Glider Shapes

[Brad[_2_]]

This sort of follows up on the future of soaring thread, but is more
focused on the sailplane design aspect.

Ok.....here is the scenario: the powers that be have decided that once
again the soaring community needs a sailplane that represents Joe
Sailplane Pilot. Joe sailplane pilot wants a sailplane that will get
him where he wants to go, but on a budget. Joe's a smart
guy..............he knows a thing or two about sailplanes; having
spent
considerable time poking and prodding their various bits and pieces.
He
decides he wants a composite ship, now he
want's......................what????

Here is where you fill in the blanks.............if for no other
reason
than to whack away at the keyboard.....or not!

Cheers,
Brad

[[email protected]]

On Jan 4, 11:41*am, Brad > wrote:
> This sort of follows up on the future of soaring thread, but is more
> focused on the sailplane design aspect.
>
> Ok.....here is the scenario: the powers that be have decided that once
> again the soaring community needs a sailplane that represents Joe
> Sailplane Pilot. Joe sailplane pilot wants a sailplane that will get
> him where he wants to go, but on a budget. Joe's a smart
> guy..............he knows a thing or two about sailplanes; having
> spent
> considerable time poking and prodding their various bits and pieces.
> He
> decides he wants a composite ship, now he
> want's......................what????
>
> Here is where you fill in the blanks.............if for no other
> reason
> than to whack away at the keyboard.....or not!
>
> Cheers,
> Brad

Performance is the obvious one. Other than that, I would say ease of
rigging, cockpit comfort, and prototypical looks. It's gotta look
cool! :o)

[Shawn[_4_]]

Brad wrote:
> This sort of follows up on the future of soaring thread, but is more
> focused on the sailplane design aspect.
>
> Ok.....here is the scenario: the powers that be have decided that once
> again the soaring community needs a sailplane that represents Joe
> Sailplane Pilot. Joe sailplane pilot wants a sailplane that will get
> him where he wants to go, but on a budget. Joe's a smart
> guy..............he knows a thing or two about sailplanes; having
> spent
> considerable time poking and prodding their various bits and pieces.
> He
> decides he wants a composite ship, now he
> want's......................what????
>
> Here is where you fill in the blanks.............if for no other
> reason
> than to whack away at the keyboard.....or not!

It would be shaped like this:


$24,999


:-)

Honestly, if it's a composite ship, even with fixed gear, mid 30s:1
performance or better should be a reasonable expectation.
New, same performance, and just a bit more $$ than the Mosquito I sold a
couple years ago? Easy.


Shawn

[Brad[_2_]]

> $24,999
>
> :-)
>
> Honestly, if it's a composite ship, even with fixed gear, mid 30s:1
> performance or better should be a reasonable expectation.
> New, same performance, and just a bit more $$ than the Mosquito I sold a
> couple years ago? *Easy.

I like the way you think...................I have some ideas for
shapes rattling around in my head.

Brad

[Gary Emerson]

Brad wrote:
> This sort of follows up on the future of soaring thread, but is more
> focused on the sailplane design aspect.
>
> Ok.....here is the scenario: the powers that be have decided that once
> again the soaring community needs a sailplane that represents Joe
> Sailplane Pilot. Joe sailplane pilot wants a sailplane that will get
> him where he wants to go, but on a budget. Joe's a smart
> guy..............he knows a thing or two about sailplanes; having
> spent
> considerable time poking and prodding their various bits and pieces.
> He
> decides he wants a composite ship, now he
> want's......................what????
>
> Here is where you fill in the blanks.............if for no other
> reason
> than to whack away at the keyboard.....or not!
>
> Cheers,
> Brad


Start with perhaps an obvious observation.

If the end result doesn't look kinda like something that's already
popular (Discus, LS-4, ASWG-XX, etc.) then it's not likely to be as
popular as one would hope. Consider Genesis and PW-5. They are good
gliders, but the odd shape sways people away from them.


With that said...

Gotta have retractable gear.

I'd suggest 40/1 is a minimum target, mid 30's is not going to sway
people away from the number of ships that already exceed that.

Be able to accomodate most pilots. Pilot comfort w/ chute is a must.

Easy rigging and automatic hookups

No flaps

Have room in the fuse for future model expansion to include a sustainer
at least and a small fixed tank for gas.

No gel coat would be a huge plus, particularly for the harsher climates.

