Short Wings Gliders [Archive]

Bob Kuykendall

January 28th 09, 04:34 PM

On Jan 28, 7:15*am, Dan Silent > wrote:
> At 14:00 28 January 2009, Chris Rollings wrote:
>How many gliders with a wingspan of 13.5 metres or less >have enjoyed a
> production run of over 1000? *...over 500?

1-26 (700)

> Maybe because only few realized that short spans gliders
> climb better if lightweight

That applies to longer wings as well. Lighter is better for climbing.
Heavier is better when the lift is good and you have places to go.

> much easier recover from low

Debatable. But shorter wings definitely have more potential for
successful outlanding.

> are fun to fly

True.

> and sometime safer

Yes, sometimes. But the shorter the wings, the lighter you have to
make everything in order to have wing loading conducive to reasonable
sink rate. Granted that shorter wings are lighter and carry less
energy into a crash, the demands for light weight leave you less
margin for cockpit crash resistance.

> 45 to 45 in 2 secs instead of half an hour

True enough.

> much less expensive to tow

In theory, yes. In practice, this hasn't been the case yet.

> much greener on the ecological scale

True enough.

> land on a dime

Okay...

> very easy to rig and de-rig on land-out
> easier to hangar

Definitely true.

> of course when it comes to speed they sink like stones,

Debatable.

> I think the fun part of soaring is thermalling,
> unless dolphining!
> going straight is boring........... particularly when high!

> production runs of over 1000? *...over 500?
> none in the past!
> with new materials, new technologies, much lower prices
> and new regulations wingspan of 13.5 metres or less
> could take off in great number

Yup, could be, so long as it's regarded favorably among the youthful.
Maybe we can spin it as an extreme sport.

> when the chinese start building them
> they will sell like candies!!!

Um, no, I don't think so. I have investigated outsourcing composite
components to China. I wouldn't mind outsourcing simple shells and
other kit moldings, but I wouldn't want to be buying or selling any
critical structure that I couldn't thoroughly inspect inside and out,
and that I couldn't test for black fiberglass.

> soon, when unobtanium will be available
> price will drop a lot!

Unobtanium usually works the other way...

> light motorgliders are now a big success............
> over 300 sinuses sold, a new trend?

Among those with $75K of discretionary funds, definitely.

Thanks, Bob K.

Brad[_2_]

January 28th 09, 04:38 PM

> when the chinese start building them
> they will sell like candies!!!

No......let's make them in the U.S.

Get this economy going again, even tho it would represent a drop in
the bucket.

I subscribe to a few Composites trade magazines and it is amazing the
progress that is being made in the U.S. composites industry. This
country is a leader in composites technology.

Once you realize you're not going to get rich building gliders, but in
doing so you provide a product that can be purchased by economically
similar folks, it's a good thing.

Brad

Derek Copeland[_2_]

January 28th 09, 05:30 PM

Why not just make a one design, mass produced 15m glider (preferably with
optional plug in 18m tips). Needn't be all that much more expensive and
would actually give some performance, so people would buy them as long as
they looked like a sailplane.

The problem with the PW5 is that people are embarrased to fly something
that looks like a baby buggy with wings and a tailplane attached.

There is no substitute for span (TINFOS)...!

Derek Copeland

At 16:38 28 January 2009, Brad wrote:
>
>> when the chinese start building them
>> they will sell like candies!!!
>
>No......let's make them in the U.S.
>
>Get this economy going again, even tho it would represent a drop in
>the bucket.
>
>I subscribe to a few Composites trade magazines and it is amazing the
>progress that is being made in the U.S. composites industry. This
>country is a leader in composites technology.
>
>Once you realize you're not going to get rich building gliders, but in
>doing so you provide a product that can be purchased by economically
>similar folks, it's a good thing.
>
>Brad
>
>

Pat Russell

January 28th 09, 05:43 PM

>There is no substitute for span (TINFOS)...!
>

There is no substitute for getting your acronyms correct (TINSFGYAC)

Dan Silent[_2_]

January 28th 09, 05:45 PM

At 16:07 28 January 2009, Surfer! wrote:
>In message , Dan Silent writes
>
>>going straight is boring........... particularly when high!
>
>It is? I loved flying along at 3,000' agl under a cloud street >at 80
>knots without going down. Ditto flying along a wave bar.
>--
>Surfer!
>Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net
>

I loved flying along at 3,000' agl under a cloud street at 80
knots without going down.

me too...............
particularly on a november 18 in Kebec with a little snow on the
gound.............
and then I was expelled from the club!!!!
Maybe because I had to much fun!!!

I mentioned this as "dolphining"
very very exiting!!!!

Surfer! wrote:
Ditto flying along a wave bar.

How high?

Dan Silent[_2_]

January 28th 09, 05:45 PM

At 16:34 28 January 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

Short Wings Gliders:

>> much less expensive to tow
>
>In theory, yes. In practice, this hasn't been the case yet.
>

Certainly not in North America!
But in France sometime they charge tows by the minutes and not by the
feet............
Then it makes a big difference!

PS: always very very interesting to read your writing......
looking forward to see the HP24 flying soon!!!

Daniel Scopel
Silent 2 Targa
C-GODY serial 2027
Volez souvent et soyez prudent.
http://pages. videotron. com/dscopel/

Dan Silent[_2_]

January 28th 09, 06:00 PM

Bob Kuykendall

January 28th 09, 06:01 PM

On Jan 28, 9:30*am, Derek Copeland > wrote:

> Why not just make a one design, mass produced 15m glider (preferably with
> optional plug in 18m tips)...

Root bending moment scales something like exponentially with span,
regardless of whether the span is part of the orignial wing or added
later. So if you want to add 3m of span, you'd better design the wing
structure for it from the get-go.

We've already seen that even in what passes for mass production in the
glider world that the per-unit cost and price of a 15m ship are great
enough to severely limit the potential market, driving down production
rates and driving up per-unit costs. This is driven to some degree by
the complexity of the aircraft and the materials that go into it. It
is driven by a greater degree by the cost of the tooling, the amount
of floor space and volume it occupies, and by business expenses
relating to maintaining, heating, and lighting commensurate shop
space, and by wages and other labor costs. Big gliders require big
tools, and big tools require big shops, and the bigness seems to scale
with something like the square or the cube of the span.

The only thing I'm bringing to the party with my own 15m/18m design is
to keep overhead down to the barest of minimums and to offload a bunch
of the more labor intensive tasks of assembly, fitting, and finishing
to individual kit builders. The RV series of homebuilt airplanes
suggests that there is a great deal of manufacturing capacity
available in that market.

My interest in smaller gliders is chiefly in that they would fit into
smaller shops and smaller garages, opening up more potential market
for kit sailplanes. I also think that the potential kit market might
be more receptive to simplifications such as 90-degree landing flaps
instead of airbrakes as we saw with the Schreder HP kits and the
Monerai.

Thanks, Bob K.

Dan Silent[_2_]

January 28th 09, 06:30 PM

At 16:34 28 January 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

>> with new materials, new technologies, much lower prices
>> and new regulations wingspan of 13.5 metres or less
>> could take off in great number
>
>Yup, could be, so long as it's regarded favorably among
>the youthful.
>Maybe we can spin it as an extreme sport.

It is an extreme sport, at least in Kanada.
Gliding is defined as such by insurance companies.....
Up here gliding and flying are two different things.
And you get no coverage for gliding.
Tell the kids................ they will line up to try!

>> light motorgliders are now a big success............
>> over 300 sinuses sold, a new trend?
>
>Among those with $75K of discretionary funds, definitely.

With $75K you'll get one wing only and no horizontal stab!
unless usd and eur will exchange at par.
But the Sinus flies so well with two wings that maybe
only one is sufficient..................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd2GTQcRSUo&feature=channel_page

Daniel Scopel
Silent 2 Targa
C-GODY serial 2027
Volez souvent et soyez prudent.
http://pages. videotron. com/dscopel/

Eric Greenwell

January 28th 09, 06:57 PM

Chris Rollings wrote:
> How many gliders with a wingspan of 13.5 metres or less have enjoyed a
> production run of over 1000? ...over 500? Ask yourself why?

That's a hard question to answer, but there are several factors.

An important one is the used market. A new glider must compete with used
ones. If the number of pilots is not increasing, the price of used,
higher performance gliders will be close enough to reduce the market for
the new but lower performance glider. If the sport were growing well,
there would be plenty of room for the new, lower span, cheaper glider in
the market.

Another factor is the competition classes. Once instituted, they
encourage (even force) the manufacturers to build to that standard,
which has been a wing span limit for many decades. I am pleased to see
the Apis and Silent deviate from these "class conscious" wing spans, but
competition classes still drive a large portion of the market.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Bob

January 28th 09, 08:12 PM

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:01:58 -0800 (PST), Bob Kuykendall
> wrote:

>On Jan 28, 9:30*am, Derek Copeland > wrote:
>
>> Why not just make a one design, mass produced 15m glider (preferably with
>> optional plug in 18m tips)...
>
>Root bending moment scales something like exponentially with span,
>regardless of whether the span is part of the orignial wing or added
>later. So if you want to add 3m of span, you'd better design the wing
>structure for it from the get-go.
>
>We've already seen that even in what passes for mass production in the
>glider world that the per-unit cost and price of a 15m ship are great
>enough to severely limit the potential market, driving down production
>rates and driving up per-unit costs. This is driven to some degree by
>the complexity of the aircraft and the materials that go into it. It
>is driven by a greater degree by the cost of the tooling, the amount
>of floor space and volume it occupies, and by business expenses
>relating to maintaining, heating, and lighting commensurate shop
>space, and by wages and other labor costs. Big gliders require big
>tools, and big tools require big shops, and the bigness seems to scale
>with something like the square or the cube of the span.
>
>The only thing I'm bringing to the party with my own 15m/18m design is
>to keep overhead down to the barest of minimums and to offload a bunch
>of the more labor intensive tasks of assembly, fitting, and finishing
>to individual kit builders. The RV series of homebuilt airplanes
>suggests that there is a great deal of manufacturing capacity
>available in that market.
>
>My interest in smaller gliders is chiefly in that they would fit into
>smaller shops and smaller garages, opening up more potential market
>for kit sailplanes. I also think that the potential kit market might
>be more receptive to simplifications such as 90-degree landing flaps
>instead of airbrakes as we saw with the Schreder HP kits and the
>Monerai.
>
>Thanks, Bob K.

Maybe Van's should do a 1-26 style kit!

Bob M.

Brad[_2_]

January 28th 09, 08:42 PM

On Jan 28, 9:43*am, Pat Russell > wrote:
> >There is no substitute for span (TINFOS)...!
>
> There is no substitute for getting your acronyms correct (TINSFGYAC)

how about TISNFOSIYCAI

Brad

Derek Copeland[_2_]

January 28th 09, 08:45 PM

At 17:43 28 January 2009, Pat Russell wrote:
>
>>There is no substitute for span (TINFOS)...!
>>
>
>There is no substitute for getting your acronyms correct (TINSFGYAC)
>

There Is No Substitute FOr Span = TINSFOS.

Sorry missed the S out!

Derek C

Mike Hostage

January 28th 09, 11:45 PM

At 18:01 28 January 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>On Jan 28, 9:30=A0am, Derek Copeland wrote:
>
>> Why not just make a one design, mass produced 15m glider (preferably
>with
>> optional plug in 18m tips)...
>
>Root bending moment scales something like exponentially with span,
>regardless of whether the span is part of the orignial wing or added
>later. So if you want to add 3m of span, you'd better design the wing
>structure for it from the get-go.
>
>We've already seen that even in what passes for mass production in the
>glider world that the per-unit cost and price of a 15m ship are great
>enough to severely limit the potential market, driving down production
>rates and driving up per-unit costs. This is driven to some degree by
>the complexity of the aircraft and the materials that go into it. It
>is driven by a greater degree by the cost of the tooling, the amount
>of floor space and volume it occupies, and by business expenses
>relating to maintaining, heating, and lighting commensurate shop
>space, and by wages and other labor costs. Big gliders require big
>tools, and big tools require big shops, and the bigness seems to scale
>with something like the square or the cube of the span.
>
>The only thing I'm bringing to the party with my own 15m/18m design is
>to keep overhead down to the barest of minimums and to offload a bunch
>of the more labor intensive tasks of assembly, fitting, and finishing
>to individual kit builders. The RV series of homebuilt airplanes
>suggests that there is a great deal of manufacturing capacity
>available in that market.
>
>My interest in smaller gliders is chiefly in that they would fit into
>smaller shops and smaller garages, opening up more potential market
>for kit sailplanes. I also think that the potential kit market might
>be more receptive to simplifications such as 90-degree landing flaps
>instead of airbrakes as we saw with the Schreder HP kits and the
>Monerai.
>
>Thanks, Bob K.
>

The Silent 2 Targa is a fine flying machine and the kit is very straight
forward. I built mine in just under one year. However, the Euro/Dollar
rate is a killer!

Mike

DRN

January 29th 09, 02:01 AM

On Jan 27, 10:09*pm, RRK > wrote:
> There is a proposal of creating 13.5 class on IGC agenda on their *next
> meeting in Laussane.
>
> http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/files/igc_agenda2009_8_3_1_Proposal...

Haven't we got a big enough mess with too many FAI classes ?
All with little performance difference (other than the failed world-
class experiment).
Tooling and engineering for a new glider costs millions.
This must be paid for, by us, over a small production run for each
glider.
More classes => even more fragmentation => smaller production runs =>
higher costs.

Aaaarrrgggg....

Brad[_2_]

January 29th 09, 03:22 AM

On Jan 28, 6:01*pm, DRN > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 10:09*pm, RRK > wrote:
>
> > There is a proposal of creating 13.5 class on IGC agenda on their *next
> > meeting in Laussane.
>
> >http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/files/igc_agenda2009_8_3_1_Proposal...
>
> Haven't we got a big enough mess with too many FAI classes ?
> All with little performance difference (other than the failed world-
> class experiment).
> Tooling and engineering for a new glider costs millions.
> This must be paid for, by us, over a small production run for each
> glider.
> More classes => even more fragmentation => smaller production runs =>
> higher costs.
>
> Aaaarrrgggg....

Dave,

It's still winter........................ :)

Brad

[email protected]

January 29th 09, 03:36 AM

On Jan 28, 11:45*am, Dan Silent > wrote:
> At 16:34 28 January 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
> Short Wings Gliders:
>
> >> much less expensive to tow
>
> >In theory, yes. In practice, this hasn't been the case yet.
>
> Certainly not in North America!
> But in France sometime they charge tows by the minutes and not by the
> feet............
> Then it makes a big difference!
>
> PS: always very very interesting to read your writing......
> looking forward to see the HP24 flying soon!!!
>
> Daniel Scopel
> Silent 2 Targa
> C-GODY serial 2027
> Volez souvent et soyez prudent.http://pages. videotron. com/dscopel/

I personally would like to see the FAI create a new "Fun Class" that
would be a handicapped class. I would suggest that the class include
all gliders (regardless of span) with a handicap rating rating of
about plus or minus 5 percent of the present World Class (PW-5).

In the last ten years, I have flown PW-5s more than 1000 hours and
over 30,000 miles cross country. I have had a lot of fun flying at
thirty to one.

Bill Snead
6W

Dan Silent[_2_]

January 29th 09, 04:30 AM

At 02:01 29 January 2009, DRN wrote:
>On Jan 27, 10:09=A0pm, RRK wrote:
>> There is a proposal of creating 13.5 class on IGC
>> meeting in Lausanne.
>>
>>
http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/files/igc_agenda2009_8_3_1_Proposal...

>Haven't we got a big enough mess with too many FAI >classes ?

yes, you are right!!!
think about the PIK without spoilers, so designed to win,
and it did..... but what a mistake to have such a solid
and durable sailplane with flaps and no spoilers because of a new class or
a new regulation!

>All with little performance difference (other than the failed
>world-class experiment).

yes, you are right!!!
the world-class is a failure, only 200 pewe built, nobody likes it and she
scares people away!!!

>Tooling and engineering for a new glider costs millions.
>This must be paid for, by us, over a small production run
>for each glider.
>More classes even more fragmentation smaller production
>runs higher costs.

yes, you are right!!!
BUT YOU MISS THE POINT!
the Short Wings Gliders are already here............
20 different models, maybe more,
old, new, light, heavy, sleek, ugly, fabric, carbon, etc.
no need to built a new one,
world-class simply will change name and all pewe will
fly with all other Short Wings.
It is as simple as this.
TINS4WS, so Short Wings Gliders will flock together and have fun. Of
course they will keep complaining about handicaps, rules and other sh*t,
but nobody will ever ask you to built another glider.
(Antares to date has more bankruptcies then models.)
But maybe the Chinese will come up with something.
..........another white 25 cm today...............

Greg Arnold[_2_]

January 29th 09, 04:52 AM

Dan Silent wrote:
> At 02:01 29 January 2009, DRN wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 10:09=A0pm, RRK wrote:
>>> There is a proposal of creating 13.5 class on IGC
>>> meeting in Lausanne.
>>>
>>>
> http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/files/igc_agenda2009_8_3_1_Proposal...
>
>> Haven't we got a big enough mess with too many FAI >classes ?
>
> yes, you are right!!!
> think about the PIK without spoilers, so designed to win,
> and it did..... but what a mistake to have such a solid
> and durable sailplane with flaps and no spoilers because of a new class or
> a new regulation!
>
>> All with little performance difference (other than the failed
>> world-class experiment).
>
> yes, you are right!!!
> the world-class is a failure, only 200 pewe built, nobody likes it and she
> scares people away!!!
>
>> Tooling and engineering for a new glider costs millions.
>> This must be paid for, by us, over a small production run
>> for each glider.
>> More classes even more fragmentation smaller production
>> runs higher costs.
>
> yes, you are right!!!
> BUT YOU MISS THE POINT!
> the Short Wings Gliders are already here............
> 20 different models, maybe more,
> old, new, light, heavy, sleek, ugly, fabric, carbon, etc.
> no need to built a new one,
> world-class simply will change name and all pewe will
> fly with all other Short Wings.
> It is as simple as this.
> TINS4WS, so Short Wings Gliders will flock together and have fun. Of
> course they will keep complaining about handicaps, rules and other sh*t,
> but nobody will ever ask you to built another glider.
> (Antares to date has more bankruptcies then models.)
> But maybe the Chinese will come up with something.
> .........another white 25 cm today...............
>

I would be surprised if they ever get enough gliders together to have a
contest. If you are into racing, you will buy something with at least
15 meters of span.

Brad[_2_]

January 29th 09, 05:07 AM

On Jan 28, 8:52*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> Dan Silent wrote:
> > At 02:01 29 January 2009, DRN wrote:
> >> On Jan 27, 10:09=A0pm, RRK *wrote:
> >>> There is a proposal of creating 13.5 class on IGC
> >>> meeting in Lausanne.
>
> >http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/files/igc_agenda2009_8_3_1_Proposal...
>
> >> Haven't we got a big enough mess with too many FAI >classes ?
>
> > yes, you are right!!!
> > think about the PIK without spoilers, so designed to win,
> > and it did..... but what a mistake to have such a solid
> > and durable sailplane with flaps and no spoilers because of a new class or
> > a new regulation!
>
> >> All with little performance difference (other than the failed
> >> world-class experiment).
>
> > yes, you are right!!!
> > the world-class is a failure, only 200 pewe built, nobody likes it and she
> > scares people away!!!
>
> >> Tooling and engineering for a new glider costs millions.
> >> This must be paid for, by us, over a small production run
> >> for each glider.
> >> More classes even more fragmentation smaller production
> >> runs higher costs.
>
> > yes, you are right!!!
> > BUT YOU MISS THE POINT!
> > the Short Wings Gliders are already here............
> > 20 different models, maybe more,
> > old, new, light, heavy, sleek, ugly, fabric, carbon, etc.
> > no need to built a new one,
> > world-class simply will change name and all pewe will
> > fly with all other Short Wings.
> > It is as simple as this.
> > TINS4WS, so Short Wings Gliders will flock together and have fun. Of
> > course they will keep complaining about handicaps, rules and other sh*t,
> > but nobody will ever ask you to built another glider.
> > (Antares to date has more bankruptcies then models.)
> > But maybe the Chinese will come up with something.
> > .........another white 25 cm today...............
>
> I would be surprised if they ever get enough gliders together to have a
> contest. *If you are into racing, you will buy something with at least
> 15 meters of span.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I would posit that the racing guys are a very small percentage of the
total population of sailplane pilots. But, they have an overwhelming
impact on the sport in terms of being catered to by the manufacturers.

Brad

Greg Arnold[_2_]

January 29th 09, 05:54 AM

Brad wrote:
> On Jan 28, 8:52 pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>> Dan Silent wrote:
>>> At 02:01 29 January 2009, DRN wrote:
>>>> On Jan 27, 10:09=A0pm, RRK wrote:
>>>>> There is a proposal of creating 13.5 class on IGC
>>>>> meeting in Lausanne.
>>> http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/files/igc_agenda2009_8_3_1_Proposal...
>>>> Haven't we got a big enough mess with too many FAI >classes ?
>>> yes, you are right!!!
>>> think about the PIK without spoilers, so designed to win,
>>> and it did..... but what a mistake to have such a solid
>>> and durable sailplane with flaps and no spoilers because of a new class or
>>> a new regulation!
>>>> All with little performance difference (other than the failed
>>>> world-class experiment).
>>> yes, you are right!!!
>>> the world-class is a failure, only 200 pewe built, nobody likes it and she
>>> scares people away!!!
>>>> Tooling and engineering for a new glider costs millions.
>>>> This must be paid for, by us, over a small production run
>>>> for each glider.
>>>> More classes even more fragmentation smaller production
>>>> runs higher costs.
>>> yes, you are right!!!
>>> BUT YOU MISS THE POINT!
>>> the Short Wings Gliders are already here............
>>> 20 different models, maybe more,
>>> old, new, light, heavy, sleek, ugly, fabric, carbon, etc.
>>> no need to built a new one,
>>> world-class simply will change name and all pewe will
>>> fly with all other Short Wings.
>>> It is as simple as this.
>>> TINS4WS, so Short Wings Gliders will flock together and have fun. Of
>>> course they will keep complaining about handicaps, rules and other sh*t,
>>> but nobody will ever ask you to built another glider.
>>> (Antares to date has more bankruptcies then models.)
>>> But maybe the Chinese will come up with something.
>>> .........another white 25 cm today...............
>> I would be surprised if they ever get enough gliders together to have a
>> contest. If you are into racing, you will buy something with at least
>> 15 meters of span.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I would posit that the racing guys are a very small percentage of the
> total population of sailplane pilots. But, they have an overwhelming
> impact on the sport in terms of being catered to by the manufacturers.
>
> Brad

The point I was trying to make was that they are talking about creating
a 13.5 meter racing class that won't have anyone racing in it.

[email protected]

January 29th 09, 12:48 PM

On Jan 28, 9:01*pm, DRN > wrote:

> Aaaarrrgggg....

It's not too late to let your representative know how you think he
should vote on this issue.

Jim Beckman[_2_]

January 29th 09, 01:30 PM

At 15:15 28 January 2009, Dan Silent wrote:
>
>production runs of over 1000? ...over 500?
>none in the past!

Schweizer built 700 1-26s. Took 'em a while,
though.

Jim Beckman

Jim Beckman[_2_]

January 29th 09, 01:45 PM

At 04:52 29 January 2009, Greg Arnold wrote:
>
>I would be surprised if they ever get enough gliders together to have a
>contest. If you are into racing, you will buy something with at least
>15 meters of span.

http://www.126association.org/graphics/tsa_grid.jpg

Jim Beckman

Greg Arnold[_2_]

January 29th 09, 04:44 PM

Jim Beckman wrote:
> At 04:52 29 January 2009, Greg Arnold wrote:
>> I would be surprised if they ever get enough gliders together to have a
>> contest. If you are into racing, you will buy something with at least
>> 15 meters of span.
>
> http://www.126association.org/graphics/tsa_grid.jpg
>
> Jim Beckman
>

Yep. But that is the 1-26. We were talking about a new 13.5 meter
class -- such a class would soon disappear without a trace due to the
lack of interest.

