their airports drop
> dramatically as the price of 100LL avgas has soared. (Many predict 100LL
> will become non-existant within the next three years.) That drop in
> operations has them worried about their jobs which, to a degree, depends
> on public demand for airport services.
>
> Against this background, a proposal that would bring 100's of operations
> per day, even if they are gliders, can look pretty good, particularly if
> those operations don't generate noise complaints.
>
> Work up an reasonable winch operations plan with lots of information about
> other successful operations and present it. Can't hurt.
>
> Bill Daniels
> p.s. I you want help, e-mail me.
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Schumann]

The guys riding motocross and carbon fiber bikes do it because of speed and
thrill. A 10 minute boring aerotow is a turnoff. A 40 second 2G winch
launch is just what these guys are looking for.

Winch launching is about FUN. Saving money needs to be viewed as a
byproduct that lets you buy even better toys.

Mike Schumann

"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
...
>I think this discussion is going the wrong way. If you are going to
> redefine soaring in the future, you don't start with the hardware -
> you have to define what the sport of soaring is going to evolve
> into.
>
> As far as low cost gliders, guys, they already exist - been to a local
> paraglider/hangglider field lately?
>
> But as long (and I want to caveat this statement by emphasizing that
> I'm talking about soaring in the US, not other countries) as we
> attempt to push soaring as "a cheap way to fly" it will continue to
> stagnate.
>
> You see it at all but a few enlightened glider operations: Emphasis
> on "how inexpensive" soaring is compared to power flying; training in
> beat-up low performance antique gliders, availability of similar beat-
> up low performance antique gliders for post-solo/ post license flying
> - and the new glider pilot gets bored and wanders off to spend his
> money on a pair of new quads, or a bass boat, etc. And you are left
> with the old codgers who leaned to fly in primaries and think a 1-26
> is the bees knees, or total glassholes who get serious on their own
> and discover the dark side - that soaring is a SPORT, not just a way
> to fly.
>
> You want to grow soaring? Look at all those clowns riding their $3000
> carbon fiber bicycles wearing gaudy spandex. Most will never actually
> race, but they enjoy pretending, and socializing, and riding with
> their friends in race-like conditions.
>
> Or check out all the motocross bikes being ridden for fun - most never
> actually race, but it's fun to pretend, and it's even more fun to play
> with the same hardware the pro's use!
>
> Yet at many glider clubs, just try to suggest that the club should
> push XC, or racing, or that every student should be required to get
> his Silver. The howls of "we don't want to race", "XC is dangerous",
> "that's not what the club should be teaching", and "soaring isn't
> about XC and racing" get deafening.
>
> Interestingly, this attitude often from some old codger, as he gets
> into his pristine ASW-20 for a 3 hour local flight, while the newly
> minted glider pilot struggles through his mandated 1-hour flight in
> the club single seater (glass, if he's lucky), knowing that if he
> DARES to landout, there will be hell to pay (since there isn't a
> trailer for the glider, and nobody knows how to derig it anyway...).
>
> So - While new developments in gliders are always welcome (and we
> desperately need to replace all those horrible 2-33s and 1-26s in club
> fleets), we also have to define our sport, and get that image out
> where the people with the time and money to soar are waiting to be
> discovered
>
> A final thought - when was the last time there was a cover story about
> soaring in Sports Illustrated? Or any story? SSA, what's your
> excuse?
>
> Kirk
> 66
>
> PS: Winch launching is the future. 2000' with no noise, fun even
> when there isn't any lift, green (get those Prius buyers
> interested...). Combine with sexy glass ships, and people will stop
> by to watch the show....



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[[email protected]]

<< Ian wrote: I can't see the point in jets, really... Small jet
sustainers might be fun, though. >>

Fun is the key word. Since we are wishing into the future, my thought
is that the small jet engine should be more reliable due to fewer
moving parts (likely just one). The weight should be less, the size
smaller, and operation should be smooth with little to no vibration.
Extension and retraction is quicker. Their drag profile is much
smaller; thus creating less of a problem if it extends but fails to
start. For repairs, it can be removed easily and put into a shoe box
to be mailed. All of these characteristics make for a great jet
sustainer, and hopefully an even better self-launcher.