Standard control system layout (no parallelogram stick)

Nose and CG release options

No nasty handling characteristics.

Sprung gear and a good brake

Tilt up panel (at least as an option)

Room for 2+ batteries.

Plenty of ventilation

[Shawn[_4_]]

Gary Emerson wrote:

snip

> Standard control system layout (no parallelogram stick)

I agree with most of what you posted (although if performance is OK
w/out retract, i.e. near 40:1, I would say save the bucks/complication)
But why no parallelogram stick? I really appreciated it in my Skeeter
in rough air.


Shawn

[Gary Emerson]

Shawn wrote:
> Gary Emerson wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> Standard control system layout (no parallelogram stick)
>
> I agree with most of what you posted (although if performance is OK
> w/out retract, i.e. near 40:1, I would say save the bucks/complication)
> But why no parallelogram stick? I really appreciated it in my Skeeter
> in rough air.
>
>
> Shawn

only because it's not "typical" it's a marketing issue, not an issue
with the viability of the design.

most of the glass ships out of germany save some grob 102 club's are
retract - besides, I think the performance hit for fixed gear will be
significant - include gear warning switches as standard...

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jan 4, 8:53*am, (Doug Hoffman) wrote:

> Sounds like an HP-24. *Except the flaps.

And we are planning an unflapped version, our molds are based on that
provision.

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

[brtlmj]

> Standard control system layout (no parallelogram stick)

Excuse my ignorance... what is a parallelogram stick?

Bartek

[Gary Emerson]

brtlmj wrote:
>> Standard control system layout (no parallelogram stick)
>
> Excuse my ignorance... what is a parallelogram stick?
>
> Bartek

The standard configuration has the stick pivoting forward and aft as
well as side to side. The parallelogram stick SLIDES forward and aft,
but pivots side to side. Some people really like it, but it's a minor
design by numbers.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

Gary Emerson wrote:
> brtlmj wrote:
>>> Standard control system layout (no parallelogram stick)
>>
>> Excuse my ignorance... what is a parallelogram stick?
>>
>> Bartek
>
> The standard configuration has the stick pivoting forward and aft as
> well as side to side. The parallelogram stick SLIDES forward and aft,
> but pivots side to side. Some people really like it, but it's a minor
> design by numbers.

Excuse any appearance of anality, but the parallelogram sticks I've seen
in Mosquitoes did not *slide* forward and aft. Rather they moved
forward and aft on a 3-sided parallelogram linkage (having beautiful
bearing movements). There were 2 always-parallel, essentially vertical
pieces connected at the top by an always-horizontal piece. (Imagine a
cereal box end-on, long sides horizontal. [Approximate] mid-pitch
position would be short sides vertical. Forward would squash the 'gram
to the left (say); aft to the right.) I can't remember if the
Mosquito's hand grip attached to a 3rd upright welded to the top
horizontal, or extended aft and up from an extension of it.

Parallelogram geometry is such that vertical acceleration forces exerted
by one's hand in turbulence are muted due to near 90-degree interior
angles of the parallelogram in normal flight regimes. I thought it
quite elegant; it's certainly more 'turbulence benign' than a sharply
aft-pointed stick or S-curved stick, where positive G induces aft stick.
(Tangentially, George Moffat attributes at least one fatality to an
owner-added S-curved stick; apparently a strong negative gust at low
altitude and high speed resulted in an inadvertent pitch-down.)

My Zuni's side stick (and the sole HP-18 example I've seen) had sliding
pitch implementations rather than pivoting. Every sliding pitch
implementation I've played with (think Cessna/Piper power plane) has had
MUCH more pitch friction than that in Mosquito parallelograms.
Completely different concepts...

Regards,
Bob W.

[[email protected]]

Excuse MY ignorance !

Is there an advantage of the parallelogram configuration over the
conventional stick in the manufacture or in the handling ? For a
"universal" glider, the simpler it is with all the specs already given
(L/D, retractable gear, etc...), the more appealing it would be.
Eventually, though, ease of manufacture and price will be the
clinchers.

Cheers, Charles

[brtlmj]

> The standard configuration has the stick pivoting forward and aft as
> well as side to side. The parallelogram stick SLIDES forward and aft,
> but pivots side to side. Some people really like it, but it's a minor
> design by numbers.

Thanks!

B.