Bob Kuykendall

January 29th 09, 05:00 PM

On Jan 28, 8:30*pm, Dan Silent > wrote:

> think about the PIK without spoilers, so designed to win,
> and it did..... but what a mistake to have such a solid
> and durable sailplane with flaps and no spoilers because of a new class or
> a new regulation!

A mistake to embody simple, effective, terminal-limiting glidepath
control that reduces stall speed instead of increasing it?

Brian Bange[_2_]

January 29th 09, 05:45 PM

>>> I would be surprised if they ever get enough gliders
together to have a contest. If you are into racing, you will buy
something with at least 15 meters of span.
>
>Yep. But that is the 1-26. We were talking about a new 13.5
meter class -- such a class would soon disappear without a trace
due to the lack of interest.
>
This snobby attitude really gets to me. If you ask most non-
owners what their dream sailplane is, they'll say a Discus2 or
some other $100K German ship. Getting closer to reality, they'll
say they would settle for an LS4 or an ASW20. Then at the level
of disposable income, they most likely have the money for a K6
or a Russia. I was one of these. I finally analyzed where I was
at with my flying and my finances and decided that instead of
waiting for the bank account to have the necessary funds for old
German glass, I would be farther ahead to get something now,
fly it for awhile and keep saving, then move up when the time
was right. 7 years after buying a Russia I am switching to an
ASW20. Was the short wing bird the way to go. YES!!! I have
had tons of fun learning to fly X/C with it and will miss it. Most
pilots I fly with in short wing gliders are not interested in hot
competition. They are interested in improving their skills and
enjoy the comradery of like minded individuals. A fun contest
like the 1-26ers have I think would be welcomed. I hope the
World class morphs into what Bill Snead suggests - a class
handicapped to +/-5% of the PW5. That would include a lot of
ships that have no place to go right now. Realizing that one big
reason that people fly short wing birds is the low cost of entry,
smaller meets at more locations would be the way to go. Not too
many people are going to pack up their PW5 or Russia and
travel thousands of miles to compete. Many will however, drive
within their state to attend. My 2 cents.

Brian Bange

Doug Hoffman

January 29th 09, 05:54 PM

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Jan 28, 8:30 pm, Dan Silent > wrote:
>
>> think about the PIK without spoilers, so designed to win,
>> and it did..... but what a mistake to have such a solid
>> and durable sailplane with flaps and no spoilers because of a new class or
>> a new regulation!
>
> A mistake to embody simple, effective, terminal-limiting glidepath
> control that reduces stall speed instead of increasing it?

I flew a spoiler-less flaps-only glider for years. Not once did any of
the following happen:

1) forget to connect the spoilers during assembly
2) have an automatic spoiler hookup fail to work during assembly
3) fail to perform a spoilers PCC if needed
4) accidentally leave the spoilers open during take-off
5) accidentally have the spoilers "pop open" during take-off or flight
6) feel the need to install a Piggot hook to prevent 5)
7) have the flaps-only glide path control fail to get me down very
quickly even if I was grossly too high on final approach

We are aware of perhaps the only downside of such a configuration: If we
are being sucked upwards by unwanted strong lift, if the airspeed is
high it may not be possible to deploy the flaps in order to come down.
I don't believe this has been much of an issue in practice.

Regards,

-Doug

Greg Arnold[_2_]

January 29th 09, 06:06 PM

Brian Bange wrote:
>>>> I would be surprised if they ever get enough gliders
> together to have a contest. If you are into racing, you will buy
> something with at least 15 meters of span.
>> Yep. But that is the 1-26. We were talking about a new 13.5
> meter class -- such a class would soon disappear without a trace
> due to the lack of interest.
> This snobby attitude really gets to me.

Snobby?

If you ask most non-
> owners what their dream sailplane is, they'll say a Discus2 or
> some other $100K German ship. Getting closer to reality, they'll
> say they would settle for an LS4 or an ASW20. Then at the level
> of disposable income, they most likely have the money for a K6
> or a Russia. I was one of these. I finally analyzed where I was
> at with my flying and my finances and decided that instead of
> waiting for the bank account to have the necessary funds for old
> German glass, I would be farther ahead to get something now,
> fly it for awhile and keep saving, then move up when the time
> was right. 7 years after buying a Russia I am switching to an
> ASW20. Was the short wing bird the way to go. YES!!! I have
> had tons of fun learning to fly X/C with it and will miss it. Most
> pilots I fly with in short wing gliders are not interested in hot
> competition. They are interested in improving their skills and
> enjoy the comradery of like minded individuals. A fun contest
> like the 1-26ers have I think would be welcomed. I hope the
> World class morphs into what Bill Snead suggests - a class
> handicapped to +/-5% of the PW5. That would include a lot of
> ships that have no place to go right now. Realizing that one big
> reason that people fly short wing birds is the low cost of entry,
> smaller meets at more locations would be the way to go. Not too
> many people are going to pack up their PW5 or Russia and
> travel thousands of miles to compete. Many will however, drive
> within their state to attend. My 2 cents.
>
> Brian Bange

Most of them are not flying in Sports Class now. Why do you think they
would fly in a 13.5 Meter Class?

And if they were flying in Sports Class, what is to be gained by
establishing a new 13.5 Meter class?

The comment here seems to be roughly the same as when we see people
advocating kicking the modern gliders out of Sports Class -- if we just
change the rules, lots of pilots will suddenly come out of the woodwork
and start completing. Not gonna happen.

Tech Support

January 29th 09, 06:11 PM

Bob

A comment.

Have you thought about some simple tooling a kit buyer could rent for
putting togther critical assemblies (wing to fusrelage, tail asembly,
etc.).

If you furnished the tooling then you would have comfort the kit was
assembled as you deisgned and tested It.

There are of course those who will build the tooling from your plans
because they are on the minimum dollar schedule.

Good luck. Will be nice to have somethig made in America vs ??????

We can use all the jobs and keep the $ home.

Big John

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:01:58 -0800 (PST), Bob Kuykendall
> wrote:

>On Jan 28, 9:30*am, Derek Copeland > wrote:
>
>> Why not just make a one design, mass produced 15m glider (preferably with
>> optional plug in 18m tips)...
>
>Root bending moment scales something like exponentially with span,
>regardless of whether the span is part of the orignial wing or added
>later. So if you want to add 3m of span, you'd better design the wing
>structure for it from the get-go.
>
>We've already seen that even in what passes for mass production in the
>glider world that the per-unit cost and price of a 15m ship are great
>enough to severely limit the potential market, driving down production
>rates and driving up per-unit costs. This is driven to some degree by
>the complexity of the aircraft and the materials that go into it. It
>is driven by a greater degree by the cost of the tooling, the amount
>of floor space and volume it occupies, and by business expenses
>relating to maintaining, heating, and lighting commensurate shop
>space, and by wages and other labor costs. Big gliders require big
>tools, and big tools require big shops, and the bigness seems to scale
>with something like the square or the cube of the span.
>
>The only thing I'm bringing to the party with my own 15m/18m design is
>to keep overhead down to the barest of minimums and to offload a bunch
>of the more labor intensive tasks of assembly, fitting, and finishing
>to individual kit builders. The RV series of homebuilt airplanes
>suggests that there is a great deal of manufacturing capacity
>available in that market.
>
>My interest in smaller gliders is chiefly in that they would fit into
>smaller shops and smaller garages, opening up more potential market
>for kit sailplanes. I also think that the potential kit market might
>be more receptive to simplifications such as 90-degree landing flaps
>instead of airbrakes as we saw with the Schreder HP kits and the
>Monerai.
>
>Thanks, Bob K.

Brad[_2_]

January 29th 09, 06:34 PM

On Jan 29, 10:06*am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> Brian Bange wrote:
> >>>> I would be surprised if they ever get enough gliders
> > together to have a contest. *If you are into racing, you will buy
> > something with at least 15 meters of span.
> >> Yep. *But that is the 1-26. *We were talking about a new 13.5
> > meter class -- such a class would soon disappear without a trace
> > due to the lack of interest.
> > This snobby attitude really gets to me.
>
> Snobby?
>
> If you ask most non-
>
>
>
>
>
> > owners what their dream sailplane is, they'll say a Discus2 or
> > some other $100K German ship. Getting closer to reality, they'll
> > say they would settle for an LS4 or an ASW20. Then at the level
> > of disposable income, they most likely have the money for a K6
> > or a Russia. I was one of these. I finally analyzed where I was
> > at with my flying and my finances and decided that instead of
> > waiting for the bank account to have the necessary funds for old
> > German glass, I would be farther ahead to get something now,
> > fly it for awhile and keep saving, then move up when the time
> > was right. 7 years after buying a Russia I am switching to an
> > ASW20. Was the short wing bird the way to go. YES!!! I have
> > had tons of fun learning to fly X/C with it and will miss it. Most
> > pilots I fly with in short wing gliders are not interested in hot
> > competition. They are interested in improving their skills and
> > enjoy the comradery of like minded individuals. A fun contest
> > like the 1-26ers have I think would be welcomed. I hope the
> > World class morphs into what Bill Snead suggests - a class
> > handicapped to +/-5% of the PW5. That would include a lot of
> > ships that have no place to go right now. Realizing that one big
> > reason that people fly short wing birds is the low cost of entry,
> > smaller meets at more locations would be the way to go. Not too
> > many people are going to pack up their PW5 or Russia and
> > travel thousands of miles to compete. Many will however, drive
> > within their state to attend. My 2 cents.
>
> > Brian Bange
>
> Most of them are not flying in Sports Class now. *Why do you think they
> would fly in a 13.5 Meter Class?
>
> And if they were flying in Sports Class, what is to be gained by
> establishing a new 13.5 Meter class?
>
> The comment here seems to be roughly the same as when we see people
> advocating kicking the modern gliders out of Sports Class -- if we just
> change the rules, lots of pilots will suddenly come out of the woodwork
> and start completing. *Not gonna happen.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why does everything revolve around flying for competition? Why can't
we look at what would best promote and encourage more people to learn
to fly sailplanes?

Maybe the younger generation and their quest for adrenalin laced
activites would find competitive soaring compelling, but how many can
afford their own sailplane? I see in soaring magazine that there are
some that can do that, kudos to them............I would be interested
to know the economic situation they are in to allow them the luxury of
flying sailplanes competetively.

I imagine a lot of us recognize the comp pilots as great guys/gals who
have done what it takes to fly in contests but beyond that, could care
less about them or their exploits.

I would rather read articles in soaring about great exploration
flights in the mountains by recreational pilots instead of Joe Go-fast
in his nifty new racing glider and how he won by 5 seconds.

I also find the concept of some one brave enough to consider offering
a sailplane that was fun to fly and had reasonable cross-country
performance to allow the recreational flyer to afford a new sailplane
and have a blast flying it. Rather than offering another glass slipper
that only Cinderella can afford. (just a metaphor folks)

There is room for all of us in the soaring tent.

Brad

vontresc

January 29th 09, 06:44 PM

First off I still am relatively new to saoring, and probably won't be
competeing in any organized contests in 2009, but reading all the
recent post regarding competitions has me interested.

I think we really do need a place for people who do not have the
latest and greatest carbon ship to compete. I think the idea for the
sports class is good, BUT there is no decent way I can compete in my
Ka-6 with someone in a Ventus 2. My fear is that creating a 13.5m
class will leave a lot of older gliders (read affordable) out in the
cold. Maybe splitting Sports (or at least scoring it as 2 groups)
would allow us to have more people compete in older gliders.

Pete

toad

January 29th 09, 07:25 PM

On Jan 29, 1:34*pm, Brad > wrote:

> Why does everything revolve around flying for competition?

Not everything, but this discussion is about a new 13.5 meter RACING
class.

On your last point. If you can figure out how to make ANY type of
sailplane truly affordable (say $20,000 for new) then the sport might
start growing like crazy. But there seems no way to build a glider
that cheap.

Todd Smith
3S

Brian Bange[_2_]

January 29th 09, 07:30 PM

At 18:06 29 January 2009, Greg Arnold wrote:
>Brian Bange wrote:
>>>>> I would be surprised if they ever get enough gliders
>> together to have a contest. If you are into racing, you will
buy
>> something with at least 15 meters of span.
>>> Yep. But that is the 1-26. We were talking about a new
13.5
>> meter class -- such a class would soon disappear without a
trace
>> due to the lack of interest.
>> This snobby attitude really gets to me.
>
>Snobby?
>
>
>If you ask most non-
>> owners what their dream sailplane is, they'll say a Discus2
or
>> some other $100K German ship. Getting closer to reality,
they'll
>> say they would settle for an LS4 or an ASW20. Then at the
level
>> of disposable income, they most likely have the money for a
K6
>> or a Russia. I was one of these. I finally analyzed where I
was
>> at with my flying and my finances and decided that instead
of
>> waiting for the bank account to have the necessary funds for
old
>> German glass, I would be farther ahead to get something
now,
>> fly it for awhile and keep saving, then move up when the
time
>> was right. 7 years after buying a Russia I am switching to an
>> ASW20. Was the short wing bird the way to go. YES!!! I
have
>> had tons of fun learning to fly X/C with it and will miss it.
Most
>> pilots I fly with in short wing gliders are not interested in hot
>> competition. They are interested in improving their skills and
>> enjoy the comradery of like minded individuals. A fun
contest
>> like the 1-26ers have I think would be welcomed. I hope the
>> World class morphs into what Bill Snead suggests - a class
>> handicapped to +/-5% of the PW5. That would include a lot
of
>> ships that have no place to go right now. Realizing that one
big
>> reason that people fly short wing birds is the low cost of
entry,
>> smaller meets at more locations would be the way to go. Not
too
>> many people are going to pack up their PW5 or Russia and
>> travel thousands of miles to compete. Many will however,
drive
>> within their state to attend. My 2 cents.
>>
>> Brian Bange
>
>Most of them are not flying in Sports Class now. Why do you
think they
>would fly in a 13.5 Meter Class?
>
>And if they were flying in Sports Class, what is to be gained by
>establishing a new 13.5 Meter class?
>
>The comment here seems to be roughly the same as when we
see people
>advocating kicking the modern gliders out of Sports Class -- if
we just
>change the rules, lots of pilots will suddenly come out of the
woodwork
>and start completing. Not gonna happen.
>

Two of us at my club tried to compete in a small mock sports
class that was being set up at a new location to prove to airport
management that they should allow glider competitions there.
One was a PW5 and the other was me in my Russia. The task
was set conservatively, yet neither one of us could finish it. Both
of us have accomplished diamond goal flights. There is just no
way that 30:1 mixes well with 40:1. I read in a report from the
Worlds at Reiti that the PW5's did not thermal well with the
heavier ships. In a gaggle the PW5's would be slower and
tighter, making things interesting for everyone. And, as I said,
the pilots of the short wing ships are in many cases new to the
whole competition scene. A friendly environment and tasks that
are reasonable for pilots of this caliber I think would be
attended. Especially if they were smaller and closer to home.
Mixing 30:1 into the present Sports class with all the other large
ships sharing the same airspace isn't going to attract short wing
attendance. Plus think about the mental aspect. Who wants to
be driving a Honda on the same track with Ferrari's?

Brian

Bob Kuykendall

January 29th 09, 08:00 PM

On Jan 29, 10:11*am, Tech Support <> wrote:

> Have you thought about some simple tooling a kit buyer could rent for
> putting togther critical assemblies (wing to fusrelage, tail *asembly,
> etc.).

Absolutely, I think about that a lot. What I'm trying to do is develop
"self-jigging" assemblies so that critical alignment elements are
already fixed into position, and you can use those elements to fix the
locations of related components.

But having a library of a few "iron bird" tools would be good too,
especially for things like aligning the horizontal stabilizer and
installing the wing carrythroughs.

Thanks, Bob K.

Andreas Maurer

January 30th 09, 05:56 PM

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:34:56 -0800 (PST), Brad >
wrote:

>Maybe the younger generation and their quest for adrenalin laced
>activites would find competitive soaring compelling, but how many can
>afford their own sailplane?

Hi Brad,

I admit that - from a European point of view- I'm having difficulties
to understand why most US based glider pilots think that it's
necessary to own a glider.

Here in Europe by far most gliders are owned by clubs, making it
possible for the club members to fligh latest technology for a yearly
price that hardly exceeds $800.

For most clubs in Germany it's common nowadays that student pilots
fly LS-4 or DG-300. Basic training is usually done in ASK-21 these
days. Nearly any club clubs offer flapped ships (ASW-20, ASW-27) and
state-of-the-art doubleseaters (Duo Dicus, DG-505) to its members.
There is absolutely no interest in flying something inferior.

Why isn't it possible to do that in the US? A couple of US clubs whose
homepages I've seen seem to be able to do that.

Bye
Andreas

Dan Silent[_2_]

January 30th 09, 06:30 PM

At 17:56 30 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:

>Here in Europe by far most gliders are owned by clubs, >making it
possible for the club members to fligh latest >technology for a yearly
price that hardly exceeds $800.

>Andreas

How many flights and how many hours do they typically fly
for a price that hardly exceeds $800.

Tows, winch?

Any other expense?

In this regard Italy is not certainly part of Europe!!!!

toad

January 30th 09, 06:33 PM

On Jan 30, 12:56*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:34:56 -0800 (PST), Brad >
> wrote:
>
> >Maybe the younger generation and their quest for adrenalin laced
> >activites would find competitive soaring compelling, but how many can
> >afford their own sailplane?
>
> Hi Brad,
>
> I admit that - from a European point of view- I'm having difficulties
> to understand why most US based glider pilots think that it's
> necessary to own a glider.
>
> Here in Europe by far most gliders are owned by clubs, making it
> possible for the club members to fligh latest technology for a yearly
> price that hardly exceeds $800.
>
> For most clubs in Germany *it's common nowadays that student pilots
> fly LS-4 or DG-300. Basic *training is usually done in ASK-21 these
> days. Nearly any club clubs offer flapped ships (ASW-20, ASW-27) and
> state-of-the-art doubleseaters (Duo Dicus, DG-505) to its members.
> There is absolutely no interest in flying something inferior.
>
> Why isn't it possible to do that in the US? A couple of US clubs whose
> homepages I've seen seem to be able to do that.
>
> Bye
> Andreas

Probably because in most US clubs, that $800 a year can only support
the airport, towplanes, a couple of two seat trainers, a couple of low
performance single seaters and maybe a ASK-21 or G-103.

To allow everybody to fly a LS-4 on the weekends would require maybe 1
LS-4 to 4 or 5 club members, if half of them showed up on the same day
and all got to fly for 2-3 hours.

So buying a $40,000 glider for 5 people would require a loan payment
of $6000/year plus insurance/maint of $1000/year. Ignoring other
expenses that still adds up to $1400/year/person.

I assumed 10% interest for 10 years.

So how does the math work out at your club ?

Todd Smith
3S

Dan Silent[_2_]

January 30th 09, 07:00 PM

Andreas Maurer

January 30th 09, 07:23 PM

On 30 Jan 2009 18:30:03 GMT, Dan Silent > wrote:

>At 17:56 30 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>>Here in Europe by far most gliders are owned by clubs, >making it
>possible for the club members to fligh latest >technology for a yearly
>price that hardly exceeds $800.
>
>>Andreas
>
>How many flights and how many hours do they typically fly
>for a price that hardly exceeds $800.

In my club:
Unlimited number of flights and hours, typically the fleet of 7
gliders does around 2.100 flights per year with about 1.700 hrs in
average.
In average 85-90 active pilots.
A keen student pilot easily manages 80 - 100 flights per year.

>Tows, winch?
Usually winch (of course).
>
>Any other expense?
No other expense.

These fees include a 255 Euro "flat rate" for an unlimited number of
winch launches and an unlimited number of flying hours. Member fee per
year is 64 Euro for student pilots and 128 Euro for members with an
income. At the current exchange rates this is about $500. Most German
clubs are slightly more expensive, this is why I mentioned the number
of $800.

The only additional fees are aerotows with a typical cost of 24
Euro/aerotow.

Bye
Andreas

Darryl Ramm

January 30th 09, 07:32 PM

On Jan 30, 9:56*am, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:34:56 -0800 (PST), Brad >
> wrote:
>
> >Maybe the younger generation and their quest for adrenalin laced
> >activites would find competitive soaring compelling, but how many can
> >afford their own sailplane?
>
> Hi Brad,
>
> I admit that - from a European point of view- I'm having difficulties
> to understand why most US based glider pilots think that it's
> necessary to own a glider.
>
> Here in Europe by far most gliders are owned by clubs, making it
> possible for the club members to fligh latest technology for a yearly
> price that hardly exceeds $800.
>
> For most clubs in Germany *it's common nowadays that student pilots
> fly LS-4 or DG-300. Basic *training is usually done in ASK-21 these
> days. Nearly any club clubs offer flapped ships (ASW-20, ASW-27) and
> state-of-the-art doubleseaters (Duo Dicus, DG-505) to its members.
> There is absolutely no interest in flying something inferior.
>
> Why isn't it possible to do that in the US? A couple of US clubs whose
> homepages I've seen seem to be able to do that.
>
> Bye
> Andreas

Lets see, why? Mmmm.... Population density differences. Differences in
geographic scale - i.e. borrowing glider to haul long distances to a
competition would often have more impact on a club in the USA. A long
history of established clubs in Europe that just is not here in the
USA. USA clubs and commercial operations with many klunky basic
trainers and natural inertia to get off this/sometimes a rigid belief
that is a much better approach than glass ships. Lower cost and more
interesting sports like hang gliding and paragliding that have been
particularly strong in the USA. A higher cost basis (e.g. less winch
operations in the USA) which suppresses ability to spend money on a
more modern fleet. A pilot licensing system that has nothing to do
with encouraging the sport or XC flying. A mishandling of XC training/
transition at many clubs and commercial operations that sees a huge
drop off in licensed pilots who never go XC let alone ever compete in
a contest (numbers comparing Europe to the USA would be interesting).
An economic inability to purchase newer fleets (remember the USA
buying power for European glass has been hurting). And on an on..

Instead of worrying about the gloom there are clubs in the USA that
get people into standard class and higher performance double seaters
ASAP and promote XC flying and loaning out gliders for camps and
safari's etc. I also strongly believe clubs need a Duo Discus or
DG-1000S class two seater ships for cross country mentoring and just
to have gliders in their fleet to interest/get new members to aspire
to. Bay Area Soaring Associates is an example or a club with a
DG-1000S and DG-505 (and a several standard class single seaters
etc.)

The other difference in the USA is there are relatively more
commercial operators than in Europe. And what is a club in one place
and a commercial operation can be all blurred. In California if I want
to fly something besides my ASH-26E I can rent an ASW-24 or similar,
Duo Discus and even an ASH-25 at very reasonable rates (and without
any hassles of club membership, maintenance etc). However as with
clubs what you find with commercial operators vary widely (clubs and
operators with gliders not set up for proper XC drive me nuts, crappy
varios, insufficient batteries, radios that don't work, no pee tube,
etc. and they wonder why they can't attract members...). Most
commercial operators are not going to want gliders leaving on safaris
or contests etc. (but it can happen at times).

Getting back to the original thread, adding another glider contest
class would do nothing to encourage an increase in gliding and is
likely to just make more work for everybody. If there is a informal
class of gliders that is organically successful and being held back
due to lack of formally organized contests or lack of class rules/
standardization between designs then by all means draw up another FAI
class. I suspect there is naturally something just anti-low cost
associated in establishing a conventional (not-one design) racing
class. Innovation within the class and the willingness of pilots to
pay for race winning designs drive up costs. And at the other extreme
where chasing a one-design type class where the performance is too low
to be an easy to fly XC machine - I think the oft used ~40:1 wisdom is
an interesting break point (there are two places I fly frequently
where a PW5, Russian or Sparrowhawk type glider is a non-starter since
I could not make typical final glide back from where the lift is).

If you want to lower costs you need reasonable volume and given the
thing is going to cost a reasonable amount of money you need to make
sure it is appealing enough to a wide audience even if that involves
stretching wingspan, and costs, to get into a performance sweetspot
(we can argue about what that sweetspot). Especially when compared to
the bang for the buck achieved when purchasing a used standard (or
15m) glider. Then just to top it off the World Class effort really
screwed up by having a design that just looks like a pregnant guppy. A
bit of a handicap in encourage the buzz and excitement a new class
would need. (Sorry PW5 owners, and I know many of you do some great
impressive flights in the PW5 and have blast in it.).