I'm not an engineer, just a dreamer. But designers should be able to
come up with something small, powerful, reliable, simple, and of
course, inexpensive (sort of).

Raul Boerner

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Ian wrote:
> On 26 Dec, 20:26, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>
>> How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking
>> market that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design?
>
> Over 2,500 Blaniks, 1,400 Ka-6's (all variants) and 1,100 Ka-8's were
> built. I can't offhand think of (or find) any other 1,000+ runs, but
> there have been some pretty big productions. There were at least 800
> Grunau Babies, 776 Pirats, 700 Schweizer 1-26's, 700 ASK13's, 620
> Bocians and 600 Standard Libelles.

OK, I was wrong (such a rare thing 8^). Given the current worldwide
soaring market, however, I can't see how anyone could count on producing
1000+ units of any design, unless it offers wicked high performance for
a ridiculously low price.

>> The
>> glider manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral
>> of building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population
>> that can afford them.
>
> And just to make matters worse, the long lifespans of plastic gliders
> mean that second-hand performance is comparatively cheap. Glider
> pilots generally - I think - prefer performance to newness, so a
> £15,000 mass-produced glider would be up against hordes of second hand
> Libelles, ASW-19's, Pegases, Astirs, Jantars and so on. That, I think,
> is what killed the PW-5. About the only country where it did well was
> New Zealand where - as I understand it - there was a large fleet of
> elderly Ka-6's and the like and little by way of more modern
> fibreglass trickling down through the market.

You need a fairly robust market (lots of people moving up to the latest
and greatest) for these hordes to materialize. When people buy fewer
new gliders (as seems to be the case in the US now), they keep their
older ones...

Marc

[toad]

On Dec 28, 10:39 pm, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
> The problem with winch launching in the US is the inherent fear of change in
> the average person. Most pilots in the US have never experienced a winch
> launch, so they only look at the downsides. The potential launch cost
> savings aren't significant enough to interest the guys who already own
> private ships and have decent incomes. The same guys don't realize how much
> fun winching can be, as they've never tried it.
>
> In order to be a safe and successful with winch launching, you need to make
> a 100% commitment. You can't run winches and tows in parallel, if people
> are going to get and stay proficient in winch launching. In addition, the
> only way winches are economically justifiable is if you totally eliminate
> the overhead, operating, and maintenance costs associated with a tow plane..
>
> The other problem in the US, is that most glider operations take place at
> public airports. The coexistence of winches with power traffic can lead to
> real, as well as imaginary issues. With the cost of farmland going thru the
> roof, thanks to ethanol and urban sprawl, the feasibility of buying or
> leasing land for a winch only strip reasonably close to major metropolitan
> areas, where the pilots live, is quite problematic.
>
> To overcome this hurdle, it's going to take a very imaginative marketing
> effort, the most important element of which has to be touring the country
> giving winch demos to clubs, so people start looking at how much FUN winch
> launches are, instead of focusing on the cost savings.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> P.S. I'm firmly convinced that the most promising market for winch
> launching is with commercial operators, who are heavily focused on selling
> rides. Not only would their margins increase dramatically, but so would the
> ride experience and the marketability of their product.
>
> "Dan G" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Dec 27, 8:18 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>
> <big snip>
>
> > I wish it was as easy as you think...
>
> What's interesting to me is that you seem to be looking at the same
> prices we are. A PW6U is £45,000 over here; a factory built Skylaunch
> is ~£60,000. The former has seen a couple of sales and the latter are
> being snapped up all over the place. How can we can afford to buy kit
> like this and you guys can't? Most of the clubs I know have bought
> this equipment cash.
>
> A club which has bought a Skylaunch recently might have about 100
> members paying £300 a year each and about £7 a winch launch, plus
> around £25 an hour glider hire. An aerotow, btw, costs about £25 to
> 2,000'. What are US club membership numbers and costs like?
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

One big problem with winch launching in the US is finding somewhere to
get trained. I have been looking for a place to get the training and
have found no place close enough to get the training and 2 locations
which I could travel to and get a concentrated training. Anybody
want to add any operations to that list ?