[Doug Hoffman]

Gary Emerson wrote:
> Brad wrote:
> > This sort of follows up on the future of soaring thread, but
> > is more
> > focused on the sailplane design aspect.
> >
> > Ok.....here is the scenario: the powers that be have decided
> > that once
> > again the soaring community needs a sailplane that
> > represents Joe
> > Sailplane Pilot. Joe sailplane pilot wants a sailplane that
> > will get
> > him where he wants to go, but on a budget. Joe's a smart
> > guy..............he knows a thing or two about sailplanes;
> > having
> > spent
> > considerable time poking and prodding their various bits and
> > pieces.
> > He
> > decides he wants a composite ship, now he
> > want's......................what????
> >
> > Here is where you fill in the blanks.............if for no
> > other
> > reason
> > than to whack away at the keyboard.....or not!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Brad
>
>
> Start with perhaps an obvious observation.
>
> If the end result doesn't look kinda like something that's
> already
> popular (Discus, LS-4, ASWG-XX, etc.) then it's not likely to
> be as
> popular as one would hope. Consider Genesis and PW-5. They
> are good
> gliders, but the odd shape sways people away from them.
>
>
> With that said...
>
> Gotta have retractable gear.
>
> I'd suggest 40/1 is a minimum target, mid 30's is not going to
> sway
> people away from the number of ships that already exceed that.
>
> Be able to accomodate most pilots. Pilot comfort w/ chute is
> a must.
>
> Easy rigging and automatic hookups
>
> No flaps
>
> Have room in the fuse for future model expansion to include a
> sustainer
> at least and a small fixed tank for gas.
>
> No gel coat would be a huge plus, particularly for the harsher
> climates.
>
> Standard control system layout (no parallelogram stick)
>
> Nose and CG release options
>
> No nasty handling characteristics.
>
> Sprung gear and a good brake
>
> Tilt up panel (at least as an option)
>

Sounds like an HP-24. Except the flaps.

--
Regards,
Doug


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

[Mike Schumann]

A Ballistic Recovery Chute.

Mike Schumann

"Brad" > wrote in message
...
> This sort of follows up on the future of soaring thread, but is more
> focused on the sailplane design aspect.
>
> Ok.....here is the scenario: the powers that be have decided that once
> again the soaring community needs a sailplane that represents Joe
> Sailplane Pilot. Joe sailplane pilot wants a sailplane that will get
> him where he wants to go, but on a budget. Joe's a smart
> guy..............he knows a thing or two about sailplanes; having
> spent
> considerable time poking and prodding their various bits and pieces.
> He
> decides he wants a composite ship, now he
> want's......................what????
>
> Here is where you fill in the blanks.............if for no other
> reason
> than to whack away at the keyboard.....or not!
>
> Cheers,
> Brad



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

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:06:14 -0600, Gary Emerson
> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Room for 2+ batteries.

And for the standard 21st-century USAn arse.

rj

[noel.wade]

On Jan 4, 4:53*pm, wrote:
> Excuse MY ignorance !
>
> Is there an advantage of the parallelogram configuration over the
> conventional stick in the manufacture or in the handling ? For a
> "universal" glider, the simpler it is with all the specs already given
> (L/D, retractable gear, etc...), the more appealing it would be.
> Eventually, though, ease of manufacture and price will be the
> clinchers.
>
> Cheers, *Charles

Charles -

Supposedly there is an advantage in the arm movements required for
pitch adjustments. The Parallelogram stick means that if you feel a
sudden "G" force up or down, it won't likely cause you to move the
stick (whereas if a pivoting stick was already forward or aft some,
the "G" force would tend to make it go in that direction more with the
increased weight of your arm and the lag in response-time of human
muscles, and anatomical arrangements and whatnot).

However, I've tried a couple of Zuni sticks (the sliding kind) and a
DG-303 stick (true parallelogram) while on the ground. Both were a
bit weird, and I did NOT like the Zuni stick. My reasoning is this:
The straight push-pull arrangement requires that you move your whole
forearm to change the stick position (pitch up or down), whereas a
"traditional" stick just requires small wrist movements. Therefore I
think its easier to be sensitive and have fine-motor-control with a
traditional stick (wrist and hand muscles and nerves are WAY more
coordinated than forearm and elbow muscles). I also wonder about the
ability to feel "stick forces" through the push-pull or parallelogram
arrangements. Don't want to over-control at high speed or miss the
cues that you're slowing in a thermal turn and risking mushing or
stalling...