Darryl

toad

January 30th 09, 07:32 PM

So how many pilots can show up and expect on a good day to get a 3-5
hour XC flight in ? 7 gliders doesn't seem like enough for 80 pilots.

Todd Smith
3S

Andreas Maurer

January 30th 09, 07:33 PM

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:33:33 -0800 (PST), toad >
wrote:

>Probably because in most US clubs, that $800 a year can only support
>the airport, towplanes, a couple of two seat trainers, a couple of low
>performance single seaters and maybe a ASK-21 or G-103.

I know.
We have ASK-21, DG-505, SF-34, Ka-8b, 2*DG-300, ASW-24, ASW-27, Dimona
motorglider, DR-300 tow plane.

>To allow everybody to fly a LS-4 on the weekends would require maybe 1
>LS-4 to 4 or 5 club members, if half of them showed up on the same day
>and all got to fly for 2-3 hours.

Typical flying times in the club's gliders are shorter on a crowded
day since there are about 3 to 4 pilots per glider per day. Average
time per flight for ASK-21 basic training is about 15 minutes.

>So buying a $40,000 glider for 5 people would require a loan payment
>of $6000/year plus insurance/maint of $1000/year. Ignoring other
>expenses that still adds up to $1400/year/person.

>I assumed 10% interest for 10 years.
>
>So how does the math work out at your club ?

It works. The key is winch launching.

Income:
85 members, 370 Euro per year: 31.450 Euro

Costs:
Winch launch: 2.40 Euro
Typical number of winch launches: 1.700
Total costs of winch launches: 4080 Euro
Insurance for all gliders per year and other expenses: : 15.000 Euro.

Profit per year: about 12.500 Euro.

The tow plane just covers its costs.
A little additional profit is generated by the club house, too (less
than 2.000 Euro typically).

Bye
Andreas

Nyal Williams[_2_]

January 30th 09, 07:45 PM

Andreas,

It is a mind-set in US clubs. First, hardly any clubs use winches and
they must spend enormous amounts of money to own, operate, and insure tow
planes. Second, there are few places where a winch could be used that are
near a population area big enough to draw members to support a club; we see
a turnover of about 15% of the membership every year. Third, we are busy,
busy, busy in this country; we work longer hours and have more time
constraints than Europeans (I think this has been proved), and this means
that we want to show up, rig, fly, and leave without staying around all
day to help others and to be a true club where people hang out and
socialize with families. Most clubs don't have female pilots and wives
and girlfriends grow tired of coming to a place where there is nothing for
them to do or no one to socialize with. Fourth, all of this means we want
our own equipment so that we can treat it as we wish without consulting
others about it; this pride of ownership means that privately owned
gliders are beautifully kept, for the most part, and club machines are
"junk" in the words of a short-term (4 years) resident from Finland.

At 17:56 30 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:34:56 -0800 (PST), Brad
>wrote:
>
>>Maybe the younger generation and their quest for adrenalin laced
>>activites would find competitive soaring compelling, but how many can
>>afford their own sailplane?
>
>Hi Brad,
>
>I admit that - from a European point of view- I'm having difficulties
>to understand why most US based glider pilots think that it's
>necessary to own a glider.
>
>Here in Europe by far most gliders are owned by clubs, making it
>possible for the club members to fligh latest technology for a yearly
>price that hardly exceeds $800.
>
>For most clubs in Germany it's common nowadays that student pilots
>fly LS-4 or DG-300. Basic training is usually done in ASK-21 these
>days. Nearly any club clubs offer flapped ships (ASW-20, ASW-27) and
>state-of-the-art doubleseaters (Duo Dicus, DG-505) to its members.
>There is absolutely no interest in flying something inferior.
>
>
>Why isn't it possible to do that in the US? A couple of US clubs whose
>homepages I've seen seem to be able to do that.
>
>
>
>
>Bye
>Andreas
>

Udo Rumpf[_2_]

January 30th 09, 08:00 PM

At 17:56 30 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:34:56 -0800 (PST), Brad
>wrote:
>
>>Maybe the younger generation and their quest for adrenalin laced
>>activites would find competitive soaring compelling, but how many can
>>afford their own sailplane?
>
>Hi Brad,
>
>I admit that - from a European point of view- I'm having difficulties
>to understand why most US based glider pilots think that it's
>necessary to own a glider.
>
>Here in Europe by far most gliders are owned by clubs, making it
>possible for the club members to fligh latest technology for a yearly
>price that hardly exceeds $800.
>
>For most clubs in Germany it's common nowadays that student pilots
>fly LS-4 or DG-300. Basic training is usually done in ASK-21 these
>days. Nearly any club clubs offer flapped ships (ASW-20, ASW-27) and
>state-of-the-art doubleseaters (Duo Dicus, DG-505) to its members.
>There is absolutely no interest in flying something inferior.
>
>
>Why isn't it possible to do that in the US? A couple of US clubs whose
>homepages I've seen seem to be able to do that.
>
>
>
>
>Bye
>Andreas

Andreas,
the problems in the US and Canada are two fold.
Glider pilots per capita and as a result pilot density.
Also an important differance is the individualistic approach in the US.

There are a number of clubs that operate on the European model and are
successful but there are not enough of them due to the points mentioned
above.

Here in Ontario Canada, with about 12M people, only two Clubs approach
the European model. In Canada with 33M people we only have 1500 Glider
pilots.

I give you a personal example of the problem. When I started gliding in
my mid forties I was established and I owned by then a house in a small
town. The Club I joint was a 1hr drive away . The club had 35 members and
20 were mostly active. We had a Scout tow plane, a 2-33,a Blanik, a twin
astir and a
single astir. No club house and we did not own the field.
Due to a serious of unfortunate events the club went belly up.
I now became a roving pilot. The closest clubs were 3 and 4 hours way. In
the end I did not join any club I became a member at large of the National
club and joint the contest circuit. It was not ideal but still gratifying
and enjoyable.
Lucky for me I was able to pursue the hobby that way.
Now That I will reduce my contest flying, I wish I had a club nearby.
Selling the house and buying an other one near a club is out of the
question. Well, it looks like I may to buy a used self launcher which is
cheaper then moving.
Regards
Udo

>

John Smith

January 30th 09, 08:07 PM

Andreas Maurer wrote:

>> Here in Europe by far most gliders are owned by clubs, making it
>> possible for the club members to fligh latest technology for a yearly
>> price that hardly exceeds $800.

$800 ist *very* optimistic. It may be true for your club, but it
certainly isn't typical, not even in Europe.

I flew around 100 hours on club gliders last year, typically on LS8 or
DG1000, fully equiped with LX5000. (Ok, on some days when many pilots
showed up I had to take an LS4, which is our low-end glider...) All my
flights were cross country and usually I had a glider for my own for the
whole day (or a double seater with a second pilot).

This cost me around $4500 (beer not included). Which is still much less
than the annual cost I would have to pay for my own glider. And we
launch exclusively by aerotow.

Bob Kuykendall

January 30th 09, 09:05 PM

On Jan 29, 11:25*am, toad > wrote:

> On your last point. *If you can figure out how to make ANY type of
> sailplane truly affordable (say $20,000 for new) then the sport might
> start growing like crazy. *But there seems no way to build a glider
> that cheap.

Todd,

Brad and I have that one absolutely wired. There is a way, and the way
is clear. All it takes is a modest amount of hands-on assembly doing
stuff that you can learn how to do in a few evenings.

The puzzling human comedy there is how few people stay interested when
you tell them they need to learn a few new skills. And we're not even
talking about skills that are truly new, they are all things that my
grandmother did. It's, like, ohes noes, new skillez, you be stealin'
my bukkit! </lols>

Thanks, Bob K.

Jim Beckman[_2_]

January 30th 09, 09:15 PM

At 18:33 30 January 2009, toad wrote:.
>
>So how does the math work out at your club ?

Include consideration of what it costs for you to use the field, and any
assistance you get from the government. Remember that in the US soaring
is purely a private endeavor, as are most art forms, with no subsidy from
anybody.

Jim Beckman

Jim Beckman[_2_]

January 30th 09, 09:15 PM

At 19:23 30 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:

>In my club:
>Unlimited number of flights and hours, typically the fleet of 7
>gliders does around 2.100 flights per year with about 1.700 hrs in
>average.
>In average 85-90 active pilots.

So that sounds like around 12 active pilots per glider, with unlimited
hours. How do you manage contention for the gliders on the weekends?

Jim Beckman

toad

January 30th 09, 09:25 PM

On Jan 30, 4:05*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Jan 29, 11:25*am, toad > wrote:
>
> > On your last point. *If you can figure out how to make ANY type of
> > sailplane truly affordable (say $20,000 for new) then the sport might
> > start growing like crazy. *But there seems no way to build a glider
> > that cheap.
>
> Todd,
>
> Brad and I have that one absolutely wired. There is a way, and the way
> is clear. All it takes is a modest amount of hands-on assembly doing
> stuff that you can learn how to do in a few evenings.
>
> The puzzling human comedy there is how few people stay interested when
> you tell them they need to learn a few new skills. And we're not even
> talking about skills that are truly new, they are all things that my
> grandmother did. It's, like, ohes noes, new skillez, you be stealin'
> my bukkit! </lols>
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

Bob,

I've been following the HP-24 pages for a while. I can't see creating
a HP-24 in a "modest" amount of time, but send me the brochure ! I
would be very excited.

Todd

Jim Beckman[_2_]

January 30th 09, 09:30 PM

At 19:32 30 January 2009, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> Lower cost and more
>interesting sports like hang gliding and paragliding that have been
>particularly strong in the USA.

Another point is competition from power flying, which is a much more
attractive proposition in the US. I believe I'm correct in thinking that
flying power in most of Europe is much more expensive (and more highly
restricted) than in the US.

Jim Beckman

Brian Bange[_2_]

January 30th 09, 09:30 PM

Here are some local statistics - Houston TX area:

At my club we had 9 short wing gliders last season.
*One PW5 is a club ship and was flown in the World class
nationals by a member.
*4 PW5's are private and only one does not go X/C.
*3 Russia's are private, 2 go X/C and the third is working
toward that goal.
*One Woodstock is flown X/C by its builder on a regular basis.
*4 of the pilots have attended at least one X/C camp at a
location hundreds of miles away.
*All of the owners are over 50 except one.
*Two of the Russia's were sold this winter and the members are
moving up to 15M ships.

Here the short wing ships are doing what the SSA intended:
allowing prospective X/C pilots to buy affordable ships that are
relatively new and have performance that is good enough to go
X/C. I guess "affordable" should be used carefully, as we are all
"older" and probably have more disposable income than the
younger members. I have only seen one "youngster" buy a ship
in the last 5 years. I think disposable income is shrinking for our
younger pilots. I don't see as many these days, but perhaps I
am just no longer paying attention.

So... If our group of older pilots represents a larger group of
pilots nationwide (debatable) then competitions might want to be
oriented to fulfill their wants and desires. From personal
experience I can tell you this group of newbies does not want to
spend time getting their noses rubbed in the dirt by a bunch of
super pilots flying super ships. If you want them them to go to a
race IMHO, make it more like a camp or a mentoring program
and hold it separately from the longer wing competitions. Lots of
us just want to go fly with like minded friends. Some will feel
competitive, many will attend just to learn and build stick time. I
really think we need to look at this in a whole new way to make
it successful. Low stress, high fun factor.

I can tell you that within our club, we have doubled the number
of X/C pilots in the last 5 years. X/C has really come alive
because of the short wings.

Brian

Udo Rumpf[_2_]

January 30th 09, 09:30 PM

How much of that $4500.00 was in tow?
Udo

At 20:07 30 January 2009, John Smith wrote:
>Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>>> Here in Europe by far most gliders are owned by clubs, making it
>>> possible for the club members to fligh latest technology for a yearly
>>> price that hardly exceeds $800.
>
>$800 ist *very* optimistic. It may be true for your club, but it
>certainly isn't typical, not even in Europe.
>
>I flew around 100 hours on club gliders last year, typically on LS8 or
>DG1000, fully equiped with LX5000. (Ok, on some days when many pilots
>showed up I had to take an LS4, which is our low-end glider...) All my
>flights were cross country and usually I had a glider for my own for the

>whole day (or a double seater with a second pilot).
>
>This cost me around $4500 (beer not included). Which is still much less
>than the annual cost I would have to pay for my own glider. And we
>launch exclusively by aerotow.
>

John Smith

January 30th 09, 09:40 PM

> So that sounds like around 12 active pilots per glider, with unlimited
> hours. How do you manage contention for the gliders on the weekends?

I can't answer for Andreas, and 12 pilots per seat seems a little much.
In my club the relation is about 6 Pilots per seat.

Granted, if every single pilot wanted to fly cross country each
week-end, it wouldn't work. But do *you* fly every flyable day? Most
pilots have a also life outside gliding.

Most pilots don't fly each week-end. There are many pilots who fly
little, maybe 20 hours a year. There are pilots who are happy to fly two
hours locally on a sunday, they can easily share a glider. There are
retired pilots who don't show up on the week-ends but fly during the
weekdays when the rest of us must work. And then there are the camps.
European clubs usually organise camps during the holidays. There are
pilots who only fly in those camps. Others don't join the camps, because
they want to spend their holidays with their family.

Bottom line: The load balances. With the relation of 6 pilots per seat I
*never* didn't get a glider on sunday. Maybe not exactly the one I
wanted, but always something flyble and almost always a glider for me
alone for the whole day.

Bob Kuykendall

January 30th 09, 09:41 PM

On Jan 30, 1:25*pm, toad > wrote:

> Bob,
>
> I've been following the HP-24 pages for a while. *I can't see creating
> a HP-24 in a "modest" amount of time, but send me the brochure ! * I
> would be very excited.

Most of the time we've spent on the project has been dedicated to
making tooling and developing prototypes. I figure the actual build
time for the finalized kit will be down around 350 hours.

The only thing we have in the way of a brochure is here:

http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24/web_24_3view7.pdf

Thanks, Bob K.

Derek Copeland[_2_]

January 30th 09, 09:45 PM

At 21:15 30 January 2009, Jim Beckman wrote:
>At 19:23 30 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>>In my club:
>>Unlimited number of flights and hours, typically the fleet of 7
>>gliders does around 2.100 flights per year with about 1.700 hrs in
>>average.
>>In average 85-90 active pilots.
>
>So that sounds like around 12 active pilots per glider, with unlimited
>hours. How do you manage contention for the gliders on the weekends?
>
>Jim Beckman
>
Many European clubs have a ballot for the club gliders with a limit on the
time you can local soar, although cross-countries are unlimited. If you
don't *win* a glider in the ballot, and you don't mind waiting around
for a few hours you can usually get to fly later on in the day. The worst
case scenario is everyone flying off cross-country and landing out, in
which case you will be a 'crew'. Usually a good way of getting a meal
and some free beers though, and you will build up some 'credit' for when
you land out.

Derek Copeland

John Smith

January 30th 09, 09:46 PM

>> Lower cost and more
>> interesting sports like hang gliding and paragliding that have been
>> particularly strong in the USA.

If you want to fly something modestly attractive, paragliding is bot
cheaper than gliding at all. And not more interesting, either. Most
paragliders I know look with envy to the gliders. (Don't ask me why they
don't change, though.)

> Another point is competition from power flying, which is a much more
> attractive proposition in the US. I believe I'm correct in thinking that
> flying power in most of Europe is much more expensive (and more highly
> restricted) than in the US.

I don't know a single glider pilot who doesn't think that power flying
is just plain dull. Certainly useful, but nevertheless dull.

John Smith

January 30th 09, 09:50 PM

Udo Rumpf wrote:

> How much of that $4500.00 was in tow?

Roughly said: We have a flat member fee of roughly $2000 which includes
everything except tows. So the rest was obviously the tows.

John Smith

January 30th 09, 09:53 PM

>> How much of that $4500.00 was in tow?

> Roughly said: We have a flat rate member fee of roughly $2000 which includes
> everything except tows. So the rest was obviously the tows.

I forgot to add: Our tow fees are pretty high, we actually earn money
with the tows which helps keep the flat rate fee down.

Dan Silent[_2_]

January 30th 09, 10:15 PM

At 21:30 30 January 2009, Brian Bange wrote:

>At my club we had 9 short wing gliders last season.

>.....I can tell you this group of newbies does not want to
>spend time getting their noses rubbed in the dirt by a >bunch of super
pilots flying super ships. If you want them >them to go to a race IMHO,
make it more like a camp or a >mentoring program and hold it separately
from the longer >wing competitions. Lots of us just want to go fly with
like >minded friends.

LESS THEN 10 PCT OF GLIDER PILOTS COMPETE!
THE USED MARKET IS FILLED BY THE GLIDERS THEY SOLD....
THOSE GLIDERS WERE DESIGNED TO WIN, OF COURSE!!!

>Some will feel competitive, many will attend just to learn >and build
stick time. I really think we need to look at this >in a whole new way to
make it successful.
>Low stress, high fun factor.
>I can tell you that within our club, we have doubled the >number of X/C
pilots in the last 5 years. X/C has really >come alive because of the
short wings.
>
>Brian

WERE THOSE SHORT WINGS GLIDERS DESIGNED FOR FUN AND SAFE FLIGHTS?
OR WERE DESIGNED TO WIN IN THE NEW FAI CLASS:

THE SHORT WINGS HIGH FUN LOW STRESS CLASS

Brian Bange[_2_]

January 30th 09, 10:45 PM

>WERE THOSE SHORT WINGS GLIDERS DESIGNED FOR FUN
AND SAFE FLIGHTS?
>OR WERE DESIGNED TO WIN IN THE NEW FAI CLASS:
>
>THE SHORT WINGS HIGH FUN LOW STRESS CLASS
>
Most all were a product of the FAI's initiative to find a World
Class ship. I believe one requirement was that they were
designed to be easy to fly. In my experience with the Russia,
PW5 and L-33, they are. I believe all the FAI is trying to do is
include these ships into the World Class and handicap it, so as
to grow the class. If something new and more competitive
comes along, it will have to live under it's handicap, so where is
the advantage to making something that is hard to handle?

Brian

Andreas Maurer

January 30th 09, 10:52 PM

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:32:48 -0800 (PST), toad >
wrote:

>So how many pilots can show up and expect on a good day to get a 3-5
>hour XC flight in ? 7 gliders doesn't seem like enough for 80 pilots.

Usually 2 gliders are reserved for XC, each pilot has got about 5 to 6
weekend days per season where the glider belongs to him.

There are also about 7 private gliders which are used by the serious
XC pilots.

Of course, if necessary, we could trade the ASW-27 into two ASW-20's
if we felt the need to increase our capacity - but on most days the
current capacity is more than sufficient.

Brad[_2_]

January 30th 09, 10:53 PM

On Jan 30, 1:50*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> Udo Rumpf wrote:
> > How much of that $4500.00 was in tow?
>
> Roughly said: We have a flat member fee of roughly $2000 which includes
> everything except tows. So the rest was obviously the tows.

John,

How does your club deal with members that own their own sailplanes,
and never fly club gliders, but tow behind the club towplane? Would
the yearly member fee be the same for them even if all they do is use
the tow service?

Brad

Doug Hoffman

January 30th 09, 10:53 PM

Jim Beckman wrote:
> At 18:33 30 January 2009, toad wrote:.
>> So how does the math work out at your club ?
>
> Include consideration of what it costs for you to use the field, and any
> assistance you get from the government. Remember that in the US soaring
> is purely a private endeavor, as are most art forms, with no subsidy from
> anybody.

We have a totally new government in the US now and they seem more than
willing to take over and control what once were private decisions/endeavors.

Regards,

-Doug

Brad[_2_]

January 30th 09, 10:55 PM

On Jan 30, 2:53*pm, Doug Hoffman > wrote:
> Jim Beckman wrote:
> > At 18:33 30 January 2009, toad wrote:.
> >> So how does the math work out at your club ?
>
> > Include consideration of what it costs for you to use the field, and any
> > assistance you get from the government. *Remember that in the US soaring
> > is purely a private endeavor, as are most art *forms, with no subsidy from
> > anybody.
>
> We have a totally new government in the US now and they seem more than
> willing to take over and control what once were private decisions/endeavors.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Doug

Eric...................Eric where are you?

Brad

John Smith

January 30th 09, 10:57 PM

> How does your club deal with members that own their own sailplanes,
> and never fly club gliders, but tow behind the club towplane? Would
> the yearly member fee be the same for them even if all they do is use
> the tow service?

Simply said, they pay a reduced member fee. The exact scheme is a bit
more complicated.

Andreas Maurer

January 30th 09, 10:57 PM

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:07:06 +0100, John Smith
> wrote:

>Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>>> Here in Europe by far most gliders are owned by clubs, making it
>>> possible for the club members to fligh latest technology for a yearly
>>> price that hardly exceeds $800.
>
>$800 ist *very* optimistic. It may be true for your club, but it
>certainly isn't typical, not even in Europe.

It is completely realistic for Germany.

>I flew around 100 hours on club gliders last year, typically on LS8 or
>DG1000, fully equiped with LX5000. (Ok, on some days when many pilots
>showed up I had to take an LS4, which is our low-end glider...) All my
>flights were cross country and usually I had a glider for my own for the
>whole day (or a double seater with a second pilot).

>This cost me around $4500 (beer not included). Which is still much less
>than the annual cost I would have to pay for my own glider. And we
>launch exclusively by aerotow.

Pretty amazing. $45 per hour.
Just for comparison:
In Germany a glider is regarded as "expensive" if it costs 10 Euro per
hour. Usually the fee per hour for a standard class glider is about 5
Euro per hour, 8 to 10 Euro being a Duo Discus.

Andreas Maurer

January 30th 09, 10:58 PM

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:53:54 +0100, John Smith
> wrote:

>>> How much of that $4500.00 was in tow?
>
>> Roughly said: We have a flat rate member fee of roughly $2000 which includes
>> everything except tows. So the rest was obviously the tows.
>
>I forgot to add: Our tow fees are pretty high, we actually earn money
>with the tows which helps keep the flat rate fee down.

You call $2000 "down"? Gosh.

Andreas Maurer

January 30th 09, 10:59 PM

On 30 Jan 2009 21:15:03 GMT, Jim Beckman >
wrote:

>So that sounds like around 12 active pilots per glider, with unlimited
>hours. How do you manage contention for the gliders on the weekends?

Restriction of flying time, depending on the number of pilots per
glider.

Andreas Maurer

January 30th 09, 11:01 PM

On 30 Jan 2009 21:15:03 GMT, Jim Beckman >
wrote:

>At 18:33 30 January 2009, toad wrote:.
>>
>>So how does the math work out at your club ?
>
>Include consideration of what it costs for you to use the field, and any
>assistance you get from the government. Remember that in the US soaring
>is purely a private endeavor, as are most art forms, with no subsidy from
>anybody.

No help from government here either.
$11 per gallon of avgas doesn't help, too.

Brad[_2_]

January 30th 09, 11:05 PM

On Jan 30, 2:57*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> > How does your club deal with members that own their own sailplanes,
> > and never fly club gliders, but tow behind the club towplane? Would
> > the yearly member fee be the same for them even if all they do is use
> > the tow service?
>
> Simply said, they pay a reduced member fee. The exact scheme is a bit
> more complicated.

John,

I would like to know more about how your club deals with that
issue..............our club used to have a similar policy, but for
some (insert expletive here) chose to do away with it. Funny thing is,
most of the BOD members don't own their own gliders, and don't fly
nearly as much as the private owners.

Brad

John Smith

January 30th 09, 11:15 PM

> Pretty amazing. $45 per hour.

Not so amazing considering that virtually all my tows are aerotows, that
all our gliders are equipped with LX5000, an EDS oxygen system and good
instruments, that the LS4 is our low end glider etc. Not to mention a
couple fo TMG hours.

I certainly couldn't even think of flying a comparable glider if I had
to own it.

John Smith

January 30th 09, 11:23 PM

> You call $2000 "down"? Gosh.

It has been our decision to operate a fleet of high end gliders, and
somehow it must be paid. Of course if we operated a fleet of ASK13 and
K8 with basic instrumentation and our thermal situation would allow to
go cross country from the winch...