Todd Smith
3S

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

toad wrote:
> One big problem with winch launching in the US is finding somewhere to
> get trained. I have been looking for a place to get the training and
> have found no place close enough to get the training and 2 locations
> which I could travel to and get a concentrated training. Anybody
> want to add any operations to that list ?

Where are you located?

[Del C]

Why not? Many European clubs offer both winch and aerotow
launches, including my own. Some members only ever
aerotow and some (usually the less well off) only winch
launch. Most members do both, depending on the conditions,
what they can afford, and what they want to do. A winch
launch costs less than a third of the cost of an aerotow,
so it is a cheap way of staying current during the
winter when it is rarely thermic in the UK. About
two-thirds of our launches are on the winch, so we
can make do with fewer tug aircraft than would be the
case if we were an all aerotow operation.

The only safety issue is to make sure that aerotows
and winch launches don't happen at the same time, to
eliminate the risk of the tug flying into the winch
cable. We have a 'launch point controller' to make
sure that this is the case.

Del Copeland

At 03:42 29 December 2007, Mike Schumann wrote:

>snip
>In order to be a safe and successful with winch launching,
>you need to make
>a 100% commitment. You can't run winches and tows
>in parallel, if people
>are going to get and stay proficient in winch launching.
> In addition, the
>only way winches are economically justifiable is if
>you totally eliminate
>the overhead, operating, and maintenance costs associated
>with a tow plane.
>

[Mike Schumann]

Winch launching can be much more dangerous than aerotow if you don't have
the proper training and stay current. If you have a club with both winch
launching and aerotow, and members focus on one or the other, you're fine.
The problem is with a typical pilot who only flies one or two times a week
and occasionally plays around with winches.

Many US clubs are relatively small compared to some European operations. On
a busy day, we have maybe 20 people show up. On a typical day, we don't
even have enough interest to get all 5 of our club gliders onto the flight
line. There's no way, in that environment that you are going to have enough
manpower and interest to haul out the winch and the tow plane. The
inevitable result is that the winch will only come out for special
occasions, and someone is going to get hurt.

And that doesn't even go into the economic issues, where the big
attractiveness of the winch is to completely eliminate the costs associated
with owning and operating a tow plane.

Mike Schumann

"Del C" > wrote in message
...
> Why not? Many European clubs offer both winch and aerotow
> launches, including my own. Some members only ever
> aerotow and some (usually the less well off) only winch
> launch. Most members do both, depending on the conditions,
> what they can afford, and what they want to do. A winch
> launch costs less than a third of the cost of an aerotow,
> so it is a cheap way of staying current during the
> winter when it is rarely thermic in the UK. About
> two-thirds of our launches are on the winch, so we
> can make do with fewer tug aircraft than would be the
> case if we were an all aerotow operation.
>
> The only safety issue is to make sure that aerotows
> and winch launches don't happen at the same time, to
> eliminate the risk of the tug flying into the winch
> cable. We have a 'launch point controller' to make
> sure that this is the case.
>
> Del Copeland
>
> At 03:42 29 December 2007, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>>snip
>>In order to be a safe and successful with winch launching,
>>you need to make
>>a 100% commitment. You can't run winches and tows
>>in parallel, if people
>>are going to get and stay proficient in winch launching.
>> In addition, the
>>only way winches are economically justifiable is if
>>you totally eliminate
>>the overhead, operating, and maintenance costs associated
>>with a tow plane.
>>
>
>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eric Greenwell]

kirk.stant wrote:
>> My definition of "geezer" is "pilot who has more hours on fire than I
>> have on actual instruments." An honorable title.
>
> YEAH BABY!
>
> I love it. We have a few "geezer" pilots at our club who have been
> there - done that - and are my role models.

Exactly! That's why I objected to the disparaging use of "geezer" in
this thread as a substitute for "old guy that doesn't get it".

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Del C]

I agree that you need a certain critical membership
mass to support both launching methods. However if
you can make gliding cheaper by the use of a winch
AND advertise the fact, especially on university and
college campuses, then maybe the clubs in the US will
get bigger. Many of our top UK competition glider pilots
started as members of university gliding clubs. They
are the ones who are more likely to have the disposable
income later on in life to be able to afford gliding,
if they are not priced out of it in the first place!