Just my $0.02 - I've only been flying for a couple of years at this
point, so I'm certainly no sage!

Take care,

--Noel

[309]

> > Is there an advantage of the parallelogram configuration over the
> > conventional stick in the manufacture or in the handling ?

Why not just skip back in time, put in an F-16 non-moving sidestick
(uses strain gages) connected to a fly by wire computer, full digital,
quad redundant (FOUR batteries?) and hook the autopilot up to SeeYou
Mobile? The IGC approved logger feeding altitude to SeeYou (Version
26) should allow the pilot to take a nap during that 4,000 k flight...

Oh, sorry, I'll shut up, since I'm just a lowly 1-26 driver. Yeah,
some think it's a shape only a mother could love, but I love mine --
as the article in AOPA Pilot said: "Love the one you're with."

-Pete
#309

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Brad wrote:
>
> Here is where you fill in the blanks.............if for no other
>
A generous amount of panel space would be good.

IMO the minimum is space for 8 instruments (compass, T&B or AH, 2
varios, ASI, altimeter, radio, transponder or FLARM) and at least two
instruments will need to be 80 mm. It should also be possible to mount a
GPS or PDA without obscuring anything. This should work in nicely with a
roomy, comfortable cockpit if the panel is a Discus/ASW-20 style rather
than the DG/LS pedestal arrangement.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[rlovinggood]

The sailplane of the future, heck, the sailplane of NOW should have a
finish that never requires sanding nor refinishing in order to
maintain it's performance. It should come out of the factory in
perfect condition and stay that way. Waxing would be "optional", and
only for those who need some quiet time with their glider.

Not that I'm trying to put refinishers out of business. No! There's
a lot of old ships that will still need refinishing for years to come,
but the NEW ones should have surfaces that will never need to be
refinished.

Oh yea, this glider of the future with the no-refinish surfaces,
should have performance capability better than ASG-29/Ventus 2/DG808/
LS10/eta/EB28, etc...


Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

[nimbusgb]

The basic list raised by Gary is good. But there's nothing wrong with
parellelogram sticks.

If its less than 1:40 I'm not interested. It should be 'expandable' so
an optional upgrade to 18m wings perhaps?

The World class was based on price and it flopped heavily so sorry
price is way down the list.

I dont see why a 1:40 ship cant be built for low cost. Surely its the
airfoil and materials technology that have come on. An 1:40 libelle
must be possible with a modern aifoil or a 1:45 LS4

[Bill Daniels]

"nimbusgb" > wrote in message
...
> The basic list raised by Gary is good. But there's nothing wrong with
> parellelogram sticks.
>
> If its less than 1:40 I'm not interested. It should be 'expandable' so
> an optional upgrade to 18m wings perhaps?
>
> The World class was based on price and it flopped heavily so sorry
> price is way down the list.
>
> I dont see why a 1:40 ship cant be built for low cost. Surely its the
> airfoil and materials technology that have come on. An 1:40 libelle
> must be possible with a modern aifoil or a 1:45 LS4

Exactly. There is no reason that a 'medium performance' glider should cost
much less than a 40 - 45:1 glider. They'll weight about the same and have
about the same parts count. The difference is almost entirely in the shape
and finish. If the manufacturer skimps on those, it won't sell at any price
so he might as well go for performance.

The main cost factor is production rate. Start on the demand side of the
economic equation. Re-jigger handicaps and competition classes to favor the
design. 'Seed' 2 - 3 gliders a year at large discounts into clubs that
foster X/C and competition as judged by their performance in the OLC and
their support for younger pilots in the Junior Class. The opportunity to
win an option to buy a new high performance glider glider at half price
would really drive the popularity of the OLC - AND the new glider.

On the supply side, once the manufacturer sees the demand, it's more likely
that investments will be made in cost saving production methods and tooling.
When the production rate ramps up, the unit cost will fall. For this to
work, the price has to fall far enough that used gliders don't 'suck the
air' out of the market - that's the incentive for the maker to keep the
price low.

It seems IMHO that picking a popular glider design that is now out of
production and tuning it up for mass production is a low risk way to go. An
LS-4 fits the bill nicely although there are probably others.