Andy[_1_]

January 30th 09, 11:45 PM

On Jan 30, 2:46*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> I don't know a single glider pilot who doesn't think that power flying
> is just plain dull. Certainly useful, but nevertheless dull.

Well it's true that you don't know me, but if you did I'd raise the
count from zero to one. I've instructed, towed, flown jumpers, flown
sea planes, and tail wheel, done some aerobatics, dodged weather to
deliver blood and even flew one of them whirly things (Bell 47) once.
In fact all sorts of flying of powered aircraft ranging in size from a
J3 to an MD-11. Some parts were routine, some part of it were
exciting, but I don't remember thinking that any of it was dull.

Dull is sitting in glider and staying within gliding range of the
launch point while your friends race.

Andy

Brad[_2_]

January 30th 09, 11:47 PM

friends race.
>
> Andy

define race?

Brad

Dan Silent[_2_]

January 31st 09, 12:15 AM

At 22:57 30 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:

>Pretty amazing. $45 per hour.
>Just for comparison:
>In Germany a glider is regarded as "expensive" if it costs 10 Euro per
>hour. Usually the fee per hour for a standard class glider is about 5
>Euro per hour, 8 to 10 Euro being a Duo Discus.
>

US$45 per hour. VERY GOOD DEAL FOR 100 H

typical in Canada:
CA$120 per hour rent a C150
CA$160 per hour rent a C172 with 5000.00 in advance
CA$180 per hour rent a Sinus Motorglider
CA$100 per hour club plastic glider double seater
CA$100 per short joy glider ride
CA$100 per hour as ballast on a Duo

(sometime the cad is at par with the usd)

But up here we complain more about ****ty weather
then high prices....................

By the way, to stay on the topic, any short wing glider made in
Germany???

toad

January 31st 09, 12:25 AM

On Jan 30, 4:41*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:25*pm, toad > wrote:
>
> > Bob,
>
> > I've been following the HP-24 pages for a while. *I can't see creating
> > a HP-24 in a "modest" amount of time, but send me the brochure ! * I
> > would be very excited.
>
> Most of the time we've spent on the project has been dedicated to
> making tooling and developing prototypes. I figure the actual build
> time for the finalized kit will be down around 350 hours.
>
> The only thing we have in the way of a brochure is here:
>
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24/web_24_3view7.pdf
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

It that 350 for you or for me :-)

Just kidding, I'll figure in the standard safety factor for kit built
aircraft. But seriously, will it require a builder to do the
gelcoat finishing ? That sounds like a huge amount of work just
there.

Todd

PS nice Yosemite pics, makes me want to go see the place again. A
long time ago I visited summers to climb there.

Dan Silent[_2_]

January 31st 09, 12:30 AM

At 23:45 30 January 2009, Andy wrote:

>Dull is sitting in glider and staying within gliding range of the
>launch point while your friends race.
>
>Andy
>

THIS DULL IS FINE FOR ME, Mr Beenthere Donethat!
Particularly on a SWG (Short Wing Glider)
Or flying a magnificent 30:1 ASK21, sometime unable to get to
the next thermal, but having FUN!

Bob Kuykendall

January 31st 09, 12:55 AM

On Jan 30, 4:25 pm, toad > wrote:
>...But seriously, will it require a builder to do the
> gelcoat finishing ? That sounds like a huge amount of work just
> there.

I don't know yet. So far gelcoat has been a big pain for us.

If we do supply shells without gelcoat, it doesn't necessarily mean
that the builder will have to mess with gelcoat themselves. It just
means that the builder will apply primer and then topcoat, which can
be relatively straightforward with the water-borne composite finishing
systems available these days.

> PS nice Yosemite pics, makes me want to go see the place again. A
> long time ago I visited summers to climb there.

Well, come on back if you can. If you get here early some morning
we'll cruise the Royal Arches or something easy like it.

Thanks, Bob K.

Andreas Maurer

January 31st 09, 02:14 AM

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:23:08 +0100, John Smith
> wrote:

>> You call $2000 "down"? Gosh.
>
>It has been our decision to operate a fleet of high end gliders, and
>somehow it must be paid. Of course if we operated a fleet of ASK13 and
>K8 with basic instrumentation and our thermal situation would allow to
>go cross country from the winch...

Which aircraft do you have, and what do you charge for an aerotow?

Andreas Maurer

January 31st 09, 02:18 AM

On 31 Jan 2009 00:15:02 GMT, Dan Silent > wrote:

>By the way, to stay on the topic, any short wing glider made in
>Germany???

Sure - the Lo-100 and Mü-28 unlimited aerobatic gliders... <vbg>

Seriously there have been at least a dozen gliders with less than 15
meters... but they all were only prototypes made by akafliegs. Less
than 15 meters never sparked any interest of customers.

And, of course, the Ka-6 started with 14.40 meters.

Steve Leonard[_2_]

January 31st 09, 03:15 AM

At 02:18 31 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>And, of course, the Ka-6 started with 14.40 meters.
>
>
Well, actually it started at 14.1 meters, then grew to 14.4 and on to 15.0
when the Standard Class was formed. And the wing later grew to 18 meters
for the ASK-18.

But in any form, the Ka-6 is a thing of beauty.

Steve Leonard
Ka-6CrPE
N958Z

Eric Greenwell

January 31st 09, 06:20 AM

Doug Hoffman wrote:
> Jim Beckman wrote:
>> At 18:33 30 January 2009, toad wrote:.
>>> So how does the math work out at your club ?
>>
>> Include consideration of what it costs for you to use the field, and any
>> assistance you get from the government. Remember that in the US soaring
>> is purely a private endeavor, as are most art forms, with no subsidy
>> from
>> anybody.
>
> We have a totally new government in the US now and they seem more than
> willing to take over and control what once were private
> decisions/endeavors.

Banking - yes, gliders - no.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

bumper

January 31st 09, 07:04 AM

"John Smith" > wrote in > I don't know a single
glider pilot who doesn't think that power flying
> is just plain dull. Certainly useful, but nevertheless dull.

I don't think so! In fact, reflecting on this some, not sure I know of *any*
kind of flying that is "dull".

I was a power pilot 1st, then got my glider add-on in '97 (USA). Besides my
glider (ASH26E), I have a Husky A1-B that is an absolute blast to fly. I can
think of dozens of adjectives, none of which truly capture the joy and
exhilaration . . . and none of which comes anywhere near "dull".

If you knew me, make that 2.

bumper
Quiet Vent kit and MKIII "high tech" yaw string

Derek Copeland[_2_]

January 31st 09, 10:15 AM

Any sort of flying is fun, but soaring a glider cross-country is the most
fun you can have with your clothes on (IMHO).

What is not fun (i.e. dull) is sitting in a farmers field for hours while
you wait for someone to come and collect you after a land out. The problem
with short winged gliders is that they increase the possibility of not
being able to glide to the next source of lift, particularly in the UK
which has very patchy and inconsistent weather and often quite low
cloudbases.

It is actually aspect ratio (span/mean chord) rather than span that
defines a glider's performance. To achieve a high aspect ratio and a
sensible wing loading with a short span wing, you would have to make the
glider very light by using exotic and expensive materials. So the cost
savings may not be as great as you think....!

The glide angle of a K21 is actually about 34:1, which is about the best
you could expect from a 13.5m single seater.

Derek Copeland

At 00:30 31 January 2009, Dan Silent wrote:
>At 23:45 30 January 2009, Andy wrote:
>
>>Dull is sitting in glider and staying within gliding range of the
>>launch point while your friends race.
>>
>>Andy
>>
>
>THIS DULL IS FINE FOR ME, Mr Beenthere Donethat!
>Particularly on a SWG (Short Wing Glider)
>Or flying a magnificent 30:1 ASK21, sometime unable to get to
>the next thermal, but having FUN!
>
>

Jim Beckman[_2_]

January 31st 09, 12:30 PM

At 21:45 30 January 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>>
>Many European clubs have a ballot for the club gliders with a limit on
the
>time you can local soar, although cross-countries are unlimited. If you
>don't *win* a glider in the ballot, and you don't mind waiting around
>for a few hours you can usually get to fly later on in the day.

But if you want to fly XC, then flying later in the day doesn't do you
any good, really.

If you "lose" the ballot on one day, does that give you some sort of
priority for the next opportunity?

Jim Beckman

Jim Beckman[_2_]

January 31st 09, 12:45 PM

At 22:52 30 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:32:48 -0800 (PST), toad
>wrote:
>
>>So how many pilots can show up and expect on a good day to get a 3-5
>>hour XC flight in ? 7 gliders doesn't seem like enough for 80 pilots.
>
>Usually 2 gliders are reserved for XC, each pilot has got about 5 to 6
>weekend days per season where the glider belongs to him.

Let's see if I can manage these numbers at all. 80 pilots,
five days, that's 400 days. Divide by 2 XC gliders, that's
200 days. Divide again by 2 days per weekend, that comes
to around 100 weekends per season. Where did you say all
this happens? And I don't suppose it ever rains?

Jim Beckman

Jim Beckman[_2_]

January 31st 09, 12:45 PM

At 22:59 30 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On 30 Jan 2009 21:15:03 GMT, Jim Beckman
>wrote:
>
>>So that sounds like around 12 active pilots per glider, with unlimited
>>hours. How do you manage contention for the gliders on the weekends?
>
>Restriction of flying time, depending on the number of pilots per
>glider.

Which pretty much means no XC flying for those guys, right?

Jim Beckman

Jim Beckman[_2_]

January 31st 09, 12:45 PM

At 23:01 30 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>No help from government here either.
>$11 per gallon of avgas doesn't help, too.

What does it cost you to use the field, or do you own it (in which case,
how much do you pay in taxes for the field)? Oh, and while we're at it,
just where is the field? I'd really like to understand how the Europeans
keep the costs so low - it would be nice if we could do the same here in
the Colonies.

Jim Beckman

Andy[_1_]

January 31st 09, 03:21 PM

On Jan 30, 5:30*pm, Dan Silent > wrote:
> THIS DULL IS FINE FOR ME, Mr Beenthere Donethat!

I'll rephrase what I wrote so my intention is more clear.

"Dull *for me* is sitting in a glider and staying within gliding range
of the launch point while *my* friends race."

I have no interest in judging whether other people's activities are
exciting or dull to them.

Andy

toad

January 31st 09, 03:37 PM

On Jan 30, 5:52*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:32:48 -0800 (PST), toad >
> wrote:
>
> >So how many pilots can show up and expect on a good day to get a 3-5
> >hour XC flight in ? *7 gliders doesn't seem like enough for 80 pilots.
>
> Usually 2 gliders are reserved for XC, each pilot has got about 5 to 6
> weekend days per season where the glider belongs to him.
>
> There are also about 7 private gliders which are used by the serious
> XC pilots.
>
> Of course, if necessary, we could trade the ASW-27 into two ASW-20's
> if we felt the need to increase our capacity - but on most days the
> current capacity is more than sufficient.

This brings me back to your original perception about US pilots all
wanting to own their own glider. That perception might be skewed by
only hearing from the US pilots who post here, who are mostly "serious
XC pilots", or want to be. There are lots of US glider pilots flying
club equipment and having fun, but the time limits on flights during
weekends prevent them from doing much XC until they buy a glider
themselves or withing a partnership. Those club pilots spend less
time on RAS :-)

Todd Smith
3S

Derek Copeland[_2_]

January 31st 09, 05:45 PM

At 12:30 31 January 2009, Jim Beckman wrote:
>At 21:45 30 January 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>>>
>>Many European clubs have a ballot for the club gliders with a limit on
>the
>>time you can local soar, although cross-countries are unlimited. If you
>>don't *win* a glider in the ballot, and you don't mind waiting around
>>for a few hours you can usually get to fly later on in the day.
>
>But if you want to fly XC, then flying later in the day doesn't do you
>any good, really.
>
>If you "lose" the ballot on one day, does that give you some sort of
priority for the next opportunity?
>
No, but as I have already said, you can almost always take over a glider
once the first pilot has finished with it, and the ballot will balance
itself out over the year. I have done 200 km cross-country fights after
taking over a glider in mid afternoon.

My club will also allow you to book a certain number of the club gliders
for the day, or the week, in advance, if you want to do something bigger
or enter a competition.

The club system allows me to fly gliders that I couldn't possibly afford
to buy myself. Think of it as being a big syndicate.

Derek Copeland

Bob Kuykendall

January 31st 09, 06:22 PM

On Jan 31, 2:15*am, Derek Copeland > wrote:

> What is not fun (i.e. dull) is sitting in a farmers field for hours while
> you wait for someone to come and collect you after a land out...

Call me strange, but some of my most entertaining adventures have been
outlandings and retrieves. All of my most memorable flights have been
where I almost landed out, and scraped away from a field or dry lake
to make final glide. As in rock climbing, it's the contrast between
risk and reward that puts the true spark in it.

Thanks, Bob K.

Bob Kuykendall

January 31st 09, 06:40 PM

On Jan 28, 6:01*pm, DRN > wrote:

> Tooling and engineering for a new glider costs millions...

Oops, I forgot to respond to that earlier: Sure, you can spend a
million bucks on a program like that if you do nothing but throw money
at all of the problems and issues. It's like when your only tool is a
hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But, no, it doesn't have to
cost "millions" or even the better part of a single million.

Thanks, Bob K.

toad

January 31st 09, 07:21 PM

On Jan 31, 1:22*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2:15*am, Derek Copeland > wrote:
>
> > What is not fun (i.e. dull) is sitting in a farmers field for hours while
> > you wait for someone to come and collect you after a land out...
>
> Call me strange, but some of my most entertaining adventures have been
> outlandings and retrieves. All of my most memorable flights have been
> where I almost landed out, and scraped away from a field or dry lake
> to make final glide. As in rock climbing, it's the contrast between
> risk and reward that puts the true spark in it.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

Yeah, but there is a limit to the number of landouts that qualify as
fun. Every once in a while is fun. On every other flight is not
fun.

Todd

Udo Rumpf[_2_]

January 31st 09, 08:45 PM

At 18:40 31 January 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>On Jan 28, 6:01=A0pm, DRN wrote:
>
>> Tooling and engineering for a new glider costs millions...
>
>Oops, I forgot to respond to that earlier: Sure, you can spend a
>million bucks on a program like that if you do nothing but throw money
>at all of the problems and issues. It's like when your only tool is a
>hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But, no, it doesn't have to
>cost "millions" or even the better part of a single million.
>
>Thanks, Bob K.
>

Bob,
Schleicher may have spent a million on there innovative designs, the ASW24
&27.
If you were to condense your 10 year plus program into a 2 years, that
would mean 100% of the work has to be funded in a commercial setting to
pay for design, labour, shop floor and more. If you have personally
invested (a guess) 3000 hr and if you would have charged out at a rate of
$ 75.00 per/hr, all costs inclusive, we are now talking real bucks.
Adding a new airfoil design could cost tenth of thousand of $ if done
commercially. Delft University charges big bucks for there services. Your
New HP has proven design elements, including the airfoil, which keeps the
cost down. Yours is a big project and I admire your determination.
Udo

Andreas Maurer

January 31st 09, 09:03 PM

On 31 Jan 2009 12:45:03 GMT, Jim Beckman >
wrote:

>At 22:52 30 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>>On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:32:48 -0800 (PST), toad
>>wrote:
>>
>>>So how many pilots can show up and expect on a good day to get a 3-5
>>>hour XC flight in ? 7 gliders doesn't seem like enough for 80 pilots.
>>
>>Usually 2 gliders are reserved for XC, each pilot has got about 5 to 6
>>weekend days per season where the glider belongs to him.
>
>Let's see if I can manage these numbers at all. 80 pilots,
>five days, that's 400 days. Divide by 2 XC gliders, that's
>200 days. Divide again by 2 days per weekend, that comes
>to around 100 weekends per season. Where did you say all
>this happens? And I don't suppose it ever rains?

Not everyone is flying XC in my club every day.
First of all, you have to deduct 25 student pilots, resulting in about
60 licensed piltos who are alowed to go XC.

Of those, in 2008 22 pilots took part in XC-flying with club gliders,
some reserving a glider for their vacatiuon or for a competition. We
reserved two gliders per day (two single seaters or one single seater
and one double seater) for XC. Depending on the weather, some XC with
a reserved glider pilots don't even show up, freing up the glider for
someone else. Most of the XC flying on club gliders is done during the
week.

All of the "really serious" XC pilots own a glider.
Works pretty well - actually, often we don't even use all the glider
we have.

Andreas Maurer

January 31st 09, 09:08 PM

On 31 Jan 2009 12:45:03 GMT, Jim Beckman >
wrote:

>>Restriction of flying time, depending on the number of pilots per
>>glider.
>
>Which pretty much means no XC flying for those guys, right?

Indeed.
But it's amazing: Often at less-than-perfect weather we only use one
of our DG-300s because the pilots are too lazy to invest the ten
minutes to assemble the second 300. Instead they limit themselves to
one hour or 90 minutes because they have to share the remaining 300
with three to four other pilots.
Hard to understand - especially if you consider the fact that in my
club with our flatrate a flight with a winch launch is completely
free, even if it takes the whole day...
Lazy folks.

Andreas Maurer

January 31st 09, 09:14 PM

On 31 Jan 2009 12:45:04 GMT, Jim Beckman >
wrote:

>What does it cost you to use the field, or do you own it (in which case,
>how much do you pay in taxes for the field)? Oh, and while we're at it,
>just where is the field? I'd really like to understand how the Europeans
>keep the costs so low - it would be nice if we could do the same here in
>the Colonies.

Well... in the past we used the fiel essentially for free.
In 1999 we bought the airfield for about 300.000 Euro (which we shared
50:50 with the second club at Landau). The repayment of our 150.000
Euro share is going to be finished in 2011.
Unfortunately we were not able to invest in new gliders since 1999, so
the average age of our fleet has suffered badly.

Here's our website:
www.djk-landau.de

Surfer!

January 31st 09, 09:16 PM

In message >, Andreas Maurer
> writes
<snip>
>
>These fees include a 255 Euro "flat rate" for an unlimited number of
>winch launches and an unlimited number of flying hours.
> Member fee per
>year is 64 Euro for student pilots and 128 Euro for members with an
>income. At the current exchange rates this is about $500. Most German
>clubs are slightly more expensive, this is why I mentioned the number
>of $800.

That is very cheap flying. My UK club charges £7 per winch launch and
38p/minute, though that clock stops ticking after 2 1/2 hours. Another
UK club charges 50p/minute, and remember that the UK Pound and the Euro
are pretty much equivalent these days.

There are other reasons for flying my own glider as well.

1) I can fly when I want for as long as I want - no-one will be calling
me back so someone else can have a go in it. I heard the Discus being
called back on a lovely wave day not long after I got it, and smiled as
it wasn't going to happen to me.
2) Trying to go XC is logistically simpler. I know I have a road-worth
trailer etc., plus see point 1 above - no problem when I land in a field
other than getting a retrieve crew to come out for me.
3) I fly a glider that is comfortable for me. My club has Juniors and a
Discus, and I do not fit the Discus.
4) I know who has been flying it (me!) and what they have done to it.
5) My canopy is in fantastic condition compared to all the club gliders.
6) I can take it to other clubs in the UK without having to grovel to
the Committee to get permission to take a club glider away from the
site.

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

Jim Beckman[_2_]

January 31st 09, 10:15 PM

At 21:03 31 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>Not everyone is flying XC in my club every day.
>First of all, you have to deduct 25 student pilots, resulting in about
>60 licensed piltos who are alowed to go XC.
>
>Of those, in 2008 22 pilots took part in XC-flying with club gliders,

Only 22 pilots? Now the numbers starts to make sense. What they actually
tell us is that your club gliders don't really fly all that much
cross-country. Which is fine, of course.

>some reserving a glider for their vacatiuon or for a competition. We
>reserved two gliders per day (two single seaters or one single seater
>and one double seater) for XC.

Which also makes sense - about a quarter of the fleet flown XC by about a
quarter of your pilots. I would guess that our own club in Blairstown
does about that well with XC in club gliders, although our fleet looks
shabby indeed next to yours.

Jim Beckman

Jim Beckman[_2_]

January 31st 09, 10:15 PM

At 21:14 31 January 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>Well... in the past we used the fiel essentially for free.
>In 1999 we bought the airfield for about 300.000 Euro (which we shared
>50:50 with the second club at Landau). The repayment of our 150.000
>Euro share is going to be finished in 2011.

I'm starting to lose track of which club is which, but you seem to be
raising this amount of capital with around 80 or so members? This is the
kind of thing that we always seem unable to do, even though we have
something close to your membership numbers. Was this all paid for out of
yearly flying fees? I suppose the advantages of owning and controlling
your own field makes up for not upgrading your fleet for those years. On
the other hand, I suppose your club is paying taxes on the property now?

Jim Beckman

Martin Gregorie[_4_]

January 31st 09, 11:40 PM

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:45:03 +0000, Derek Copeland wrote:

> At 12:30 31 January 2009, Jim Beckman wrote:
>>At 21:45 30 January 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>>>>
>>>Many European clubs have a ballot for the club gliders with a limit on
>>the
>>>time you can local soar, although cross-countries are unlimited. If you
>>>don't *win* a glider in the ballot, and you don't mind waiting around
>>>for a few hours you can usually get to fly later on in the day.
>>
>>But if you want to fly XC, then flying later in the day doesn't do you
>>any good, really.
>>
>>If you "lose" the ballot on one day, does that give you some sort of
> priority for the next opportunity?
>>
> No, but as I have already said, you can almost always take over a glider
> once the first pilot has finished with it, and the ballot will balance
> itself out over the year. I have done 200 km cross-country fights after
> taking over a glider in mid afternoon.
>
> My club will also allow you to book a certain number of the club gliders
> for the day, or the week, in advance, if you want to do something bigger
> or enter a competition.
>
> The club system allows me to fly gliders that I couldn't possibly afford
> to buy myself. Think of it as being a big syndicate.
>
Other clubs have variations. My club has five single seaters - two
Juniors, two Discus 1s and a Pegase.

The Juniors can be flown by anybody, but early solo pilots have first
dibs and are encouraged do all three Silver legs in them. If flown off
the winch you only pay for the launch and any flight time in excess of 15
minutes.

The Discii and the Peg are collectively known as the High Performance
Fleet and are operated as a syndicate, the HPF scheme, which is limited
to 12 members. HPF Scheme members buy blocks of time up front and get
priority booking for these gliders. They are expected to be flown xc, can
be taken to Interclub League events (two day meets) and have been flown
in Regionals as team entries (I did that one year. We had a ball).
Anybody else can fly these gliders when no Scheme member wants them.

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

Andreas Maurer

February 1st 09, 01:25 AM

On 31 Jan 2009 22:15:02 GMT, Jim Beckman >
wrote:

>Only 22 pilots? Now the numbers starts to make sense. What they actually
>tell us is that your club gliders don't really fly all that much
>cross-country. Which is fine, of course.

Well.. let me put it this way:

In 2008 club members made 53.000 kilometers in the OLC (similar to
your club), placing us in the top ten percent of Germany's flying
clubs, most of them situated in far better thermal conditions than our
airfield. 30.000 kilometers of those were flown in club gliders.
Nearly all pensioned members don't even try to fly XC on the weekends
because they fly during the week were the other pilots need work (but
they appear on the airfield to help and to have a good time). You'd
need to add these 10 to 15 people to the 22 pilots which are on the XC
reservation list.
BTW: At the moment the entire German 15m-class national team consists
of pilots of my club
I'm pretty content with the situation. :)

>Which also makes sense - about a quarter of the fleet flown XC by about a
>quarter of your pilots. I would guess that our own club in Blairstown
>does about that well with XC in club gliders, although our fleet looks
>shabby indeed next to yours.

We're having this dicussion since at least a decade: One
state-of-the-art glider (e.g. ASW-27) or two older ones which are
hardly inferior (e.g. ASW-20)? So far we have more than sufficient
gliders for XC pilots, but we just bought an old Mistral-C as a first
single seater after the 21 because we got so many new student pilots
last year (THIS is what is missing: a basic trainer, compatible to the
ASK-21, and affordable).