The other big source of new members in the UK are successful
middle aged empty nesters who are looking for something
to keep them occupied. From a club point of view they
are even better as, being older, they generally need
more flights to get up to solo standard, and often
go on to become committee members, bringing in valuable
business experience from the outside World.

Both groups have the time to help at the launch point.

I also agree that pilots need to be properly trained
in winch launching techiques, but you are making it
sound something akin to playing Russian Roulette! As
long as you approach winch launching with proper respect,
your brain in gear, and remember to do the 'eventualities'
check (what will I do if the wing drops, the cable
or weak link breaks, or the winch engine fails) there
is absolutely no reason to consider it dangerous. BTW
some poor fellow recently managed to cartwheel a glider
during an aerotow launch! So even they are not without
some risks.

We are lucky to see many of our members twice a month,
let alone twice a week, except on very soarable days!
We do have currency requirements, which vary from at
least once flight every three weeks for early solo
pilots up to eight weeks for very experienced pilots.
After that you will need check flights.

Del Copeland

At 06:12 29 December 2007, Mike Schumann wrote:
>Winch launching can be much more dangerous than aerotow
>if you don't have
>the proper training and stay current. If you have
>a club with both winch
>launching and aerotow, and members focus on one or
>the other, you're fine.
>The problem is with a typical pilot who only flies
>one or two times a week
>and occasionally plays around with winches.
>
>Many US clubs are relatively small compared to some
>European operations. On
>a busy day, we have maybe 20 people show up. On a
>typical day, we don't
>even have enough interest to get all 5 of our club
>gliders onto the flight
>line. There's no way, in that environment that you
>are going to have enough
>manpower and interest to haul out the winch and the
>tow plane. The
>inevitable result is that the winch will only come
>out for special
>occasions, and someone is going to get hurt.
>
>And that doesn't even go into the economic issues,
>where the big
>attractiveness of the winch is to completely eliminate
>the costs associated
>with owning and operating a tow plane.
>
>Mike Schumann
>
>'Del C' wrote in message
...
>> Why not? Many European clubs offer both winch and
>>aerotow
>> launches, including my own. Some members only ever
>> aerotow and some (usually the less well off) only
>>winch
>> launch. Most members do both, depending on the conditions,
>> what they can afford, and what they want to do. A
>>winch
>> launch costs less than a third of the cost of an aerotow,
>> so it is a cheap way of staying current during the
>> winter when it is rarely thermic in the UK. About
>> two-thirds of our launches are on the winch, so we
>> can make do with fewer tug aircraft than would be
>>the
>> case if we were an all aerotow operation.
>>
>> The only safety issue is to make sure that aerotows
>> and winch launches don't happen at the same time,
>>to
>> eliminate the risk of the tug flying into the winch
>> cable. We have a 'launch point controller' to make
>> sure that this is the case.
>>
>> Del Copeland
>>
>> At 03:42 29 December 2007, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>
>>>snip
>>>In order to be a safe and successful with winch launching,
>>>you need to make
>>>a 100% commitment. You can't run winches and tows
>>>in parallel, if people
>>>are going to get and stay proficient in winch launching.
>>> In addition, the
>>>only way winches are economically justifiable is if
>>>you totally eliminate
>>>the overhead, operating, and maintenance costs associated
>>>with a tow plane.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
>

[Sam Discusflyer]

We also do both at our airport here in the US. We also
have a winch captain or you might know them as GOD
(Glider Operations Director). It's the same as Del
writes below.
Sam

At 05:42 29 December 2007, Del C wrote:
>Why not? Many European clubs offer both winch and aerotow
>launches, including my own. Some members only ever
>aerotow and some (usually the less well off) only winch
>launch. Most members do both, depending on the conditions,
>what they can afford, and what they want to do. A winch
>launch costs less than a third of the cost of an aerotow,
>so it is a cheap way of staying current during the
>winter when it is rarely thermic in the UK. About
>two-thirds of our launches are on the winch, so we
>can make do with fewer tug aircraft than would be the
>case if we were an all aerotow operation.
>
>The only safety issue is to make sure that aerotows
>and winch launches don't happen at the same time, to
>eliminate the risk of the tug flying into the winch
>cable. We have a 'launch point controller' to make
>sure that this is the case.
>
>Del Copeland
>
>At 03:42 29 December 2007, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>>snip
>>In order to be a safe and successful with winch launching,
>>you need to make
>>a 100% commitment. You can't run winches and tows
>>in parallel, if people
>>are going to get and stay proficient in winch launching.
>> In addition, the
>>only way winches are economically justifiable is if
>>you totally eliminate
>>the overhead, operating, and maintenance costs associated
>>with a tow plane.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