Even though some clubs will fear retractable gear I'd say keep it. As a
compromise, add threadded hard points on the belly allowing for a
sacrificial lightweight UHMWPE plastic skid to protect the belly in the
event of a gear-up. The hard points themselves would add little drag,
weight or cost.

Bill Daniels

[Nyal Williams]

[My original posting got lost]
How about a robust, easily loaded and unloaded trailer
under $10K. That will foster lots more gliding -- especially
on weak days.

At 17:18 05 January 2008, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>'nimbusgb' wrote in message

>>.com...
>> The basic list raised by Gary is good. But there's
>>nothing wrong with
>> parellelogram sticks.
>>
>> If its less than 1:40 I'm not interested. It should
>>be 'expandable' so
>> an optional upgrade to 18m wings perhaps?
>>
>> The World class was based on price and it flopped
>>heavily so sorry
>> price is way down the list.
>>
>> I dont see why a 1:40 ship cant be built for low cost.
>>Surely its the
>> airfoil and materials technology that have come on.
>>An 1:40 libelle
>> must be possible with a modern aifoil or a 1:45 LS4
>
>Exactly. There is no reason that a 'medium performance'
>glider should cost
>much less than a 40 - 45:1 glider. They'll weight
>about the same and have
>about the same parts count. The difference is almost
>entirely in the shape
>and finish. If the manufacturer skimps on those, it
>won't sell at any price
>so he might as well go for performance.
>
>The main cost factor is production rate. Start on the
>demand side of the
>economic equation. Re-jigger handicaps and competition
>classes to favor the
>design. 'Seed' 2 - 3 gliders a year at large discounts
>into clubs that
>foster X/C and competition as judged by their performance
>in the OLC and
>their support for younger pilots in the Junior Class.
> The opportunity to
>win an option to buy a new high performance glider
>glider at half price
>would really drive the popularity of the OLC - AND
>the new glider.
>
>On the supply side, once the manufacturer sees the
>demand, it's more likely
>that investments will be made in cost saving production
>methods and tooling.
>When the production rate ramps up, the unit cost will
>fall. For this to
>work, the price has to fall far enough that used gliders
>don't 'suck the
>air' out of the market - that's the incentive for the
>maker to keep the
>price low.
>
>It seems IMHO that picking a popular glider design
>that is now out of
>production and tuning it up for mass production is
>a low risk way to go. An
>LS-4 fits the bill nicely although there are probably
>others.
>
>Even though some clubs will fear retractable gear I'd
>say keep it. As a
>compromise, add threadded hard points on the belly
>allowing for a
>sacrificial lightweight UHMWPE plastic skid to protect
>the belly in the
>event of a gear-up. The hard points themselves would
>add little drag,
>weight or cost.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
>
>

[Doug Hoffman[_2_]]

nimbusgb wrote:

> If its less than 1:40 I'm not interested. It should be 'expandable' so
> an optional upgrade to 18m wings perhaps?
>
> The World class was based on price and it flopped heavily so sorry
> price is way down the list.
>
> I dont see why a 1:40 ship cant be built for low cost.

Wow. It keeps sounding more and more like you guys are describing an
HP-24. Very modern looks and performance, roomy enough cockpit for us
'mericans. Optional 18m tips. Very reasonable cost if you are willing
to do final assembly yourself. The biggest problem could be that with
the weak dollar the Europeans may buy out all of Bob's production capacity.

Regards,

-Doug Who is not getting paid by Bob K. to post this. ;-)

[Brad[_2_]]

> Wow. *It keeps sounding more and more like you guys are describing an
> HP-24. *Very modern looks and performance, roomy enough cockpit for us
> 'mericans. Optional 18m tips. *Very reasonable cost if you are willing
> to do final assembly yourself. *The biggest problem could be that with
> the weak dollar the Europeans may buy out all of Bob's production capacity..

Bob may end up being a very busy boy!

Brad

[Gary Emerson]

nimbusgb wrote:
> The basic list raised by Gary is good. But there's nothing wrong with
> parellelogram sticks.
>
> If its less than 1:40 I'm not interested. It should be 'expandable' so
> an optional upgrade to 18m wings perhaps?
>
> The World class was based on price and it flopped heavily so sorry
> price is way down the list.
>
> I dont see why a 1:40 ship cant be built for low cost. Surely its the
> airfoil and materials technology that have come on. An 1:40 libelle
> must be possible with a modern aifoil or a 1:45 LS4

I don't think there is anything wrong with parallelogram sticks... From
a MARKETING standpoint, the classic stick configuration is more likely
to be well received by the masses. Design something into the plane that
could be perceived as "odd", even if it's better, and you risk that
people won't buy the product.