But it's interesting: Most XC pilots of my club are pretty content if
they fly two to three hours and return with 200 to 250 kilometers. The
number of hardcore XC pilots who try to fly as far as possible
whenever the weather allows it is very limited - less than five (I'm
one of them - fortunately I have exclusive access to a pretty good
private glider).
Looks like most members of my club regard gliding as a pretty
recreational sport - few of them are ambitious. :)

Maybe one cause for that is that we have a very good social life (and
an own club house) - on weekends there's always an afternoon tea,
dinner and lunch, lots of wifes and children around. Many good causes
to land and have a coffee and some self-made cake...
I guess this is what makes many German clubs different from US clubs:
The social life often plays a part that is nearly as impoortant as the
flying.

Andreas Maurer

February 1st 09, 01:39 AM

On 31 Jan 2009 22:15:05 GMT, Jim Beckman >
wrote:

Hi again Jim,

>I'm starting to lose track of which club is which, but you seem to be
>raising this amount of capital with around 80 or so members?

Basically you are correct - we pay all our expenses from the fees of
the members.
In total we have about 170 members (In Germany we have so-called
"passive" members who are members of the club without having any
benefits - they pay 5 Euro per month which can be regarded as a
donation).

> This is the
>kind of thing that we always seem unable to do, even though we have
>something close to your membership numbers. Was this all paid for out of
>yearly flying fees?

Yes.

> I suppose the advantages of owning and controlling
>your own field makes up for not upgrading your fleet for those years. On
>the other hand, I suppose your club is paying taxes on the property now?

In Germany clubs have a huge advantage: They do not need to pay taxes
for property - so we don't have tro pay any taxes for the airfield,
either. A huge help.

But things sound brighter than they are: At the moment we are trying
to find the best way to pay for a new hangar (our current one is 45
years old and needs replacement in the next five years). Got 200.000
Euros to spare? ;)

I'd be most interested to see the calculation (income vs expenses) of
a typical US club - to be honest, I cannot really imagine where all
the -huge to me- fees of the members go to.

rlovinggood

February 1st 09, 04:21 AM

Andreas and all:

May I try to give an American's view of DJK Segelfluggemeinschaft?

Back in the previous century, from 1983 to 1986, the club that Andreas
belongs to now (he was not a member back then) allowed me to enter
their soaring sanctuary and become a member of their club. At that
time, the club had:
Ka-7
Ka-8b (they still have this glider)
Standard Astir
Grob 103 Acro
ASW-15
ASW-20BL (Is there anything prettier than an ASW-20 going up on the
winch?)
Scheibe SF-25 motor glider
Robin DR-300 towplane (with Lycoming 0-360) (They still have this
towplane, I think)
TOST winch mounted on an old, ancient Mercedes truck. Also, a couple
of cars used to pull the winch cables back to the launch point. One
was an Opel (I forgot the model) and the other was a Ford Taunus (not
Taurus, but Taunus, as in the "Taunus" mountain range in Germany.)

The Theisinger brothers, Martin and Georg, had their own LS4.

The field is located in Rhineland Pflaz, just outside the small town
of Landau in der Pfalz. Wine country. Wonderful Riesling wines. Oh,
and a beer or two might be found there...

Using Google Earth, find Landau and then just on the south edge of
town, you'll see the airfield. At one zoom level, it looks as if the
road running west northwest - east southeast is #38 and zoom in more,
it looks to be L-543. The runway is parallel to this road. You can
see the hangars and some gliders. And you can see one winch on the
western end. Notice the six sided building near the hangars. Sort of
like a big, fat wind tetrahedron. That is the DJK clubhouse. I
understand the strange shape is due to the size of the windows that
were given to the club. They built the building to fit the windows.
It's a two-floor building with a couple of bunk rooms, bathrooms, and
an office on the ground floor and kitchen / dining room and deck on
the upper floor. The large windows in the dining room look out to the
runway, of course!

At the field are two clubs; the DJK club and another club. Both clubs
use winches for their primary means of launching gliders and the
airfield is wide enough to allow the two winches to be used; one winch
on the left side, one on the right and the middle used for aerotowing
and landing. Prevailing winds are from the west. If the winds shift
to the east, they have to aerotow. Go back to Google Earth and you
can see the limits of the runway depicted by the white "dots" (Tires
painted white and partially buried, I think) Note the western end of
the runway and the winch location. There's some unlandable land in
between there. Not a problem for winch launching to the west, but it
doesn't work when you need to launch to the east. Ah yes, in the
Google Earth photo, you can see a car on the "left" track. That's
probably the "lepo" going to retrieve the winch cables or towing the
cables back to the launch point.

Some have asked how they can afford all of this. I wondered then and
I still wonder now how they could do it. Well, I don't know. But I
do know there are many members who give a lot of "sweat equity" to the
club. I don't know, but I suppose either the entire club house or a
large portion of it was built by club members.

Aircraft maintenance is done by club members. During my time in the
club, the major winter project was stripping the towplane of all its
fabric, repairing any of the wood structure or anything else,
recovering it, painting it, and hanging the new (rebuilt?) engine on
it. All by club members. Even I had a hand in some of the work.

And when the Standard Astir had the AD to replace the aileron (or was
it spoiler?) bellcrank, it was done by club members.

We had some really talented club members that directed the others as
to what to do and how to do it. So, major in-house maintenance saves
a large amount of money.

They first put me into the Ka-7 for learning winch launching and see
if I could handle aero towing, then the Ka-8b and finally the Standard
Astir. Oh, and I flew the Acro once in a while, but I preferred the
Standard Astir.

The Ka-7 was kept busy with students making five and ten minute
flights off the winch. My log book has a lot of five minute flights
in the Ka-7. And I loved it! All the students (up to 10, I guess, on
a busy day) kept the Ka-7 very busy.

When I was moved into the Ka-8b and then the Standard Astir, I usually
didn't have to share it with others. (Andreas, if others were waiting
and cussing at me for not coming back, I never knew about it.) Seems
like during my time, the pilots were either Ka-7 pilots or the "high
performance" pilots flying the ASW-15 and ASW-20. And even for the
ASW-15, there were just a couple of pilots flying it. And not many
were flying the ASW-20.

Since my command of the German language was limited to something like
"Ein Bier, bitte", I really didn't know what all was going on.

I don't know how the grass cutting of the field was paid for. Did the
two clubs split the cost? Yea, in the evenings, a local shepherd
would tend to his flock of sheep while they nibbled on the grass, but
I think the grass still had to be cut from time to time.

I don't know how the cost for insurance was handled. Did our
membership fees pay for it? How much was the insurance?

I do know when I was there, the dollar to Mark ratio was VERY
favorable for me and flying was CHEAP. We paid a yearly fee that
covered "dues" and unlimited winch launching. Any aerotows were paid
extra. There was no rent on the gliders. Back in those years, I
don't think I paid more than about US$500 per year. I really don't
remember. But I knew it was cheap flying.

The Theisinger brothers were either instructing or flying their LS4,
and amazing me with the flights they would make. They are the ones
that introduced me to XC flying. They didn't take me XC, but just
showed me on a sectional chart where they were planning on flying. I
couldn't believe flights were possible, as they were making, in
gliders! Damn, they were good! And I'm still jealous! :-)

The club was, and probably still is, as much a social club as it is a
soaring club. Families would spend the weekend there in their camping
trailers. We had a big supper prepared by club members on Saturday
and a big lunch on Sunday. At 4:00 pm on both days, flying would just
about stop and everybody would come to the clubhouse for cake and
coffee. Saturday nights, after supper, we would sit around the
clubhouse and drink a beer or two. So, I'm sure a lot of members
didn't even fly, but came for the social interaction. So, you would
have their dues coming into the club, but they weren't flying and
limiting the flying time for other members.

Looking back, some of the things that made these two clubs work are:
1. Located right on the edge of a town and not out in the middle of
nowhere. And, in a very picturesque place.
2. Things to do in the area if you didn't fly. Go shopping, go
hiking (volksmarching), visit vineyards, walk around town window
shopping, visit a castle, etc
3. Big social aspect of the club with the lunches, coffees, and
suppers.
4. Camping at the field with the entire family.
5. Doing a lot of the aircraft maintenance by knowledgeable club
members.
6. Getting "sweat equity" out of club members.

It all added up to a winning formula. Back in that time, the field
was, I think, government property. But as Andreas says, the two clubs
have purchased the field.

The club probably is still going strong and I hope for them all the
best.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

Derek Copeland[_2_]

February 1st 09, 09:45 AM

At 01:39 01 February 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>I'd be most interested to see the calculation (income vs expenses) of
>a typical US club - to be honest, I cannot really imagine where all
>the -huge to me- fees of the members go to.
>
It seems that in America, there are two types of gliding clubs.

1) Commercial 'Gliderport' operations, usually operating some ancient
and enormous Schweitzer gliders, offering joy rides to the tourists. These
are aerotow only, with everyone down to the line boy who runs with the wing
being paid. You can fly your own glider there if you want, but it will cost
you!

2) Private owner clubs, with not much in the way of club facilities beyond
a privately owned tug aircraft doing launches for profit. One or two of
these clubs are starting to think about winch launching.

Either way gliding works out to be very expensive, and most people who
want to fly do so in spamcans, as Avgas is far less highly taxed in the US
than it is in Europe, so it actually works out cheaper as an hourly rate!
The percentage of the total US population who are glider pilots is tiny
compared with the UK and particularly Germany. It's a shame really, as
many States have particularly good soaring conditions.

Derek C

Derek Copeland[_2_]

February 1st 09, 10:45 AM

The winch runs on Google Earth look to be about 3500ft long. How high did
you get on still days? About 1300/1400 ft I would guess?

How did you manage to learn when you couldn't speak the local language,
German. Or did the instructors talk to you in perfect English, which is
(annoyingly, if you are trying to improve your German) often the case? At
least you should be OK with metric instuments, where you start the circuit
at about 250 metres, just before the altimeter needle completely drops to
zero.

Derek Copeland

At 04:21 01 February 2009, rlovinggood wrote:
>Andreas and all:
>
>May I try to give an American's view of DJK Segelfluggemeinschaft?
>
>Back in the previous century, from 1983 to 1986, the club that Andreas
>belongs to now (he was not a member back then) allowed me to enter
>their soaring sanctuary and become a member of their club. At that
>time, the club had:
>Ka-7
>Ka-8b (they still have this glider)
>Standard Astir
>Grob 103 Acro
>ASW-15
>ASW-20BL (Is there anything prettier than an ASW-20 going up on the
>winch?)
>Scheibe SF-25 motor glider
>Robin DR-300 towplane (with Lycoming 0-360) (They still have this
>towplane, I think)
>TOST winch mounted on an old, ancient Mercedes truck. Also, a couple
>of cars used to pull the winch cables back to the launch point. One
>was an Opel (I forgot the model) and the other was a Ford Taunus (not
>Taurus, but Taunus, as in the "Taunus" mountain range in Germany.)
>
>The Theisinger brothers, Martin and Georg, had their own LS4.
>
>The field is located in Rhineland Pflaz, just outside the small town
>of Landau in der Pfalz. Wine country. Wonderful Riesling wines. Oh,
>and a beer or two might be found there...
>
>Using Google Earth, find Landau and then just on the south edge of
>town, you'll see the airfield. At one zoom level, it looks as if the
>road running west northwest - east southeast is #38 and zoom in more,
>it looks to be L-543. The runway is parallel to this road. You can
>see the hangars and some gliders. And you can see one winch on the
>western end. Notice the six sided building near the hangars. Sort of
>like a big, fat wind tetrahedron. That is the DJK clubhouse. I
>understand the strange shape is due to the size of the windows that
>were given to the club. They built the building to fit the windows.
>It's a two-floor building with a couple of bunk rooms, bathrooms, and
>an office on the ground floor and kitchen / dining room and deck on
>the upper floor. The large windows in the dining room look out to the
>runway, of course!
>
>At the field are two clubs; the DJK club and another club. Both clubs
>use winches for their primary means of launching gliders and the
>airfield is wide enough to allow the two winches to be used; one winch
>on the left side, one on the right and the middle used for aerotowing
>and landing. Prevailing winds are from the west. If the winds shift
>to the east, they have to aerotow. Go back to Google Earth and you
>can see the limits of the runway depicted by the white "dots" (Tires
>painted white and partially buried, I think) Note the western end of
>the runway and the winch location. There's some unlandable land in
>between there. Not a problem for winch launching to the west, but it
>doesn't work when you need to launch to the east. Ah yes, in the
>Google Earth photo, you can see a car on the "left" track. That's
>probably the "lepo" going to retrieve the winch cables or towing the
>cables back to the launch point.
>
>Some have asked how they can afford all of this. I wondered then and
>I still wonder now how they could do it. Well, I don't know. But I
>do know there are many members who give a lot of "sweat equity" to the
>club. I don't know, but I suppose either the entire club house or a
>large portion of it was built by club members.
>
>Aircraft maintenance is done by club members. During my time in the
>club, the major winter project was stripping the towplane of all its
>fabric, repairing any of the wood structure or anything else,
>recovering it, painting it, and hanging the new (rebuilt?) engine on
>it. All by club members. Even I had a hand in some of the work.
>
>And when the Standard Astir had the AD to replace the aileron (or was
>it spoiler?) bellcrank, it was done by club members.
>
>We had some really talented club members that directed the others as
>to what to do and how to do it. So, major in-house maintenance saves
>a large amount of money.
>
>They first put me into the Ka-7 for learning winch launching and see
>if I could handle aero towing, then the Ka-8b and finally the Standard
>Astir. Oh, and I flew the Acro once in a while, but I preferred the
>Standard Astir.
>
>The Ka-7 was kept busy with students making five and ten minute
>flights off the winch. My log book has a lot of five minute flights
>in the Ka-7. And I loved it! All the students (up to 10, I guess, on
>a busy day) kept the Ka-7 very busy.
>
>When I was moved into the Ka-8b and then the Standard Astir, I usually
>didn't have to share it with others. (Andreas, if others were waiting
>and cussing at me for not coming back, I never knew about it.) Seems
>like during my time, the pilots were either Ka-7 pilots or the "high
>performance" pilots flying the ASW-15 and ASW-20. And even for the
>ASW-15, there were just a couple of pilots flying it. And not many
>were flying the ASW-20.
>
>Since my command of the German language was limited to something like
>"Ein Bier, bitte", I really didn't know what all was going on.
>
>I don't know how the grass cutting of the field was paid for. Did the
>two clubs split the cost? Yea, in the evenings, a local shepherd
>would tend to his flock of sheep while they nibbled on the grass, but
>I think the grass still had to be cut from time to time.
>
>I don't know how the cost for insurance was handled. Did our
>membership fees pay for it? How much was the insurance?
>
>I do know when I was there, the dollar to Mark ratio was VERY
>favorable for me and flying was CHEAP. We paid a yearly fee that
>covered "dues" and unlimited winch launching. Any aerotows were paid
>extra. There was no rent on the gliders. Back in those years, I
>don't think I paid more than about US$500 per year. I really don't
>remember. But I knew it was cheap flying.
>
>The Theisinger brothers were either instructing or flying their LS4,
>and amazing me with the flights they would make. They are the ones
>that introduced me to XC flying. They didn't take me XC, but just
>showed me on a sectional chart where they were planning on flying. I
>couldn't believe flights were possible, as they were making, in
>gliders! Damn, they were good! And I'm still jealous! :-)
>
>The club was, and probably still is, as much a social club as it is a
>soaring club. Families would spend the weekend there in their camping
>trailers. We had a big supper prepared by club members on Saturday
>and a big lunch on Sunday. At 4:00 pm on both days, flying would just
>about stop and everybody would come to the clubhouse for cake and
>coffee. Saturday nights, after supper, we would sit around the
>clubhouse and drink a beer or two. So, I'm sure a lot of members
>didn't even fly, but came for the social interaction. So, you would
>have their dues coming into the club, but they weren't flying and
>limiting the flying time for other members.
>
>Looking back, some of the things that made these two clubs work are:
>1. Located right on the edge of a town and not out in the middle of
>nowhere. And, in a very picturesque place.
>2. Things to do in the area if you didn't fly. Go shopping, go
>hiking (volksmarching), visit vineyards, walk around town window
>shopping, visit a castle, etc
>3. Big social aspect of the club with the lunches, coffees, and
>suppers.
>4. Camping at the field with the entire family.
>5. Doing a lot of the aircraft maintenance by knowledgeable club
>members.
>6. Getting "sweat equity" out of club members.
>
>It all added up to a winning formula. Back in that time, the field
>was, I think, government property. But as Andreas says, the two clubs
>have purchased the field.
>
>The club probably is still going strong and I hope for them all the
>best.
>
>Ray Lovinggood
>Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
>

Dan Silent[_2_]

February 1st 09, 12:00 PM

At 03:09 28 January 2009, RRK wrote:
>How many gliders with a wing span of 13.5 or less do you know?

1 Apis-13 13.3
2 BG135
3 Carbon Dragon 13.4
4 Cessna CG-2 11.0
5 Cherokee II 12.2
6 Duster 13.1 m 13.1
7 H101 Salto
8 L0 100
9 Monarch 12.8
10 Monerai S 11.0
11 MU xyz
12 Pioneer II 13.0
13 PW-5 13.4
14 Russia
15 Schweizer 1-26 12.2
16 Silent 2 13.0
17 Silent 2 Targa 13.3
18 Silent Club 12.0
19 Slingaby Swallow
20 Sparrowhawk 11.0
21 SW-1 Swift
22 SZD-59 Acro 13.2
23 WindRose 12.7
24 Woodstock
25 Ka6 14.1

[email protected]

February 1st 09, 12:50 PM

One thing that may not have been covered is cost. I see in "Gliding
International" concern about the increasing cost of material and
labour ("exploding"). If a shorter wing were used, there would be
less of both. The trend to larger span concerns me for three reasons
- first, the cost (I think this is obvious); second, the weight (with
the glider population aging, back backs seem to be the norm); and
third, the decreased number of places to land (particularly
outland).

Also, if we want to get the younger generation involved, the
increasing costs of the state of the art has to be controlled. I
think a 13.5 or 14 m class would be a good idea. It would let the
designers have a new challenge. Perhaps limit it to old-fashioned
fibreglass, not CRP, to control cost, perhaps. Some will prefer older
15 m glass; let them fly it. I think the world class was a great
idea, but the PW's 32:1 reach just wasn't enough. It's 15 years
later, let's see what the designers can do!

For what it's worth, when the Russia series was still in production, I
was waiting for the AC-4D to come out to buy one (that's the one with
flaps). Sadly, it never did.

toad

February 1st 09, 01:49 PM

On Feb 1, 4:45*am, Derek Copeland > wrote:
> At 01:39 01 February 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
> >I'd be most interested to see the calculation (income vs expenses) of
> >a typical US club - to be honest, I cannot really imagine where all
> >the -huge to me- fees of the members go to.
>
> It seems that in America, there are two types of gliding clubs.
>
> 1) Commercial 'Gliderport' operations, usually operating some ancient
> and enormous Schweitzer gliders, offering joy rides to the tourists. These
> are aerotow only, with everyone down to the line boy who runs with the wing
> being paid. You can fly your own glider there if you want, but it will cost
> you!
>
> 2) Private owner clubs, with not much in the way of club facilities beyond
> a privately owned tug aircraft doing launches for profit. One or two of
> these clubs are starting to think about winch launching.
>
> Either way gliding works out to be very expensive, and most people who
> want to fly do so in spamcans, as Avgas is far less highly taxed in the US
> than it is in Europe, so it actually works out cheaper as an hourly rate!
> The percentage of the total US population who are glider pilots is tiny
> compared with the UK and particularly Germany. It's a shame really, as
> many States have particularly good soaring conditions.
>
> Derek C

Actually there is a third type which is the most common in my
experience. They own a tug or 2 and several gliders. A few trainers
and a few low to middle performance single seaters. Maybe a good
single or two seat glider also. They might also own the airport. The
members do a lot of the work, but aircraft maintenance requires a FAA
licensed mechanic, so that is sometimes limited. People come for the
weekend and stay all weekend.

Todd Smith

Michel Talon

February 1st 09, 01:50 PM

wrote:
> One thing that may not have been covered is cost. I see in "Gliding
> International" concern about the increasing cost of material and
> labour ("exploding"). If a shorter wing were used, there would be
> less of both.

There is not a single proof that this is true. The difference of cost
between 14 m span and 15 m is presumably totally insignificant.
One has to chase economies elsewhere.

--

Michel TALON

Jim Beckman[_2_]

February 1st 09, 02:30 PM

At 01:25 01 February 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:

>BTW: At the moment the entire German 15m-class national team consists
>of pilots of my club
>I'm pretty content with the situation. :)

Am I safe to assume that all of these guys have been flying their own
gliders rather than club equipment?

>Maybe one cause for that is that we have a very good social life (and
>an own club house) - on weekends there's always an afternoon tea,
>dinner and lunch, lots of wifes and children around. Many good causes
>to land and have a coffee and some self-made cake...
>I guess this is what makes many German clubs different from US clubs:
>The social life often plays a part that is nearly as important as the
>flying.

There are *some* clubs in the US that make the social aspects an
attractive part of the activity. At Blairstown, we do OK - on any decent
day you will find anywhere from four to a dozen folks hanging around the
field after the flying is over, drinking beer and BSing about what great
pilots we all are. Caesar Creek, Texas, Chillhowee, and many others have
very nice facilities. There seems to be some critical number that has to
be reached before this sort of thing can happen. Age also has something
to do with it. Our little group in Somerset has an average age probably
about half of what it is in Blairstown. The younger folks have families,
responsibilities, and even actual social lives beyond the airport, so they
are less inclined to stick around when flying ends.

Jim Beckman

Jim Beckman[_2_]

February 1st 09, 02:45 PM

At 09:45 01 February 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>>
>It seems that in America, there are two types of gliding clubs.
>
>1) Commercial 'Gliderport' operations,
>
>2) Private owner clubs,

I think you're leaving out a substantial number of clubs that own a
certain number of gliders for the use of all their members. The
performance level of the fleets varies, depending on what the clubs want
to accomplish, and how much their members are willing to pay for the
privilege.

>Either way gliding works out to be very expensive,

Well, the third way doesn't have to be expensive. My club at Blairstown
costs a pilot who doesn't own a glider around $450
to $500 a year, including (arguably exorbitant) membership
fee to the national organization. Less if you own your own
glider or are in a partnership. For this you get pretty much unlimited
use of the gliders, but we don't have a towplane, so you pay the
commercial operator on the field for that. Now that *is* cheap flying,
wouldn't you say? Of course our fleet is pretty cheap, too. Currently
we've got two 1-26s, a 1-34, a 1-34R and a Blanik. Over the years we've
owned a few Larks, but somehow they didn't last too long in the hands of
our members.

Anyway, it *is* possible for gliding to be cheap, as long as one of your
goals is to make it as cheap as possible for as many people as possible.

Jim Beckman

Papa3

February 1st 09, 03:27 PM

On Feb 1, 9:30*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 01:25 01 February 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
> >BTW: At the moment the entire *German 15m-class national team consists
> >of pilots of my club
> >I'm pretty content with the situation. :)
>
> Am I safe to assume that all of these guys have been flying their own
> gliders rather than club equipment? *
>
> >Maybe one cause for that is that we have a very good social life (and
> >an own club house) - on weekends there's always an afternoon tea,
> >dinner and lunch, lots of wifes and children around. Many good causes
> >to land and have a coffee and some self-made cake...
> >I guess this is what makes many German clubs different from US clubs:
> >The social life often plays a part that is nearly as important as the
> >flying.
>
> There are *some* clubs in the US that make the social aspects an
> attractive part of the activity. *At Blairstown, we do OK - on any decent
> day you will find anywhere from four to a dozen folks hanging around the
> field after the flying is over, drinking beer and BSing about what great
> pilots we all are. *Caesar Creek, Texas, Chillhowee, *and many others have
> very nice facilities. *There seems to be some critical number that has to
> be reached before this sort of thing can happen. *Age also has something
> to do with it. *Our little group in Somerset has an average age probably
> about half of what it is in Blairstown. *The younger folks have families,
> responsibilities, and even actual social lives beyond the airport, so they
> are less inclined to stick around when flying ends.
>
> Jim Beckman

As one of the "younger" guys with a wife and family, I do believe one
of the critical issues we face in many US clubs is indeed the lack of
anything for the non-flying members to do while dad (or mom) is up
flying. Having travelled pretty extensively and visited about a
dozen clubs in Europe (UK, Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland) I'm
struck by how many of them (pretty much all that I've visited) have a
great winch operation, a "real" clubhouse, "real" maintenance hanger
(drool), and facilities for caravans (RVs). With all of the
amenities, a weekend at the field tends to look a bit less like
torture. Yeah, it may not exactly be the #1 choice for the gang, but
at least it's sellable when compared to say, hanging out at home all
weekend. When I was in England last week on a cold and rainy weekend
(i.e. pretty much a typical day), there was a huge amount of
activity at both clubs I visited. People were hanging out for lunch,
working on gliders, etc. even when there was no flying going on.