[toad]

On Dec 28, 11:23 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> toad wrote:
> > One big problem with winch launching in the US is finding somewhere to
> > get trained. I have been looking for a place to get the training and
> > have found no place close enough to get the training and 2 locations
> > which I could travel to and get a concentrated training. Anybody
> > want to add any operations to that list ?
>
> Where are you located?

Connecticut

Todd Smith
3S

[Del C]

Hmmm! I don't think that we want to call our launch
point controllers GODs. Some of them are power mad
as it is!

Only kidding folks! Many of the weekend and evening
ones at our club are volunteers. They just need to
be responsible members who have undergone a short course
in the safety aspects of the job. It also helps if
they can develop eyes in the backs of their heads,
voices like foghorns to shout at people who are just
about to walk in front of a landing glider or a tug
taking off, and a steely manner to deal with members
who do stupid things on the ground or in the air.

Happy New Year
Del C

P.S. This is another posting that disappeared into
the gp.net black hole at the first attempt!


At 14:48 29 December 2007, Sam Discusflyer wrote:
>We also do both at our airport here in the US. We also
>have a winch captain or you might know them as GOD
>(Glider Operations Director). It's the same as Del
>writes below.
>Sam
>
>At 05:42 29 December 2007, Del C wrote:
>>Why not? Many European clubs offer both winch and aerotow
>>launches, including my own. Some members only ever
>>aerotow and some (usually the less well off) only winch
>>launch. Most members do both, depending on the conditions,
>>what they can afford, and what they want to do. A winch
>>launch costs less than a third of the cost of an aerotow,
>>so it is a cheap way of staying current during the
>>winter when it is rarely thermic in the UK. About
>>two-thirds of our launches are on the winch, so we
>>can make do with fewer tug aircraft than would be the
>>case if we were an all aerotow operation.
>>
>>The only safety issue is to make sure that aerotows
>>and winch launches don't happen at the same time, to
>>eliminate the risk of the tug flying into the winch
>>cable. We have a 'launch point controller' to make
>>sure that this is the case.
>>
>>Del Copeland
>>
>>At 03:42 29 December 2007, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>
>>>snip
>>>In order to be a safe and successful with winch launching,
>>>you need to make
>>>a 100% commitment. You can't run winches and tows
>>>in parallel, if people
>>>are going to get and stay proficient in winch launching.
>>> In addition, the
>>>only way winches are economically justifiable is if
>>>you totally eliminate
>>>the overhead, operating, and maintenance costs associated
>>>with a tow plane.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

toad wrote:
> On Dec 28, 11:23 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>> toad wrote:
>>> One big problem with winch launching in the US is finding somewhere to
>>> get trained. I have been looking for a place to get the training and
>>> have found no place close enough to get the training and 2 locations
>>> which I could travel to and get a concentrated training. Anybody
>>> want to add any operations to that list ?
>> Where are you located?
>
> Connecticut

Have you tried Mohawk Soaring?

http://mohawksoaring.org/

I'm not sure if they still have one, but they did fairly recently...

Marc

[Frank Whiteley]

On Dec 29, 8:42 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> toad wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 11:23 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> >> toad wrote:
> >>> One big problem with winch launching in the US is finding somewhere to
> >>> get trained. I have been looking for a place to get the training and
> >>> have found no place close enough to get the training and 2 locations
> >>> which I could travel to and get a concentrated training. Anybody
> >>> want to add any operations to that list ?
> >> Where are you located?
>
> > Connecticut
>
> Have you tried Mohawk Soaring?
>
> http://mohawksoaring.org/
>
> I'm not sure if they still have one, but they did fairly recently...
>
> Marc

Mohawk's website mentions it, but I think it's seasonal rather than a
regular activity.

I've just added Finger Lakes SC. I believe they are using dacron, or
were. Need to check with them on the details. There's a picture of
their winch (former PGC winch) in the March 2007 newsletter but
nothing else I could find.