[Steve Davis]

At Dicks Sporting Goods I can buy a blow molded UHMWPE
kayak for $399.00. Thats half a fuselage with a very
smooth finish. Wings could be a box beam spar out of
Graphlite, sort of a rag wing design, with UHMWPE vacuum
formed or blow molded around it for the skin.

At 14:06 05 January 2008, Rlovinggood wrote:
>The sailplane of the future, heck, the sailplane of
>NOW should have a
>finish that never requires sanding nor refinishing
>in order to
>maintain it's performance. It should come out of the
>factory in
>perfect condition and stay that way. Waxing would
>be 'optional', and
>only for those who need some quiet time with their
>glider.
>
>Not that I'm trying to put refinishers out of business.
> No! There's
>a lot of old ships that will still need refinishing
>for years to come,
>but the NEW ones should have surfaces that will never
>need to be
>refinished.
>
>Oh yea, this glider of the future with the no-refinish
>surfaces,
>should have performance capability better than ASG-29/Ventus
>
2/DG808/
>LS10/eta/EB28, etc...
>
>
>Ray Lovinggood
>Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
>
>

[Mike Schumann]

Most Kayaks are not blow molded, but rotationally molded. When you look at
the weight of a typical polyethylene kayak, it is MUCH heavier than the same
type of part would be built using aircraft suitable technology.

Mike Schumann

"Steve Davis" > wrote in message
...
> At Dicks Sporting Goods I can buy a blow molded UHMWPE
> kayak for $399.00. Thats half a fuselage with a very
> smooth finish. Wings could be a box beam spar out of
> Graphlite, sort of a rag wing design, with UHMWPE vacuum
> formed or blow molded around it for the skin.
>
> At 14:06 05 January 2008, Rlovinggood wrote:
>>The sailplane of the future, heck, the sailplane of
>>NOW should have a
>>finish that never requires sanding nor refinishing
>>in order to
>>maintain it's performance. It should come out of the
>>factory in
>>perfect condition and stay that way. Waxing would
>>be 'optional', and
>>only for those who need some quiet time with their
>>glider.
>>
>>Not that I'm trying to put refinishers out of business.
>> No! There's
>>a lot of old ships that will still need refinishing
>>for years to come,
>>but the NEW ones should have surfaces that will never
>>need to be
>>refinished.
>>
>>Oh yea, this glider of the future with the no-refinish
>>surfaces,
>>should have performance capability better than ASG-29/Ventus
>>
> 2/DG808/
>>LS10/eta/EB28, etc...
>>
>>
>>Ray Lovinggood
>>Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
>>
>>
>
>
>



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

[gfoster07k]

This may be a little off topic, at least the way it is going, but what
about the other end of the spectrum. What is the replacement for the
venerable 2-33? I think a discussion of such a sailplane (glider?)
would be very appropriate. The last BFR I took in a very tired 2-33
made me wonder why anyone would be attracted to soaring arfter such an
experience and that is the introduction many people get. We are
talking about the sailplane that will entice more into soaring as well
as enhancing FBO business.

Greg

[[email protected]]

Does anybody know the "New" price of the 2-33? What was the last year
they were built and what was the list price. It might be interesting
to compare the price (inflation adjusted and such) with the cost of a
K-21 or DG1000. Of course with the EURO\$ exchange rate the comparison is
mute.

Bob

[Bill Daniels]

" > wrote in message
...
> Does anybody know the "New" price of the 2-33? What was the last year
> they were built and what was the list price. It might be interesting
> to compare the price (inflation adjusted and such) with the cost of a
> K-21 or DG1000. Of course with the EURO\$ exchange rate the comparison is
> mute.
>
> Bob

IIRC the 1970 2-33 price was about $14,000

Using the Dollar Deflator, here are the 2008 results.
http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/result.php
$72,667.35 using the Consumer Price Index
$59,273.12 using the GDP deflator
$74,045.68 using the unskilled wage
$121,670.14 using the nominal GDP per capita
$177,877.52 using the relative share of GDP

I don't think the Euro/Dollar relationship really matters since the US price
is what we have to pay. So, the current price of European glass trainers
isn't out of line especially when you consider what you get for your money.