So, I do believe a lot of it comes back to land. Specifically, the
fact that land use policy (or lack thereof) in the US means that a
flat piece of land within say 90 minutes drive of most major
metropolitan areas is going to run into the several $milions. For
instance, a 30 acre property in a place equidistant from say NYC and
Philadelphia would set you back about $1M minimum... if you could even
find a town that would let you put in an airport. If you look at
the largest clubs in the US, almost without exception they are the
ones that had the foresight to secure their futures back in the 60s or
70s by purchasing their own land. Those that didn't continue to
limp along as they share busy public use airports and struggle with
the demands made by the airport owner/operator.

Now, I'm not saying that this is the ONLY reason nor is it an excuse
for some of the other trends, but I believe that a lack of a "place to
call our own" inhibits all but a few clubs in the US from hitting that
critical mass that it takes to fund the sorts of fleets and activities
that European clubs have. I'm certainly open to counter arguments.

Brian Bange[_2_]

February 1st 09, 03:30 PM

>> One thing that may not have been covered is cost. I see in
"Gliding
>> International" concern about the increasing cost of material
and
>> labour ("exploding"). If a shorter wing were used, there
would be
>> less of both.
>
>
>There is not a single proof that this is true. The difference of
cost
>between 14 m span and 15 m is presumably totally
insignificant.
>One has to chase economies elsewhere.
>

I have a Russia and an ASW20. I've been through both of them
pretty thoroughly, and I am amazed at the complexity of the
ASW20 and the simplicity of the Russia.

The Russia weighs 300 pounds. The ASW20 weighs almost twice
as much. I'll agree that just a few feet more wing probably does
not add that much to the cost, but all the complexity involved in
getting 40:1 or better sure does. Both ships were done by
brilliant designers, each shooting at a different target. If you
want performance, the 20's got it. Still going strong after all
these years. If you want a ship that assembles by one person in
10 minutes, is super easy to manufacture, has a really low parts
count and still has enough performance to go X/C, then the
Russia is hard to beat. I don't think anyone has discovered how
to do both. It will take the discovery of a new material that
lends itself to automated molding to get there.

One thing that I noticed last year is that it is hard to go
backwards in L/D. After flying a borrowed Libelle on a few
X/C's, I could hardly get myself back in the Russia. From this
point of view I understand the low opinions of the shortwings. It
does not alter the fact that I learned on it, loved it and it
provided a springboard to better opportunities. It is also cheap
and easy to fly. This is where the World Class can beat all other
classes. New blood can get into affordable, easy to fly, easy to
assemble ships and have huge fun. If they stick with it and want
to move up, they will find a way.

Brian

Derek Copeland[_2_]

February 1st 09, 04:15 PM

The ASW20 is complicated and heavy, because it is fitted with flaps and was
designed to win the 15 metre class world championship.

The original concept of the Standard Class was for a simple 15 metre
sailpane that would gave the best compromise between performance and cost.
I can't really see that anything has changed, apart from the use of exotic
high tech materials in the latest models. Just ban these to keep the costs
down.

I note that even the fairly old tech. Libelle (Standard Class?) gave Brian
noticeably better performance than the Russia. I have flown an example of
the latter when it was called the ME7. Although I didn't make any
measurements, it seemed to have about the same performance as a wooden K6,
maybe a bit better at higher speeds, but not exactly inspiring.

Derek Copeland

At 15:30 01 February 2009, Brian Bange wrote:
>>> One thing that may not have been covered is cost. I see in
>"Gliding
>>> International" concern about the increasing cost of material
>and
>>> labour ("exploding"). If a shorter wing were used, there
>would be
>>> less of both.
>>
>>
>>There is not a single proof that this is true. The difference of
>cost
>>between 14 m span and 15 m is presumably totally
>insignificant.
>>One has to chase economies elsewhere.
>>
>
>I have a Russia and an ASW20. I've been through both of them
>pretty thoroughly, and I am amazed at the complexity of the
>ASW20 and the simplicity of the Russia.
>
>The Russia weighs 300 pounds. The ASW20 weighs almost twice
>as much. I'll agree that just a few feet more wing probably does
>not add that much to the cost, but all the complexity involved in
>getting 40:1 or better sure does. Both ships were done by
>brilliant designers, each shooting at a different target. If you
>want performance, the 20's got it. Still going strong after all
>these years. If you want a ship that assembles by one person in
>10 minutes, is super easy to manufacture, has a really low parts
>count and still has enough performance to go X/C, then the
>Russia is hard to beat. I don't think anyone has discovered how
>to do both. It will take the discovery of a new material that
>lends itself to automated molding to get there.
>
>One thing that I noticed last year is that it is hard to go
>backwards in L/D. After flying a borrowed Libelle on a few
>X/C's, I could hardly get myself back in the Russia. From this
>point of view I understand the low opinions of the shortwings. It
>does not alter the fact that I learned on it, loved it and it
>provided a springboard to better opportunities. It is also cheap
>and easy to fly. This is where the World Class can beat all other
>classes. New blood can get into affordable, easy to fly, easy to
>assemble ships and have huge fun. If they stick with it and want
>to move up, they will find a way.
>
>Brian

Brad[_2_]

February 1st 09, 04:15 PM

Maybe, since the 18m and over, classes are becoming very popular, by
default the 15m wingspan will become the new and accepted shortwing
class.

Now the trick will be for a clever designer to combine modern
materials and manufacturing methods to design and build that 38-40:1
ship. And with an eye towards "affordability", it can be engineered
with the simplicity that went in to the Russia and Apis line of
sailplanes.

My HP-24 is being built along those lines; I expect to get at least
40:1, it will be under 500 pounds. Has the sleek sexy lines and
retractable gear we all want and should be a solid recreational
sailplane.

Brad

Bob Kuykendall

February 1st 09, 06:13 PM

On Feb 1, 4:50*am, wrote:

> Perhaps limit it to old-fashioned fibreglass, not
> CRP, to control cost, perhaps.

I think that would be majorly counterproductive. I'd have bought into
that a year ago, but I've seen the light: The most expensive part of a
glider has no mass, it is person-hours.

With carbon, it takes substantially less material to get the same
strength and stiffness as fiberglass. Less material means less stuff
to cut to shape. Less material means less epoxy to saturate it with.
Less material and less epoxy means less time spent doing layups and
less time in tyvek suits. And not only do you have a structure with
fewer person-hours invested in it, it is lighter than its fiberglass
equivalent. And that lightness has a way of cascading through a
structure, making many other parts lighter as well.

Thanks, Bob K.

Bob Kuykendall

February 1st 09, 06:25 PM

On Feb 1, 5:50*am, (Michel Talon) wrote:

> There is not a single proof that this is true...

Any of several public domain wing weight estimators will show you
nearly exactly what the difference in structural weight is between 14m
and 15m. It's not to be sneezed at.

> The difference of cost between 14 m span and 15 m is
> presumably totally insignificant....

No, not true. As I've written elsewhere the manufacturing cost seems
to scale exponentially with span. A lot of that is due to the larger
tools required to make larger wings, the larger buildings required to
store and use the tools, the greater amount of energy and other area
and volume costs and business expenses associated with larger
buildings. It goes to worms in a right hurry, it does.

> One has to chase economies elsewhere.

One must chase economies everywhere.

Thanks, Bob K.

Andreas Maurer

February 1st 09, 07:50 PM

On 1 Feb 2009 14:30:04 GMT, Jim Beckman >
wrote:

>Am I safe to assume that all of these guys have been flying their own
>gliders rather than club equipment?

Nowadays they all have their own gliders, but they only bought them
after they had already been in the national team. Until then they flew
the club's gliders.

>There are *some* clubs in the US that make the social aspects an
>attractive part of the activity. At Blairstown, we do OK - on any decent
>day you will find anywhere from four to a dozen folks hanging around the
>field after the flying is over, drinking beer and BSing about what great
>pilots we all are. Caesar Creek, Texas, Chillhowee, and many others have
>very nice facilities. There seems to be some critical number that has to
>be reached before this sort of thing can happen. Age also has something
>to do with it. Our little group in Somerset has an average age probably
>about half of what it is in Blairstown. The younger folks have families,
>responsibilities, and even actual social lives beyond the airport, so they
>are less inclined to stick around when flying ends.

And I guess that most members have quite a long way top drive to your
airfield, right? That's a general advantage of Europe: High population
density, hence most members live close to the airefield.

Michel Talon

February 1st 09, 10:06 PM

Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> No, not true. As I've written elsewhere the manufacturing cost seems
> to scale exponentially with span.

I don't pretend to be as knowledgeable as you about gliders, but
i know that exp(15/14) is not very different from 15/14.

> > One has to chase economies elsewhere.
>
> One must chase economies everywhere.

Mostly in the hourly cost of manpower, e.g. by building in China,
not paying horrendous fees to some university departments to do the
computations when it is certainly possible to get them for free,
and so on. Probably everything else is negligible.

--

Michel TALON

Dan Silent[_2_]

February 1st 09, 10:30 PM

At 12:50 01 February 2009, wrote:

>I think the world class was a great idea,
>but the PW's 32:1 reach just wasn't enough.
>It's 15 years later, let's see what the designers can do!

40:1 with 13.3 meters wingspan is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alisport_Silent_2_Targa

Mike Hostage kit built one in less then 12 months!!!!

ALSO SPRACHT HERR HOSTAGE:
"The Silent 2 Targa is a fine flying machine and the kit is very straight
forward. I built mine in just under one year.
However, the Euro/Dollar rate is a killer!
Mike"

(msg 33 of many)

Darryl Ramm

February 1st 09, 11:10 PM

On Feb 1, 2:06*pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:
> Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> > No, not true. As I've written elsewhere the manufacturing cost seems
> > to scale exponentially with span.
>
> I don't pretend to be as knowledgeable as you about gliders, but
> i know that exp(15/14) is not very different from 15/14.
>
> > > One has to chase economies elsewhere.
>
> > One must chase economies everywhere.
>
> Mostly in the hourly cost of manpower, e.g. by building in China,
> not paying horrendous fees to some university departments to do the
> computations when it is certainly possible to get them for free,
> and so on. Probably everything else is negligible.
>
> --
>
> Michel TALON

Not so fast, if you want to argue with pseudo-math lets get it right.
15/14 is ~1.071, e^1.071 is 2.91 which *is* very different. But what
you should be asking is what is e^15/e^14 which is a ratio of 2.72,
since Bob said the cost scales exponentially with span, not
exponentially with the span ratio. Not that 2.7 is far from 2.9, but
at different span ratios the difference in calculations becomes, ah
exponential. Not that this means anything, since Bob was just likely
making a point with a hyperbole.

I'm curious who pays "horrendous fees" to universities. My impression
is many European manufactures get pretty sweet deals via relationships
with different University research groups and Akafliegs.

Darryl

Berry[_2_]

February 2nd 09, 12:04 AM

In article >,
Dan Silent > wrote:

> At 12:50 01 February 2009, wrote:
>
> >I think the world class was a great idea,
> >but the PW's 32:1 reach just wasn't enough.
> >It's 15 years later, let's see what the designers can do!
>
> 40:1 with 13.3 meters wingspan is here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alisport_Silent_2_Targa
>
> Mike Hostage kit built one in less then 12 months!!!!
>
> ALSO SPRACHT HERR HOSTAGE:
> "The Silent 2 Targa is a fine flying machine and the kit is very straight
> forward. I built mine in just under one year.
> However, the Euro/Dollar rate is a killer!
> Mike"
>
> (msg 33 of many)

Can't imagine why anyone slams one type of glider over another. All of
our ships have their advantages and shortcomings. Each type has it's
place. Short wing gliders seem to fit best in situations where there are
other short wings, such as in a one-design racing class, or when several
are present in one club and can fly together. Or, when you are the only
glider driver and you fly alone. Fly a short wing with a bunch of
"normal" span gliders and you may find yourself with a case of "span
envy".

Similar principle applies if you fly, oh, say an old Libelle, with a
bunch of those obscene -27's and Ventus 2's ;-).

Bob Kuykendall

February 2nd 09, 03:59 AM

On Feb 1, 2:30*pm, Dan Silent > wrote:

> 40:1 with 13.3 meters wingspan is here...

With all due respect, I'll believe that when it's validated by an
independent third party. In the meantime, I remain convinced that the
shortest-span glider that will carry a normal-sized person at 40:1 is
about 14.3m, and that's predicated on a much higher aspect ratio than
the Silent.

Thanks, Bob K.

Michel Talon

February 2nd 09, 10:14 AM

Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2:06*pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:
> > Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> > > No, not true. As I've written elsewhere the manufacturing cost seems
> > > to scale exponentially with span.
> >
> > I don't pretend to be as knowledgeable as you about gliders, but
> > i know that exp(15/14) is not very different from 15/14.
> >
> > > > One has to chase economies elsewhere.
> >
> > > One must chase economies everywhere.
> >
> > Mostly in the hourly cost of manpower, e.g. by building in China,
> > not paying horrendous fees to some university departments to do the
> > computations when it is certainly possible to get them for free,
> > and so on. Probably everything else is negligible.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Michel TALON
>
> Not so fast, if you want to argue with pseudo-math lets get it right.
> 15/14 is ~1.071, e^1.071 is 2.91 which *is* very different. But what
> you should be asking is what is e^15/e^14 which is a ratio of 2.72,
> since Bob said the cost scales exponentially with span, not

I expressed myself very poorly, my idea was that the increase in cost is
exp(15/14) *compared to* the case where there is no increase, exp(14/14)
so the net increase is exp(1/14) which is very close to 1/14 (the second
order term being 1/2 (1/14)^2, negligible). Hence, even if the increase
in cost is exponential, you will pay (15/14) x (cost of a 14 m glider)
for a 15 m glider. The factor 2.7.. = exp(1) above is bogus.

> exponentially with the span ratio. Not that 2.7 is far from 2.9, but
> at different span ratios the difference in calculations becomes, ah
> exponential. Not that this means anything, since Bob was just likely
> making a point with a hyperbole.

I agree completely with that. But i remark that the cost of gliders has
indeed increased exponentially the last twenty years, for reasons which
have nothing to do with concrete factors, but everything to do with
hourly cost of workers, and total lack of will of controlling the costs.
The glider factories seem to think that glider buyers are like Ferrari
buyers, who will accept to pay any price for their toys. The problem
with that is the category of people interested in flying has no
intersection with the category of people interested in showing their
external signs of richness to bimbos.

>
> I'm curious who pays "horrendous fees" to universities. My impression
> is many European manufactures get pretty sweet deals via relationships
> with different University research groups and Akafliegs.

A closely previous post mentioned that Schleicher was paying heavy fees
to Delft University to get his computations done. Compare this to the
Pegase which was computed at ONERA for free. I have the impression that
the Pegase was the last glider whose aim was allowing a lot of people to
fly. And incidentally, it shows that one can build a 15m glider of
reasonable simplicity, with performances not that different from the more
complex ASW 20, easier to fly, and much cheaper. The LS4 also fits the
bill, but already in its time it was 3/2 more expensive.

>
>
> Darryl
>

--

Michel TALON

Derek Copeland[_2_]

February 2nd 09, 12:30 PM

One of the reasons the PW5 never caught on in the UK, apart from its
appearance, is that you could buy a secondhand Standard Cirrus, Libelle,
Pegasus, ASW19, or any any other first/second generation glass Std Class
15 metre span glider, more cheaply and with much better performance. These
gliders compete in our 'Club Class' competitions, which are normally
oversubscribed. There is not enough interest in the 'World Class' to
make it worthwhile to organise a National Comp.

Derek Copeland

At 10:14 02 February 2009, Michel Talon wrote:
>Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2:06*pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:
>> > Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>> > > No, not true. As I've written elsewhere the manufacturing cost
seems
>> > > to scale exponentially with span.
>> >
>> > I don't pretend to be as knowledgeable as you about gliders, but
>> > i know that exp(15/14) is not very different from 15/14.
>> >
>> > > > One has to chase economies elsewhere.
>> >
>> > > One must chase economies everywhere.
>> >
>> > Mostly in the hourly cost of manpower, e.g. by building in China,
>> > not paying horrendous fees to some university departments to do the
>> > computations when it is certainly possible to get them for free,
>> > and so on. Probably everything else is negligible.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Michel TALON
>>
>> Not so fast, if you want to argue with pseudo-math lets get it right.
>> 15/14 is ~1.071, e^1.071 is 2.91 which *is* very different. But what
>> you should be asking is what is e^15/e^14 which is a ratio of 2.72,
>> since Bob said the cost scales exponentially with span, not
>
>I expressed myself very poorly, my idea was that the increase in cost is
>exp(15/14) *compared to* the case where there is no increase, exp(14/14)
>so the net increase is exp(1/14) which is very close to 1/14 (the second
>order term being 1/2 (1/14)^2, negligible). Hence, even if the increase
>in cost is exponential, you will pay (15/14) x (cost of a 14 m glider)
>for a 15 m glider. The factor 2.7.. = exp(1) above is bogus.
>
>
>> exponentially with the span ratio. Not that 2.7 is far from 2.9, but
>> at different span ratios the difference in calculations becomes, ah
>> exponential. Not that this means anything, since Bob was just likely
>> making a point with a hyperbole.
>
>I agree completely with that. But i remark that the cost of gliders has
>indeed increased exponentially the last twenty years, for reasons which
>have nothing to do with concrete factors, but everything to do with
>hourly cost of workers, and total lack of will of controlling the costs.
>The glider factories seem to think that glider buyers are like Ferrari
>buyers, who will accept to pay any price for their toys. The problem
>with that is the category of people interested in flying has no
>intersection with the category of people interested in showing their
>external signs of richness to bimbos.
>
>
>>
>> I'm curious who pays "horrendous fees" to universities. My
impression
>> is many European manufactures get pretty sweet deals via relationships
>> with different University research groups and Akafliegs.
>
>A closely previous post mentioned that Schleicher was paying heavy fees
>to Delft University to get his computations done. Compare this to the
>Pegase which was computed at ONERA for free. I have the impression that
>the Pegase was the last glider whose aim was allowing a lot of people to
>fly. And incidentally, it shows that one can build a 15m glider of
>reasonable simplicity, with performances not that different from the
more
>complex ASW 20, easier to fly, and much cheaper. The LS4 also fits the
>bill, but already in its time it was 3/2 more expensive.
>
>>
>>
>> Darryl
>>
>
>--
>
>Michel TALON
>
>

cernauta

February 2nd 09, 01:52 PM

On 2 Feb 2009 12:30:05 GMT, Derek Copeland >
wrote:

>There is not enough interest in the 'World Class' to
>make it worthwhile to organise a National Comp.

In the years back when the World Class concept was being introduced, I
remember having read a very serious, very academic marketing study
that forecsted the production of thousands of World Class one-design
gliders 'round the world within a few years.

Go trust the experts...

Aldo

Jim Beckman[_2_]

February 2nd 09, 02:00 PM

At 15:27 01 February 2009, Papa3 wrote:

>So, I do believe a lot of it comes back to land. Specifically, the
>fact that land use policy (or lack thereof) in the US means that a
>flat piece of land within say 90 minutes drive of most major
>metropolitan areas is going to run into the several $milions. For
>instance, a 30 acre property in a place equidistant from say NYC and
>Philadelphia would set you back about $1M minimum...

Do you happen to know how taxes affect US clubs that own their own fields?
I suppose it varies from state to state, but some of these clubs have
pretty valuable pieces of land. Being set up as a non-profit organization
might help some, but I don't know if it would exempt the group from
taxes.

On the other hand, the way to save money is to be a church. Any club that
could set itself up as a religion would have it made. Maybe the Reverend
Charlie Spratt (or should I say Father Charlie?) would be interested in
consecrating a few bishops around the country to establish branches of the
Church of the Rising Air. Yeah, that's the way to go. It worked great
for L. Ron Hubbard.

Jim Beckman (Rev.-to-be)

TonyV[_2_]

February 2nd 09, 02:10 PM

cernauta wrote:

> .....I remember having read a very serious, very academic marketing study
> that forecsted the production of thousands of World Class one-design
> gliders 'round the world within a few years.

And so it might have been if the selection had been, say, an LS4. No
doubt you've heard this before.

Tony V.

Jim Beckman[_2_]

February 2nd 09, 02:15 PM

At 12:30 02 February 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>One of the reasons the PW5 never caught on in the UK, apart from its
>appearance, is that you could buy a secondhand Standard Cirrus, Libelle,
>Pegasus, ASW19, or any any other first/second generation glass Std Class
>15 metre span glider, more cheaply and with much better performance.
These
>gliders compete in our 'Club Class' competitions, which are normally
>oversubscribed. There is not enough interest in the 'World Class' to
>make it worthwhile to organize a National Comp.

So how *do* we explain the continuing (I hope) popularity of the Schweizer
1-26 in America? I mean, the performance really is pretty low in modern
terms. Proponents like to say that one advantage of the 1-26 is that the
retrieves are always shorter. But then somebody like Ron Schwartz
demonstrates that it ain't necessarily so. Flying cross country in a
1-26 does tend to separate the men from the dilettantes, I suppose. And
you can find some sort of one-class 1-26 competition on both sides of the
Mississippi every year. I've been to two 1-26 Championships so far, and
I've gotta admit that the 1-26 crew knows how to have a good time. What
is it about the ship that attracts such a wacky crowd?

Of course, the glider *is* dirt cheap, and you can have unending amounts
of fun painting it any color scheme you want, and still leave it outside.

It is possible that Blairstown now has the highest number of 1-26s of
various models based at one field (I think we've got at least 12 now).
And what attracted the last one or two was the chance to fly with (and
against) other 1-26s on a regular basis. It will be interesting to see
how this develops this year. And I expect the club will encourage our
newer pilots to take the club 1-26s out and run with the rest of the pack.
Such fun, and so cheap.

Jim Beckman (234, 664, 363 and a few others)

toad

February 2nd 09, 03:06 PM

On Feb 2, 9:15*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:

> So how *do* we explain the continuing (I hope) popularity of the Schweizer
> 1-26 in America? *

> Of course, the glider *is* dirt cheap

There you go, that's all that there is to it. If the the PW-5 would
have sold for less than $10,000 including basic instruments and
trailer, it would have been popular, no matter how ugly.

Todd
3S

[email protected]

February 2nd 09, 03:55 PM

On Feb 2, 10:06*am, toad > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 9:15*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
>
> > So how *do* we explain the continuing (I hope) popularity of the Schweizer
> > 1-26 in America? *
> > Of course, the glider *is* dirt cheap
>
> There you go, that's all that there is to it. * If the the PW-5 would
> have sold for less than $10,000 including basic instruments and
> trailer, it would have been popular, no matter how ugly.
>
> Todd
> 3S

In many speed sports, we orient tyros w.r.t. equipment purchase
decisions thus: "Good, fast, cheap: pick two".

Popular ships, new or used, fit this rule of sorts.