Frank

[[email protected]]

Soaring in the Future???...........Was the topic! Hard to predict.
Much of the world still calls the sport "Gliding" Also, what future?
5 years 20 or 40 years?
Launch methods may have something to do with it. In Germany now, some
clubs are practicing bungee launches again, mostly to show the kids
some fun? On the other hand, the fathers and Grandfathers (Geezers)
not only try to fly 1000 km Distances during the summer but also
during their Winter in the southern hemisphere. There are several
soaring sites in Namibia alone, that you can check up on at the Online
Contest site (OLC).....what they are flying, and the hours and
Distances they are loging. Those 1000 km hunters are almost
exclusively flying selflaunchers, but have started soaring on winches
a long time ago, with very few exeptions. IMHO, selflaunching is the
future, but it may take some time, since there are so many pure
sailplanes still around, that need towing. Also, those self launch
glas slippers that BTW travel each fall and spring between Europe and
S-Afrika (Containers) are at the top end of performance, they will be
around for a while.

I am all for Winch Launching, I started that way too. I could see some
large commercially operated training sites, winch operated, offering
reasonable training,.sprinkled across the country, but soaring made
easy, would be a self launcher at your closest GA -airport, that you
can reach on that bicycle!... Remeber, all the other launch methods
need additional man power, which really is a $ (money) item. The tow
pilot, the wing runner, winch operator.

I think in the distant future the the self launch will have to change
in the way that they can easily taxi, move on the ground unassisted.
The expensive ones will most likely do that first and out of that
insight there might be evolving a self launch V-Sailplane, that almost
anybody can play with? In the not so distant future not much change,
unless some people make some huge efforts.

Soarski
Gliders Of Aspen (geezer)
..

[Del C]

In the States it seems that you pay everyone from the
instructors and tow pilots down to the guy who runs
with your wingtip. This makes gliding there rather
expensive.

Have you considered the 'mutual self help' system we
have in the UK, where the vast majority of these tasks
are carried out by suitably qualified club members
who don't get paid? Professional instructors, tug pilots
and winch drivers are very much in the minority, except
at the biggest clubs who run a seven-day-a-week operation.


A self launching capacity seems to add about £20k to
the cost of a new glider, and also makes it more expensive
to insure and maintain. You will also need to qualify
for an additional licence. It's also not quite the
same thing as a pure glider. Having said that, if I
won the National Lottery I would probably buy a self
launcher.

Del Copeland


At 04:12 31 December 2007, wrote:

>
>I am all for Winch Launching, I started that way too.
>I could see some
>large commercially operated training sites, winch operated,
>offering
>reasonable training,.sprinkled across the country,
>but soaring made
>easy, would be a self launcher at your closest GA -airport,
>that you
>can reach on that bicycle!... Remeber, all the other
>launch methods
>need additional man power, which really is a $ (money)
>item. The tow
>pilot, the wing runner, winch operator.
>
>I think in the distant future the the self launch will
>have to change
>in the way that they can easily taxi, move on the ground
>unassisted.
>The expensive ones will most likely do that first and
>out of that
>insight there might be evolving a self launch V-Sailplane,
>that almost
>anybody can play with? In the not so distant future
>not much change,
>unless some people make some huge efforts.
>
>Soarski
>Gliders Of Aspen (geezer)
>..
>
>

[Mike Schumann]

Many of the clubs in the US are mutual self help. One of the attractions
for motor-gliders is not just the fact that you don't need help, but more
importantly that you can fly from your local metro airport, instead of
having to drive an hour or two to a rural location that has a glider
operation. Then add the ability to do downwind cross country dashes, and be
able to fly home when you are done, and you start getting peoples attention,
particularly those who have more money than time.