Bill Daniels

[[email protected]]

Thanks Bill!

That's what I was looking for. Now the debate needs to turn from
"Glass trainers cost too much!" to "How can we invest in new Glass
trainers". In our club we (last spring) bought a (Previously owned)
Nimbus 3DT with loans from club members. Those that lent the money
felt that the club was worth the investment. I had the chance to buy
my own plane (very tempting) or invest in the club. I did the latter.
Now we are looking for another trainer to augment our Twin III. We
want to buy a used plane for this and right now that is hard to come
by. Hopefully we will find one in the spring.

Bob

[nimbusgb]

On 5 Jan, 20:54, Brad > wrote:
> > Wow. It keeps sounding more and more like you guys are describing an
> > HP-24. Very modern looks and performance, roomy enough cockpit for us
> > 'mericans. Optional 18m tips. Very reasonable cost if you are willing
> > to do final assembly yourself. The biggest problem could be that with
> > the weak dollar the Europeans may buy out all of Bob's production capacity.
>
> Bob may end up being a very busy boy!
>
> Brad

Unfortunately with the EASA garbage we are having to deal with an
American owner finished ship may not be marketable in Europe so it may
kill a lot of your potential.

Ian

[[email protected]]

On Jan 5, 9:17*am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "nimbusgb" > wrote in message
>
> It seems IMHO that picking a popular glider design that is now out of
> production and tuning it up for mass production is a low risk way to go. *An
> LS-4 fits the bill nicely although there are probably others.
>
> Even though some clubs will fear retractable gear I'd say keep it. *
>
> Bill Daniels

An updated LS-4 would be sweet, as long as they re-design the landing
gear at the same time. As it exists, if the gas strut in the
retraction mechanism fails, you have 100% chance of RETRACTING the
gear, but little chance of getting it lowered and locked.

[Gary Emerson]

wrote:
> On Jan 5, 9:17 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>> "nimbusgb" > wrote in message
>>
>> It seems IMHO that picking a popular glider design that is now out of
>> production and tuning it up for mass production is a low risk way to go. An
>> LS-4 fits the bill nicely although there are probably others.
>>
>> Even though some clubs will fear retractable gear I'd say keep it.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>
> An updated LS-4 would be sweet, as long as they re-design the landing
> gear at the same time. As it exists, if the gas strut in the
> retraction mechanism fails, you have 100% chance of RETRACTING the
> gear, but little chance of getting it lowered and locked.


I think James is right on with this idea. Take something like a G102
(make the nose sharper) or an LS-4 (perhaps a slightly bigger cockpit)
and put new wings on it which get it to 40/1 and fix any little issues
that the previous model was known for and I think you have 95% of this
project licked.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jan 9, 4:39*am, Gary Emerson > wrote:

> I think James is right on with this idea. *Take something like a G102
> (make the nose sharper) or an LS-4 (perhaps a slightly bigger cockpit)
> and put new wings on it which get it to 40/1 and fix any little issues
> that the previous model was known for and I think you have 95% of this
> project licked.- Hide quoted text -

Hey, that sounds kind of familiar. I think I've seen something like
that.

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

[[email protected]]

Bob K.

I want one of those "sounds familar" thingy's but as I am now living
on the other side of the pond I don't think "they" (as in "them") will
allow me one! Hopefully all the guys in the States who are looking for
the perfect low cost last generation birds will buy one of your kits
(of course they'll have to wait till your done). Maybe you'll sell
more kits than you can make! Wouldn't that be a hoot!

Bob (who's drooling over your web site)

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 8:02*am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 4:39*am, Gary Emerson > wrote:
>
> > I think James is right on with this idea. *Take something like a G102
> > (make the nose sharper) or an LS-4 (perhaps a slightly bigger cockpit)
> > and put new wings on it which get it to 40/1 and fix any little issues
> > that the previous model was known for and I think you have 95% of this
> > project licked.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Hey, that sounds kind of familiar. I think I've seen something like
> that.
>
> Bob K.http://www.hpaircraft.com

Bob,
WHEN????
I know, I know...Tuesday. Till then, I'm still diggin' my old
Speed Astir. It's paid for!