-T8

Frank Whiteley

February 2nd 09, 04:24 PM

On Feb 2, 7:00*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 15:27 01 February 2009, Papa3 wrote:
>
> >So, I do believe a lot of it comes back to land. * Specifically, the
> >fact that land use policy (or lack thereof) in the US means that a
> >flat piece of land within say 90 minutes drive of most major
> >metropolitan areas is going to run into the several $milions. * *For
> >instance, a 30 acre property in a place equidistant from say NYC and
> >Philadelphia would set you back about $1M minimum...
>
> Do you happen to know how taxes affect US clubs that own their own fields?
> *I suppose it varies from state to state, but some of these clubs have
> pretty valuable pieces of land. *Being set up as a non-profit organization
> might help some, but I don't know if it would exempt the group from
> taxes.
>
> On the other hand, the way to save money is to be a church. *Any club that
> could set itself up as a religion would have it made. *Maybe the Reverend
> Charlie Spratt (or should I say Father Charlie?) would be interested in
> consecrating a few bishops around the country to establish branches of the
> Church of the Rising Air. *Yeah, that's the way to go. *It worked great
> for L. Ron Hubbard.
>
> Jim Beckman (Rev.-to-be)

18-20 US SSA chapters are 501c(3) charitable, tax exempt, non-profit
organizations and I believe one large club is currently in the process
of seeking the determination. There are additional foundations acting
as pass through agents and a couple that own the gliderports and lease
to clubs. At least on other medium sized club is exploring the
topic. In an overview of a couple that own their gliderports, they
are about $30,000/year better off as a result through real and sales
tax exemptions and charitable donations. You are correct that not all
localities or states allow full real property tax exemptions, but many
have non-profit rate schedules.

The topic requires some education. The SSA Clubs and Chapters
Committee is willing to offer insight, guidance, and possibly
assistance, but the effort and benefit belong to the club and
hopefully to the growth of soaring.

Frank Whiteley

Andreas Maurer

February 2nd 09, 05:03 PM

On 30 Jan 2009 22:45:02 GMT, Brian Bange > wrote:

>Most all were a product of the FAI's initiative to find a World
>Class ship. I believe one requirement was that they were
>designed to be easy to fly. In my experience with the Russia,
>PW5 and L-33, they are. I believe all the FAI is trying to do is
>include these ships into the World Class and handicap it, so as
>to grow the class. If something new and more competitive
>comes along, it will have to live under it's handicap, so where is
>the advantage to making something that is hard to handle?

Well... as there are practiucally no World Class gliders flying in
Europe (read: World Class is being ignored by 80 percent of the
world's gliding pilots), you'd better name it "US class"... or "dwarf
class"...
Bye
Andreas

toad

February 2nd 09, 05:58 PM

On Feb 2, 12:03*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2009 22:45:02 GMT, Brian Bange > wrote:
>
> >Most all were a product of the FAI's initiative to find a World
> >Class ship. I believe one requirement was that they were
> >designed to be easy to fly. In my experience with the Russia,
> >PW5 and L-33, they are. I believe all the FAI is trying to do is
> >include these ships into the World Class and handicap it, so as
> >to grow the class. If something new and more competitive
> >comes along, it will have to live under it's handicap, so where is
> >the advantage to making something that is hard to handle?
>
> Well... as there are practiucally no World Class gliders flying in
> Europe (read: World Class is being ignored by 80 percent of the
> world's gliding pilots), you'd better name it "US class"... or "dwarf
> class"...
> Bye
> Andreas

Hey, don't blame it on the US, we are ignoring it too.

Todd

Papa3

February 2nd 09, 06:04 PM

On Feb 2, 10:06*am, toad > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 9:15*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
>
> > So how *do* we explain the continuing (I hope) popularity of the Schweizer
> > 1-26 in America? *
> > Of course, the glider *is* dirt cheap
>
> There you go, that's all that there is to it. * If the the PW-5 would
> have sold for less than $10,000 including basic instruments and
> trailer, it would have been popular, no matter how ugly.
>
> Todd
> 3S

And rugged. And easy to get fixed at any local repair shop. And
REALLY cheap.

P3

Derek Copeland[_2_]

February 2nd 09, 08:00 PM

At 14:15 02 February 2009, Jim Beckman wrote:
>At 12:30 02 February 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>>One of the reasons the PW5 never caught on in the UK, apart from its
>>appearance, is that you could buy a secondhand Standard Cirrus,
Libelle,
>>Pegasus, ASW19, or any any other first/second generation glass Std
Class
>>15 metre span glider, more cheaply and with much better performance.
>These
>>gliders compete in our 'Club Class' competitions, which are normally
>>oversubscribed. There is not enough interest in the 'World Class' to
>>make it worthwhile to organize a National Comp.
>
>So how *do* we explain the continuing (I hope) popularity of the
Schweizer
>1-26 in America?

Masochism perhaps? Or maybe you can get away with low performance gliders
in the booming soaring conditions and high cloudbases you allegedly get in
the States. In the cloudy little UK, you need all the performance you can
get, to glide through the *difficult* patches of weather.

Derek Copeland

[email protected]

February 2nd 09, 08:52 PM

On Feb 1, 4:00*am, Dan Silent > wrote:
> At 03:09 28 January 2009, RRK wrote:
>
> >How many gliders with a wing span of 13.5 or less do you know?
>
> 1 * * * Apis-13 * * * * * * * * 13.3
> 2 * * * BG135 *
> 3 * * * Carbon Dragon * 13.4
> 4 * * * Cessna CG-2 * * * * * * 11.0
> 5 * * * Cherokee II * * * * * * 12.2
> 6 * * * Duster 13.1 m * * * * * 13.1
> 7 * * * H101 Salto * * *
> 8 * * * L0 100 *
> 9 * * * Monarch * * * * * * * * 12.8
> 10 * * *Monerai S * * * * * * * * * * * 11.0
> 11 * * *MU xyz *
> 12 * * *Pioneer II * * * * * * * * * * *13.0
> 13 * * *PW-5 * * * * * * * * * *13.4
> 14 * * *Russia *
> 15 * * *Schweizer 1-26 *12.2
> 16 * * *Silent 2 * * * * * * * * * * * *13.0
> 17 * * *Silent 2 Targa * * * * *13.3
> 18 * * *Silent Club * * * * * * 12.0
> 19 * * *Slingaby Swallow * * * *
> 20 * * *Sparrowhawk * * * * * * 11.0
> 21 * * *SW-1 Swift * * *
> 22 * * *SZD-59 Acro * * * * * * 13.2
> 23 * * *WindRose * * * * * * * * * * * *12.7
> 24 * * *Woodstock * * *
> 25 * *Ka6 * * * * * * * * * * * * *14.1

Don't forget the Irv Culver "Screamin' Weiner" 10.97m span a.k.a. Li'l
Dogie (Wally Wiberg) and the Culver "Rigid Midget" 11.58m . These
designs placed 2nd in 1946 and 1947 U.S. Nationals. Flown by Ray
Parker and Paul MacCready. Had a world out and return record in the
1940s also.

Bob Kuykendall

February 2nd 09, 10:23 PM

On Feb 2, 2:14*am, (Michel Talon) wrote:

> ...The glider factories seem to think that glider buyers
> are like Ferrari buyers, who will accept to pay any price
> for their toys...

Michel, I think that you have hit the nail on the head. The glider
makers are acting just as you say. And the reason they are doing so
seems to be that they are correct in their assessment; that there
continues to be folks who will pay top dollar for high-performance
sailplanes.

What I don't understand is why you seem to take issue with it. Do you
think that it is unjust or unfair for them to want to make a profit?

In order to make at least enough money to stay in business, the
established glider manufacturers have focused their development and
production on gliders for which they can command the highest prices
and so make the most profit: high-performance racing machines with
cutting-edge aerodynamics and many pilot-friendly amenities. And who
can blame them? That is what businesses do. The business of business
is definitely business. Expecting any business to do otherwise means
that you consider it a charity and begs the question, how much time or
money have you donated lately?

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that the established
glider manufacturers are making excessive profits as we have seen
among greedy Wall Street bankers. We don't see their CEOs flying
around in business jets, and their top managers and engineers don't
get huge bonuses and live in mansions. In fact, when I met the man who
is arguable the best and most prolific sailplane designer ever, he was
wearing a grubby T-shirt and sweeping out a hangar with a borrowed
broom.

To my way of thinking, just about the only folks who make gliders for
free are those who expect to hold posession of said glider when
they're done. That certainly describes the sailplane homebuilders with
whom I hold the honor and privilege of working. But it doesn't and
needn't describe businesses that are in the business of making
gliders.

Thanks, and best regards

Bob K.

Jim Beckman[_2_]

February 2nd 09, 10:45 PM

At 17:03 02 February 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>Well... as there are practiucally no World Class gliders flying in
>Europe (read: World Class is being ignored by 80 percent of the
>world's gliding pilots), you'd better name it "US class"... or
"dwarf
>class"...

Can't say that it's overwhelmingly popular in the US, either. The World
Class US Nationals have been running concurrently with the 1-26
Championships, and it seems like there are 4 to 5 times as many 1-26s as
there are PW-5s.

Jim Beckman

Michel Talon

February 2nd 09, 11:27 PM

Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2:14*am, (Michel Talon) wrote:
>
> > ...The glider factories seem to think that glider buyers
> > are like Ferrari buyers, who will accept to pay any price
> > for their toys...
>
> Michel, I think that you have hit the nail on the head. The glider
> makers are acting just as you say. And the reason they are doing so
> seems to be that they are correct in their assessment; that there
> continues to be folks who will pay top dollar for high-performance
> sailplanes.
>
> What I don't understand is why you seem to take issue with it. Do you
> think that it is unjust or unfair for them to want to make a profit?

I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is sustainable.
By the way, how many glider factories went bust? Similarly how many
of these car builders who wanted to produce luxury sports cars are
alive? Bugatti does airplane parts nowadays, similarly Hispano-Suiza,
etc. Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for *small
cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free, over
all those years. You have only to consider what Andreas Maurer says to
see what small cost means, in the example of his club in Landau.

--

Michel TALON

Dan Silent[_2_]

February 2nd 09, 11:45 PM

At 20:52 02 February 2009, wrote:
>On Feb 1, 4:00=A0am, Dan Silent wrote:
>> At 03:09 28 January 2009, RRK wrote:
>>
>>>How many gliders with a wing span of 13.5 or less do >>>you know?

1 Apis-13 13.3
2 BG135
3 Carbon Dragon 13.4
4 Cessna CG-2 11.0
5 Cherokee II 12.2
6 Duster 13.1 m 13.1
7 H101 Salto
8 L0 100
9 Monarch 12.8
10 Monerai S 11.0
11 MU xy
12 Pioneer II 13.0
13 PW-5 13.4
14 Russia
15 Schweizer 1-26 12.2
16 Silent 2 13.0
17 Silent 2 Targa 13.3
18 Silent Club 12.0
19 Slingaby Swallow
20 Sparrowhawk 11.0
21 SW-1 Swift
22 SZD-59 Acro 13.2
23 WindRose 12.7
24 Woodstock
25 Screamin' Weiner 11.0
26 Rigid Midget 11.6

possible names for the new class:

"US class"
"NON EUROPE class"
"20PCT class"
"DWARF class"
"WC class"
"TINS4WS class"

OTHER SUGGESTIONS???

Dan Silent[_2_]

February 3rd 09, 12:00 AM

At 22:45 02 February 2009, Jim Beckman wrote:
>At 17:03 02 February 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>>
>>Well... as there are practically no World Class gliders flying in
>>Europe (read: World Class is being ignored by 80 percent of the
>>world's gliding pilots), you'd better name it "US class"... or
>>dwarf class"...

Short Wings Gliders might account for <5 pct of world fleet
if 20 percent of the world's gliding pilots are interested
it will be a great success!!!!!

>Can't say that it's overwhelmingly popular in the US, either. The
World
>Class US Nationals have been running concurrently with the 1-26
>Championships, and it seems like there are 4 to 5 times as many 1-26s as
>there are PW-5s.

it makes sense..........
1-26 700 built for usa only
PW-5 200 built for the world

unless Arnold's friend comes around and pull out another
Judas trick like he did here in the last supper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VnTO-2ZBPk&feature=related

and you get bread, fish and PW-5 multiplied ..................

DRN

February 3rd 09, 12:41 AM

On Feb 2, 5:14*am, (Michel Talon) wrote:
> ... But i remark that the cost of gliders has
> indeed increased exponentially the last twenty years, for reasons which
> have nothing to do with concrete factors, but everything to do with
> hourly cost of workers, and total lack of will of controlling the costs.
> The glider factories seem to think that glider buyers are like Ferrari
> buyers, who will accept to pay any price for their toys.

Nope. Why do you think some mfgs are still using lower-cost
(and lower quality) bearings ? Not using stainless cables ?
I have been told, when I specifically asked, that cost control
was the reason. The factories constantly look for ways to
reduce costs.

A primary cost driver is the FAI class definition, which sets
the market. And when there are too many classes, it just
runs up the per-unit costs. And no, it doesn't get hugely
cheaper when you cut the span...

My two cents anyway,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

Dan Silent[_2_]

February 3rd 09, 01:00 AM

Ian Cant[_2_]

February 3rd 09, 01:15 AM

At 01:00 03 February 2009, Dan Silent wrote:
>possible names for the new class:
>
>"US class"
>"NON EUROPE class"
>"20PCT class"
>"DWARF class"
>"WC class"
>"TINS4WS class"
>
>OTHER SUGGESTIONS???

Volksclasse ?

Bob Kuykendall

February 3rd 09, 01:31 AM

On Feb 2, 3:27*pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:

> I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is sustainable.

Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
mine.

Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.

> Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
> of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for *small
> cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free, over
> all those years...

If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.

Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
each, but I think it can work the other way as well.

Thanks again, Bob K.

Bob Kuykendall

February 3rd 09, 01:34 AM

Earlier, I wrote:

> ...However, I don't think that how they are operating is
> damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
> soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
> their businesses....

What I meant to write was:

> ...However, I don't think that how they are operating is
> damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
> soaring pilots, so I do **not** think it is my place to tell them how to run
> their businesses....

Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks, Bob K.

Nyal Williams[_2_]

February 3rd 09, 02:15 AM

This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
started up ever get finished. Of those that do, many pass through three
owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
usually takes about eight years. Of course, gliders are much simpler to
build.

Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
build a bad design as a good one. Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
can tell you how much it costs to build it."

This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
particular location and with any particular construction method.

At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:
>
>> I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
sustainable.
>
>Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
>things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
>indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
>damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
>soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
>their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
>more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
>damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
>mine.
>
>Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
>robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
>their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
>will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
>can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
>current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
>develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.
>
>> Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
>> of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for
*small
>> cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free,
over
>> all those years...
>
>If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
>days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
>workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
>produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.
>
>Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
>transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
>facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
>homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
>distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
>world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
>each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
>each, but I think it can work the other way as well.
>
>Thanks again, Bob K.
>

Brad[_2_]

February 3rd 09, 02:28 AM

On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
> This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
> started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three
> owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
> usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to
> build.
>
> Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
> build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
> can tell you how much it costs to build it."
>
> This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
> particular location and with any particular construction method.
>
> At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:
>
> >> I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
> sustainable.
>
> >Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
> >things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
> >indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
> >damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
> >soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
> >their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
> >more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
> >damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
> >mine.
>
> >Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
> >robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
> >their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
> >will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
> >can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
> >current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
> >develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.
>
> >> Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
> >> of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for
> *small
> >> cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free,
> over
> >> all those years...
>
> >If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
> >days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
> >workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
> >produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.
>
> >Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
> >transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
> >facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
> >homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
> >distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
> >world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
> >each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
> >each, but I think it can work the other way as well.
>
> >Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs,
tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole
thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took
to build the craft painting and polishing it.

Brad

Andreas Maurer

February 3rd 09, 02:38 AM

Salut Michel,

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 10:14:48 +0000 (UTC),
(Michel Talon) wrote:

>The glider factories seem to think that glider buyers are like Ferrari
>buyers, who will accept to pay any price for their toys.

Facts prove that exactly THIS is what happens at the moment.
..
Just look at the sales numbers of new gliders: By far most of them are
18 meter class ships, half of them self-launchers. They hardly perform
better than a 15m glider (if better at all - some folks doubt this),
are nearly twice as expensive - and yet noone is buying 15m gliders
anymore.

You cannot afford to buy a new glider? Plenty of cheap, used gliders
on the market.
At least in Europe with its huge market of 2nd hand gliders, there's
simply no need to produce a cheap glider.

>A closely previous post mentioned that Schleicher was paying heavy fees
>to Delft University to get his computations done. Compare this to the
>Pegase which was computed at ONERA for free. I have the impression that
>the Pegase was the last glider whose aim was allowing a lot of people to
>fly.

> And incidentally, it shows that one can build a 15m glider of
>reasonable simplicity, with performances not that different from the more
>complex ASW 20, easier to fly, and much cheaper.

Hmmm.... Pegase... wasn't that the carbon copy of some German
design... fromm... err... aforesaid Schleicher...!?

Let's face it: Schleicher did 95 percent of the design work for the
Pegase (I already hear the French contributors to this group cry out
and start their protest postings).

But it's a completely different case if you are the competitor on a
market who needs to design technology that has to be leading-edge for
the next 15 to 20 years. Schleicher is still market leader... while
Centrair is gone. Clear case who made the right decisions on the long
run. :)

toad

February 3rd 09, 03:46 AM

On Feb 2, 8:15*pm, Ian Cant > wrote:
> At 01:00 03 February 2009, Dan Silent wrote:
>
> >possible names for the new class:
>
> >"US class"
> >"NON EUROPE class"
> >"20PCT class"
> >"DWARF class"
> >"WC class"
> >"TINS4WS class"
>
> >OTHER SUGGESTIONS???
>
> Volksclasse ?

SIFOW of course :-)

Derek Copeland[_2_]

February 3rd 09, 08:00 AM

SIFOW = Span Is FOr Wimps.

That's what I told myself when I sold my share in an elderly Nimbus 2 and
bought a somewhat newer Standard Cirrus instead. But I still land out more
often in the 15m Cirrus than I did in the 21.9m (extended span) Nimbus.

I have tiny shares in an 18m Bocian 2 seater and a 13.5m Slingsby Swallow
(both Vintage) and I do fly them cross country, but I tend to pick the
better days for these flights. In the Swallow, I once made the mistake of
leaving a thermal before I reached the 5000ft cloudbase, because I didn't
think it was good enough, and got down to 500 ft before I contacted the
next one!.....Phew! I did however go on to complete the planned 220km O/R
flight.

Derek Copeland

At 03:46 03 February 2009, toad wrote:
>On Feb 2, 8:15=A0pm, Ian Cant wrote:
>> At 01:00 03 February 2009, Dan Silent wrote:
>>
>> >possible names for the new class:
>>
>> >"US class"
>> >"NON EUROPE class"
>> >"20PCT class"
>> >"DWARF class"
>> >"WC class"
>> >"TINS4WS class"
>>
>> >OTHER SUGGESTIONS???
>>
>> Volksclasse ?
>
>SIFOW of course :-)
>

Dan Silent[_2_]

February 3rd 09, 01:45 PM

At 03:46 03 February 2009, toad wrote:
>On Feb 2, 8:15=A0pm, Ian Cant wrote:
>> At 01:00 03 February 2009, Dan Silent wrote:
>>
>> >possible names for the new class:
>>
>> >"US class"
>> >"NON EUROPE class"
>> >"20PCT class"
>> >"DWARF class"
>> >"WC class"
>> >"TINS4WS class"
>>
>> >OTHER SUGGESTIONS???
>>
>> Volksclasse ?
>

MAYBE BETTER:

PeopleKlasse

Jim Beckman[_2_]

February 3rd 09, 02:45 PM

At 20:00 02 February 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>>
>>So how *do* we explain the continuing (I hope) popularity of the
>Schweizer
>>1-26 in America?
>
>Masochism perhaps?

Maybe I'm missing something - is cross country soaring supposed to be
easy? OK, there may be places where you can't even sustain local soaring
in something like a 1-26, but I would guess there are very few such places
in the US. And I always figure that if you can stay up locally for an
hour or so without too much sweat, then you can go somewhere. Even in a
1-26.

One thing we've got organized at Blairstown is a season-long competition
for 1-26s, called the Do-It-Yourself contest. The contest manager
specifies a course of local turnpoints for a course of around Silver
Distance. This can (and should) be done without being beyond glide range
of the home field. But it demonstrates that flying to a specified point
and returning is not the same as just doodling from one thermal to another
to stay aloft locally. Every month of two the task changes, and there are
some very nice awards given at the end of the season. It's a pretty good
idea.

Jim Beckman

Jim Beckman[_2_]

February 3rd 09, 03:00 PM

At 23:27 02 February 2009, Michel Talon wrote:
>
>By the way, how many glider factories went bust? Similarly how many
>of these car builders who wanted to produce luxury sports cars are
>alive? Bugatti does airplane parts nowadays, similarly Hispano-Suiza,
>etc.

Well, your own counter-example is Ferrari. And then there's Lamborghini,
Maserati, Aston-Martin and Bently. Personally, I'm glad there are folks
who can afford to buy those cars and run them on the roads, so I get to
see them. Although I have no realistic hope to ever own one.

One difference I see in sailplanes is that the continual push to build and
sell the latest and greatest performance model feeds the market in used
gliders that the rest of us can eventually aspire to own.

Jim Beckman

Bob Kuykendall

February 3rd 09, 04:29 PM

On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:

> This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
> started up ever get finished...

It depends on what you mean by "started up." If by that you mean
purchased a plans set and maybe a few of the essentials for one of the
1950s or 1960s designs like FlyBaby or Tailwind, then, yeah, I'd have
to concede the point.

But there is no chance, none at all, that that kind of rate applies to
modern kit aircraft such as Vans pre-punched or quick-build kits for
airplanes like the RV-8. Near as I can tell, just about every one of
those gets finished, and relatively few trade hands in progress.

Collectively, the RV builders constitute one of the worlds most
prolific small aircraft manufacturers, as of yesterday they have
completed and flown 6069 small aircraft; that's about a thousand more
aircraft than are in the current US glider fleet:

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/flights.htm

I work on an RV-8 two nights a week, and I've been to Vans factory in
Aurora, Oregon, and it has been an incredible experience to see what
you can do with a rational and balanced approach to a kit airplane.
With the pre-punched and pre-drilled holes, relatively few jigs are
required and the whole thing sort of just falls together in the
correct alignment. It is easy to get started, and easy to keep making
progress.

The comparison to even the fairly complete Schreder kits of the 1960s
and 1970s is like night and day. There's no stress and anxiety around
transferring measurements and doing hole layouts and wondering if
you're about to ruin a part by drilling a hole in the wrong spot. All
the bulkheads and ribs are formed to shape, and almost all the skins
are trimmed to outline.

What's really amazing about the RVs, and is definitely an example to
look to, is the resale value. Any reasonably well-built and flyable RV
will command a price that is substantially greater than the cost of
the kit plus the cost of the engine and avionics and other items that
went into it.

Thanks again, Bob K.

Bob Kuykendall

February 3rd 09, 04:33 PM

On Feb 2, 6:38*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:

> Schleicher is still market leader... while Centrair is gone...

That has always sort of puzzled me. My basic business philosophy is
"The early bird gets the worm, but it's the second mouse that gets the
cheese." I am endlessly fascinated by counterexamples, they always
contain valuable lessons.

Thanks, Bob K.

Bob Kuykendall

February 3rd 09, 04:36 PM

One Class to rule them all, one Class to find them...

</runes>

John Scott[_2_]

February 3rd 09, 05:19 PM

There have been 8 APIS kit imported into the United States.

6 have been complete and were flown by their original owner/builders.
1 of these has subsequently been sold and is flying with a new owner.
1 was lost in a fatal accident

2 are still being actively completed by their original owners.

John Scott

Martin Gregorie[_4_]

February 3rd 09, 06:06 PM

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:27:48 +0000, Michel Talon wrote:

> Bugatti does airplane parts nowadays, similarly Hispano-Suiza, etc.
>
Hispano-Suiza isn't really a good example of a car company that changed
into an aviation engine company since they have built aero engines since
the start of WW1 and aircraft guns since 1936.

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

Dan Silent[_2_]

February 3rd 09, 08:45 PM

At 16:29 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

>http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/flights.htm
>
>I work on an RV-8 two nights a week, and I've been to Vans factory in
>Aurora, Oregon, and it has been an incredible experience to see what
>you can do with a rational and balanced approach to a kit airplane.
>With the pre-punched and pre-drilled holes, relatively few jigs are
>required and the whole thing sort of just falls together in the
>correct alignment. It is easy to get started, and easy to keep making
>progress.
>
>The comparison to even the fairly complete Schreder kits of the 1960s
>and 1970s is like night and day. There's no stress and anxiety around
>transferring measurements and doing hole layouts and wondering if
>you're about to ruin a part by drilling a hole in the wrong spot. All
>the bulkheads and ribs are formed to shape, and almost all the skins
>are trimmed to outline.
>
>What's really amazing about the RVs, and is definitely an example to
>look to, is the resale value. Any reasonably well-built and flyable RV
>will command a price that is substantially greater than the cost of
>the kit plus the cost of the engine and avionics and other items that
>went into it.
>
>Thanks again, Bob K.