Mike Schumann

"Del C" > wrote in message
...
> In the States it seems that you pay everyone from the
> instructors and tow pilots down to the guy who runs
> with your wingtip. This makes gliding there rather
> expensive.
>
> Have you considered the 'mutual self help' system we
> have in the UK, where the vast majority of these tasks
> are carried out by suitably qualified club members
> who don't get paid? Professional instructors, tug pilots
> and winch drivers are very much in the minority, except
> at the biggest clubs who run a seven-day-a-week operation.
>
>
> A self launching capacity seems to add about £20k to
> the cost of a new glider, and also makes it more expensive
> to insure and maintain. You will also need to qualify
> for an additional licence. It's also not quite the
> same thing as a pure glider. Having said that, if I
> won the National Lottery I would probably buy a self
> launcher.
>
> Del Copeland
>
>
> At 04:12 31 December 2007, wrote:
>
>>
>>I am all for Winch Launching, I started that way too.
>>I could see some
>>large commercially operated training sites, winch operated,
>>offering
>>reasonable training,.sprinkled across the country,
>>but soaring made
>>easy, would be a self launcher at your closest GA -airport,
>>that you
>>can reach on that bicycle!... Remeber, all the other
>>launch methods
>>need additional man power, which really is a $ (money)
>>item. The tow
>>pilot, the wing runner, winch operator.
>>
>>I think in the distant future the the self launch will
>>have to change
>>in the way that they can easily taxi, move on the ground
>>unassisted.
>>The expensive ones will most likely do that first and
>>out of that
>>insight there might be evolving a self launch V-Sailplane,
>>that almost
>>anybody can play with? In the not so distant future
>>not much change,
>>unless some people make some huge efforts.
>>
>>Soarski
>>Gliders Of Aspen (geezer)
>>..
>>
>>
>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ian]

On 29 Dec 2007, 04:02, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> Ian wrote:

> > Over 2,500 Blaniks, 1,400 Ka-6's (all variants) and 1,100 Ka-8's were
> > built. I can't offhand think of (or find) any other 1,000+ runs, but
> > there have been some pretty big productions.
>
> Given the current worldwide
> soaring market, however, I can't see how anyone could count on producing
> 1000+ units of any design, unless it offers wicked high performance for
> a ridiculously low price.

Agreed. I wonder how many gliders there are in service around the
world? I understand there are about 3,500 on the BGA register, but I
doubt if more than half of these will make it to EASA. There are lots
of older gliders lying around unused or semi-used, and I can't see
many owners bothering to jump through costly hoops with them.

But I digress. I'll guess (finger in the air) 2,000 gliders in the UK,
5,000 in Germany, 5,000 for the rest of Europe, 2,000 for the US,
5,000 for everywhere else. With a bit of bad addition, that's 20,000
worldwide. So a mass-produced run of 1,000 would be a 5% replacement/
augmentation of the worldwide fleet. That's a lot.

> > And just to make matters worse, the long lifespans of plastic gliders
> > mean that second-hand performance is comparatively cheap.

> You need a fairly robust market (lots of people moving up to the latest
> and greatest) for these hordes to materialize. When people buy fewer
> new gliders (as seems to be the case in the US now), they keep their
> older ones...

There are also price-performance issues. I happily fly 34:1 wood. To
move up to 40:1 glass would cost me a few (five?) thousand. For 45:1,
double it. For 50:1, double it again. For 55:1, double it again. For
60:1, double it again (GPB 80,000 for a second hand ASH-25). So to
clear room for a cheap 40:1 mass-produced glider, lots of pilots have
to make the jump up to 45+:1 ... which is expensive.

Ian

[Brad[_2_]]

> There are also price-performance issues. I happily fly 34:1 wood. To
> move up to 40:1 glass would cost me a few (five?) thousand. For 45:1,
> double it. For 50:1, double it again. For 55:1, double it again. For
> 60:1, double it again (GPB 80,000 for a second hand ASH-25). So to
> clear room for a cheap 40:1 mass-produced glider, lots of pilots have
> to make the jump up to 45+:1 ... which is expensive.

Bob K is on the road to getting that done. The HP-24 was designed from
the start to make use of production tooling and jigging for a serial
run of airframes.

I have not asked him what he has in to it so far, but my guess is he
could be flying around in one of those expensive 45:1 or 50:1 ships.
But instead he see's a makrket niche and at the same time is
satisfying a dream to design and build his own sailplane.

I am helping as much as I can, since I also have the dream of making
my own ship from the ground up............when we are done, we will
have some nice ships and the molds will be ready to fill for the next
pioneer to step up to the plate.

Brad
HP-24 S/N 2