RV is the marvelous example of modern technology!!!
In the open minded high volume USA aviation contest.
Same apply to some Ultralite kits.
I have seen an Ultralight Rotax 912 Landafrica, which is an
exact copy of the Zenair, built in two months.
We'll see soon a kit glider with the same success of the RVs,
in my mind the HP24 will sell like candies, if the price is
right!!!!!

So many para/delta gliders pilots are getting old and are ready to
transition to the comfort of soaring!!!!
They already know how to fly.
They want to fly cheapo and often..............
They are used to go nowhere...........
They will be able to fly into stronger winds.......
They will have more time because of the economy.
etc etc etc
Only a few of them are millionaires.

Dan Silent[_2_]

February 3rd 09, 08:45 PM

Uncle Fuzzy

February 4th 09, 01:07 AM

On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
> > started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three
> > owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
> > usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to
> > build.
>
> > Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
> > build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
> > can tell you how much it costs to build it."
>
> > This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
> > particular location and with any particular construction method.
>
> > At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
> > >On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:
>
> > >> I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
> > sustainable.
>
> > >Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
> > >things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
> > >indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
> > >damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
> > >soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
> > >their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
> > >more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
> > >damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
> > >mine.
>
> > >Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
> > >robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
> > >their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
> > >will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
> > >can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
> > >current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
> > >develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.
>
> > >> Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
> > >> of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for
> > *small
> > >> cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free,
> > over
> > >> all those years...
>
> > >If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
> > >days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
> > >workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
> > >produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.
>
> > >Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
> > >transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
> > >facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
> > >homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
> > >distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
> > >world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
> > >each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
> > >each, but I think it can work the other way as well.
>
> > >Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs,
> tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole
> thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took
> to build the craft painting and polishing it.
>
> Brad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Brad,
That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line
Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. It took 42 hours
to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and
finish. This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.

Bob Kuykendall

February 4th 09, 01:08 AM

On Feb 3, 12:45*pm, Dan Silent > wrote:

> RV is the marvelous example of modern technology!!!
> In the open minded high volume USA aviation contest.
> Same apply to some Ultralite kits.
> I have seen an Ultralight Rotax 912 Landafrica, which is an
> exact copy of the Zenair, built in two months.
> We'll see soon a kit glider with the same success of the RVs,
> in my mind the HP24 will sell like candies, if the price is
> right!!!!!
>
> So many para/delta gliders pilots are getting old and are ready to
> transition to the comfort of soaring!!!!
> They already know how to fly.
> They want to fly cheapo and often..............
> They are used to go nowhere...........
> They will be able to fly into stronger winds.......
> They will have more time because of the economy.
> etc etc etc
> Only a few of them are millionaires.

Thanks, I do appreciate your enthusiasm and encouragement!

Bob K.

Brad[_2_]

February 4th 09, 01:44 AM

On Feb 3, 5:07*pm, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
>
> > > This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
> > > started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three
> > > owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
> > > usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to
> > > build.
>
> > > Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
> > > build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
> > > can tell you how much it costs to build it."
>
> > > This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
> > > particular location and with any particular construction method.
>
> > > At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
> > > >On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:
>
> > > >> I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
> > > sustainable.
>
> > > >Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
> > > >things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
> > > >indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
> > > >damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
> > > >soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
> > > >their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
> > > >more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
> > > >damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
> > > >mine.
>
> > > >Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
> > > >robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
> > > >their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
> > > >will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
> > > >can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
> > > >current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
> > > >develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.
>
> > > >> Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
> > > >> of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for
> > > *small
> > > >> cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free,
> > > over
> > > >> all those years...
>
> > > >If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
> > > >days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
> > > >workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
> > > >produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.
>
> > > >Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
> > > >transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
> > > >facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
> > > >homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
> > > >distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
> > > >world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
> > > >each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
> > > >each, but I think it can work the other way as well.
>
> > > >Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs,
> > tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole
> > thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took
> > to build the craft painting and polishing it.
>
> > Brad- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Brad,
> * That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line
> Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. *It took 42 hours
> to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and
> finish. *This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

ah, I remember those days too. mine never lasted long enough to
justify spending too much time with covering/painting. we used to
build voodoo's and nemisis' and smash em up pretty regularly. it was a
lot of fun making the pressure tanks out of pudding cans and
pacifiers! nothing like the sound of a 36XBB at full speed!

Brad

Craig[_2_]

February 4th 09, 07:00 AM

On Feb 3, 5:44*pm, Brad > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 5:07*pm, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
>
> > > > This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
> > > > started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three
> > > > owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
> > > > usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to
> > > > build.
>
> > > > Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
> > > > build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
> > > > can tell you how much it costs to build it."
>
> > > > This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
> > > > particular location and with any particular construction method.
>
> > > > At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
> > > > >On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:
>
> > > > >> I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
> > > > sustainable.
>
> > > > >Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
> > > > >things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
> > > > >indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
> > > > >damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
> > > > >soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
> > > > >their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
> > > > >more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
> > > > >damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
> > > > >mine.
>
> > > > >Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
> > > > >robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
> > > > >their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
> > > > >will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
> > > > >can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
> > > > >current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
> > > > >develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.
>
> > > > >> Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
> > > > >> of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for
> > > > *small
> > > > >> cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free,
> > > > over
> > > > >> all those years...
>
> > > > >If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
> > > > >days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
> > > > >workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
> > > > >produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.
>
> > > > >Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
> > > > >transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
> > > > >facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
> > > > >homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
> > > > >distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
> > > > >world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
> > > > >each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
> > > > >each, but I think it can work the other way as well.
>
> > > > >Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs,
> > > tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole
> > > thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took
> > > to build the craft painting and polishing it.
>
> > > Brad- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Brad,
> > * That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line
> > Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. *It took 42 hours
> > to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and
> > finish. *This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> ah, I remember those days too. mine never lasted long enough to
> justify spending too much time with covering/painting. we used to
> build voodoo's and nemisis' and smash em up pretty regularly. it was a
> lot of fun making the pressure tanks out of pudding cans and
> pacifiers! nothing like the sound of a 36XBB at full speed!
>
> Brad

Fun stuff, Kinda like having a freight train at the end of the lines.

Craig

Alan[_6_]

February 4th 09, 07:40 AM

In article > Bob Kuykendall > writes:
>On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:
>
>> Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
>> of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for *small
>> cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free, over
>> all those years...
>
>If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
>days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
>workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
>produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.
>
>Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
>transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
>facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
>homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
>distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
>world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
>each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
>each, but I think it can work the other way as well.

I suspect that there would be difficulty moving the aircraft and all
the manufacturing parts and tools around between the 10,000 individual
workers.

Alan

Bob Kuykendall

February 4th 09, 03:41 PM

On Feb 3, 11:40*pm, (Alan) wrote:

> * I suspect that there would be difficulty moving the aircraft and all
> the manufacturing parts and tools around between the 10,000 individual
> workers.

Could be. But it doesn't seem to have been a huge issue among the
folks who have built and flown 6069 RVs. I can't see why modest-span
gliders would be much different.

Thanks, Bob K.

[email protected]

February 4th 09, 07:12 PM

On Feb 4, 7:41*am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 11:40*pm, (Alan) wrote:
>
> > * I suspect that there would be difficulty moving the aircraft and all
> > the manufacturing parts and tools around between the 10,000 individual
> > workers.
>
> Could be. But it doesn't seem to have been a huge issue among the
> folks who have built and flown 6069 RVs. I can't see why modest-span
> gliders would be much different.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

I think that's how they did the Beijing Olympics.

9B

Bob Kuykendall

February 4th 09, 10:00 PM

On Feb 4, 11:12*am, wrote:

> I think that's how they did the Beijing Olympics.

Sorry, you lost me there.

Bob "Miners, not minors!" K.

Dan Silent[_2_]

February 4th 09, 11:45 PM

At 22:00 04 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>On Feb 4, 11:12=A0am, wrote:
>
>> I think that's how they did the Beijing Olympics.
>
>Sorry, you lost me there.
>
>Bob "Miners, not minors!" K.
>

Klear as mud to me!

Tech Support

February 5th 09, 01:34 AM

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:44:44 -0800 (PST), Brad >
wrote:

>On Feb 3, 5:07*pm, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
>>
>> > > This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
>> > > started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three
>> > > owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
>> > > usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to
>> > > build.
>>
>> > > Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
>> > > build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
>> > > can tell you how much it costs to build it."
>>
>> > > This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
>> > > particular location and with any particular construction method.
>>
>> > > At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>>
>> > > >On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:
>>
>> > > >> I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
>> > > sustainable.
>>
>> > > >Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
>> > > >things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
>> > > >indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
>> > > >damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
>> > > >soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
>> > > >their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
>> > > >more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
>> > > >damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
>> > > >mine.
>>
>> > > >Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
>> > > >robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
>> > > >their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
>> > > >will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
>> > > >can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
>> > > >current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
>> > > >develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.
>>
>> > > >> Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
>> > > >> of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for
>> > > *small
>> > > >> cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free,
>> > > over
>> > > >> all those years...
>>
>> > > >If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
>> > > >days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
>> > > >workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
>> > > >produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.
>>
>> > > >Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
>> > > >transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
>> > > >facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
>> > > >homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
>> > > >distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
>> > > >world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
>> > > >each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
>> > > >each, but I think it can work the other way as well.
>>
>> > > >Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs,
>> > tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole
>> > thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took
>> > to build the craft painting and polishing it.
>>
>> > Brad- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Brad,
>> * That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line
>> Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. *It took 42 hours
>> to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and
>> finish. *This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>ah, I remember those days too. mine never lasted long enough to
>justify spending too much time with covering/painting. we used to
>build voodoo's and nemisis' and smash em up pretty regularly. it was a
>lot of fun making the pressure tanks out of pudding cans and
>pacifiers! nothing like the sound of a 36XBB at full speed!
>
>Brad
************************************************** *************

Ever hear a McCoy 60 at 20K RPM and a 100++++++?

Big John

Brad[_2_]

February 5th 09, 01:48 AM

On Feb 4, 5:34*pm, Tech Support <> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:44:44 -0800 (PST), Brad >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 3, 5:07*pm, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
> >> On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad > wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
>
> >> > > This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
> >> > > started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three
> >> > > owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
> >> > > usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to
> >> > > build.
>
> >> > > Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
> >> > > build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
> >> > > can tell you how much it costs to build it."
>
> >> > > This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
> >> > > particular location and with any particular construction method.
>
> >> > > At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
> >> > > >On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:
>
> >> > > >> I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
> >> > > sustainable.
>
> >> > > >Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
> >> > > >things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
> >> > > >indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
> >> > > >damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
> >> > > >soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
> >> > > >their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
> >> > > >more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
> >> > > >damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
> >> > > >mine.
>
> >> > > >Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
> >> > > >robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
> >> > > >their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
> >> > > >will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
> >> > > >can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
> >> > > >current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
> >> > > >develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.
>
> >> > > >> Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
> >> > > >> of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for
> >> > > *small
> >> > > >> cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free,
> >> > > over
> >> > > >> all those years...
>
> >> > > >If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
> >> > > >days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
> >> > > >workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
> >> > > >produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.
>
> >> > > >Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
> >> > > >transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
> >> > > >facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
> >> > > >homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
> >> > > >distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
> >> > > >world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
> >> > > >each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
> >> > > >each, but I think it can work the other way as well.
>
> >> > > >Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs,
> >> > tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole
> >> > thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took
> >> > to build the craft painting and polishing it.
>
> >> > Brad- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Brad,
> >> * That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line
> >> Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. *It took 42 hours
> >> to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and
> >> finish. *This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >ah, I remember those days too. mine never lasted long enough to
> >justify spending too much time with covering/painting. we used to
> >build voodoo's and nemisis' and smash em up pretty regularly. it was a
> >lot of fun making the pressure tanks out of pudding cans and
> >pacifiers! nothing like the sound of a 36XBB at full speed!
>
> >Brad
>
> ************************************************** *************
>
> Ever hear a McCoy 60 at 20K RPM and a 100++++++?
>
> Big John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

on a U/C?
need to anchor yerself down!

Brad

Nyal Williams[_2_]

February 5th 09, 03:45 AM

At 01:48 05 February 2009, Brad wrote:
>On Feb 4, 5:34=A0pm, Tech Support wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:44:44 -0800 (PST), Brad
>> wrote:
SNIP>
>>
>> >> Brad,
>> >> =A0 That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line
>> >> Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. =A0It took 42
>hou=
>rs
>> >> to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and
>> >> finish. =A0This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.-
>Hide=
> quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >ah, I remember those days too. mine never lasted long enough to
>> >justify spending too much time with covering/painting. we used to
>> >build voodoo's and nemisis' and smash em up pretty regularly. it was
a
>> >lot of fun making the pressure tanks out of pudding cans and
>> >pacifiers! nothing like the sound of a 36XBB at full speed!
>>
>> >Brad
>>
>> ************************************************** *************
>>
>> Ever hear a McCoy 60 at 20K RPM and a 100++++++?
>>
>> Big John- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>on a U/C?
>need to anchor yerself down!
>
>Brad
>

I had one of those! What I never did hear was my GHQ fire more than a
half-dozen times in a row.

Martin Gregorie[_4_]

February 5th 09, 12:54 PM

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:34:04 -0600, Tech Support wrote:

>
> Ever hear a McCoy 60 at 20K RPM and a 100++++++?
>
A Nelson .15 at 31,000 rpm on a fast, vertical climbing F1C or a Cyclon
06 at 30K going vertical on a quick F1J both do it for me.

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

Tech Support

February 6th 09, 02:58 AM

Yep.

Won the contest with my McCoy 60 in Salt Lake City in 1946 :o)

We're getting off the soaring threads except after fuel ran out and
glided several circuits.

Big John

************************************************
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:48:46 -0800 (PST), Brad >
wrote:

>On Feb 4, 5:34*pm, Tech Support <> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:44:44 -0800 (PST), Brad >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 3, 5:07*pm, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
>> >> On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
>> >> > > started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three
>> >> > > owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
>> >> > > usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to
>> >> > > build.
>>
>> >> > > Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
>> >> > > build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
>> >> > > can tell you how much it costs to build it."
>>
>> >> > > This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
>> >> > > particular location and with any particular construction method.
>>
>> >> > > At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
>> >> > > sustainable.
>>
>> >> > > >Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
>> >> > > >things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
>> >> > > >indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
>> >> > > >damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
>> >> > > >soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
>> >> > > >their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
>> >> > > >more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
>> >> > > >damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
>> >> > > >mine.
>>
>> >> > > >Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
>> >> > > >robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
>> >> > > >their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
>> >> > > >will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
>> >> > > >can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
>> >> > > >current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
>> >> > > >develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.
>>
>> >> > > >> Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
>> >> > > >> of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for
>> >> > > *small
>> >> > > >> cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free,
>> >> > > over
>> >> > > >> all those years...
>>
>> >> > > >If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
>> >> > > >days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
>> >> > > >workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
>> >> > > >produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.
>>
>> >> > > >Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
>> >> > > >transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
>> >> > > >facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
>> >> > > >homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
>> >> > > >distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
>> >> > > >world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
>> >> > > >each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
>> >> > > >each, but I think it can work the other way as well.
>>
>> >> > > >Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs,
>> >> > tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole
>> >> > thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took
>> >> > to build the craft painting and polishing it.
>>
>> >> > Brad- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> Brad,
>> >> * That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line
>> >> Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. *It took 42 hours
>> >> to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and
>> >> finish. *This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >ah, I remember those days too. mine never lasted long enough to
>> >justify spending too much time with covering/painting. we used to
>> >build voodoo's and nemisis' and smash em up pretty regularly. it was a
>> >lot of fun making the pressure tanks out of pudding cans and
>> >pacifiers! nothing like the sound of a 36XBB at full speed!
>>
>> >Brad
>>
>> ************************************************** *************
>>
>> Ever hear a McCoy 60 at 20K RPM and a 100++++++?
>>
>> Big John- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>on a U/C?
>need to anchor yerself down!
>
>Brad

Tech Support

February 6th 09, 03:07 AM

Martin

Had a couple of Nelsons. Good engines. Flew in RC racers. Only
Cyclone's (note spelling) I had were pre WWII gas engines, with
ignition, and Class C size in those days.

Why did a lot of model flyers get into gliders as they got older?

Big John

************************************************** *************************

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:54:03 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie
> wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:34:04 -0600, Tech Support wrote:
>
>>
>> Ever hear a McCoy 60 at 20K RPM and a 100++++++?
>>
>A Nelson .15 at 31,000 rpm on a fast, vertical climbing F1C or a Cyclon
>06 at 30K going vertical on a quick F1J both do it for me.

Martin Gregorie[_4_]

February 6th 09, 01:13 PM

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:07:59 -0600, Tech Support wrote:

> Martin
>
> Had a couple of Nelsons. Good engines. Flew in RC racers. Only Cyclone's
> (note spelling) I had were pre WWII gas engines, with ignition, and
> Class C size in those days.
>
No, that's a very different engine. See:
http://www.gregorie.org/freeflight/f1j/cyclon06/cyclon06.html

for more about the Cyclon 06. They use Nelson plugs and are very sweet
engines.

> Why did a lot of model flyers get into gliders as they got older?
>
A good question. My club has quite a lot of modellers in it, many still
active on the modelling scene. I flew a bit of CL and single channel RC
when I was a kid, but discovered the competition free flight scene at
University around 1970 and never looked back. I flew mostly towline
glider (A/2, F1A) and a bit of small power (1/2A, then F1J). I've always
built my own models and designed my F1As and F1Js. I got a bit less
interested in model flying with the rise of bought models and this,
combined with my first ride in glass (an ASK-21) in 1999 kick-started my
move into soaring. I joined my present club and started learning to fly
in 2000.

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

Tech Support

February 7th 09, 04:17 AM

Martin

Tnx for info. Understand all the mods out lined. We flew out of the
box and some were faster than others :o(

Fly safe

Big John

************************************************** **************

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:13:37 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie
> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:07:59 -0600, Tech Support wrote:
>
>> Martin
>>
>> Had a couple of Nelsons. Good engines. Flew in RC racers. Only Cyclone's
>> (note spelling) I had were pre WWII gas engines, with ignition, and
>> Class C size in those days.
>>
>No, that's a very different engine. See:
>http://www.gregorie.org/freeflight/f1j/cyclon06/cyclon06.html
>
>for more about the Cyclon 06. They use Nelson plugs and are very sweet
>engines.
>
>> Why did a lot of model flyers get into gliders as they got older?
>>
>A good question. My club has quite a lot of modellers in it, many still
>active on the modelling scene. I flew a bit of CL and single channel RC
>when I was a kid, but discovered the competition free flight scene at
>University around 1970 and never looked back. I flew mostly towline
>glider (A/2, F1A) and a bit of small power (1/2A, then F1J). I've always
>built my own models and designed my F1As and F1Js. I got a bit less
>interested in model flying with the rise of bought models and this,
>combined with my first ride in glass (an ASK-21) in 1999 kick-started my
>move into soaring. I joined my present club and started learning to fly
>in 2000.

Derek Copeland[_2_]

February 7th 09, 09:45 AM

Gettin back to the main subject of this thread. The entry lists for the UK
Nationals have just been published, and the most popular class by far is
the 18m Class, followed by the 15m (flaps allowed) Class. There is no
interest whatsoever in the World Cass, although at least one PW5 will be
entered in a Regional Competition.

Does this tell you anything?

Derek Copeland

Brian Bange[_2_]

February 7th 09, 03:30 PM

This ought to get the juices flowing- Don't shoot the messenger.

So far, no one has mentioned the 800 pound gorilla in the room:

In all classes but sports:
$50,000 absolute minimum for a ship that ?might? be
competitive.
$50,000 minimum for a motor home. (USA)
$1000 minimum for a week at a regionals
1 week off per contest, minimum.

In sports class:
$25,000 average for a ship
$200 tent
$1000 minimum for a week at a regionals
1 week off per contest, minimum.
Sleep in your tent listening to the air conditioners running in all
the motor homes.

Who attends these competitions? Do you really wonder why Joe
average income does not come out to play with his PW5? His
significant other would give him AIDS (aviation induced divorce)
for trashing the family finances.

I see racers as rich guys with time and middle class guys who
are willing to make huge sacrifices and/or have extraordinary
support from their spouses. The average middle class guy with
a wife and family just can't do it. That's just the way it is.

Perhaps this is why the 1-26ers are still going strong after 40
years. They don't have to work on Wall Street to have fun.

So - back to the subject of the thread: Was the World Class a
good idea? As a venue for a new competitive class, probably
not. The people who buy them don't have the opportunity to
compete in the manner competitions are held presently. All the
PW5's, Russia's, Juniors and L33's that have been sold are being
flown by someone though. Their owners think they are great
little ships. They are affordable and relatively new as compared
to old German glass with scabby gel coats costing the same or
more $$$. The sport benefits from them, even if the class
competition never takes off.

OTHER OPINIONS WILL VARY... and yes it is a very long winter.

Brian

At 09:45 07 February 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>Gettin back to the main subject of this thread. The entry lists
for the UK
>Nationals have just been published, and the most popular class
by far is
>the 18m Class, followed by the 15m (flaps allowed) Class.
There is no
>interest whatsoever in the World Cass, although at least one
PW5 will be
>entered in a Regional Competition.
>
>Does this tell you anything?
>
>Derek Copeland
>
>
>

Derek Copeland[_2_]

February 7th 09, 05:15 PM

In Europe the real cheap *World Class* is the Club Class. This is a
handicapped Class for essentially Standard Class and 15m Class gliders
that are no longer competitive in their original unhandicapped classes, so
can be bought quite cheaply compared with a new PW5, and still give much
better performance for general non-competition flying.

If you can't afford all of a glider, even a cheap one, then why not form
a small syndicate with a few of your gliding friends.

If you really want a new one design 'World Class' glider I can't see
that adding an extra 0.75 metres to each wing to bring the span up to 15m
is going to add all that much extra cost, but will give a big improvement
in performance. As in sailing one design classes, you would have to have a
series of measurements that would have to be complied with. To keep it
cheap I would suggest a wing section that is thick enough to allow it to
be made from low cost materials. Something like the LS4 design would be a
good starting point.

Derek Copeland

At 15:30 07 February 2009, Brian Bange wrote:
>This ought to get the juices flowing- Don't shoot the messenger.
>
>So far, no one has mentioned the 800 pound gorilla in the room:
>
>In all classes but sports:
>$50,000 absolute minimum for a ship that ?might? be
>competitive.
>$50,000 minimum for a motor home. (USA)
>$1000 minimum for a week at a regionals
>1 week off per contest, minimum.
>
>In sports class:
>$25,000 average for a ship
>$200 tent
>$1000 minimum for a week at a regionals
>1 week off per contest, minimum.
>Sleep in your tent listening to the air conditioners running in all
>the motor homes.
>
>Who attends these competitions? Do you really wonder why Joe
>average income does not come out to play with his PW5? His
>significant other would give him AIDS (aviation induced divorce)
>for trashing the family finances.
>
>I see racers as rich guys with time and middle class guys who
>are willing to make huge sacrifices and/or have extraordinary
>support from their spouses. The average middle class guy with
>a wife and family just can't do it. That's just the way it is.
>
>Perhaps this is why the 1-26ers are still going strong after 40
>years. They don't have to work on Wall Street to have fun.
>
>So - back to the subject of the thread: Was the World Class a
>good idea? As a venue for a new competitive class, probably
>not. The people who buy them don't have the opportunity to
>compete in the manner competitions are held presently. All the
>PW5's, Russia's, Juniors and L33's that have been sold are being
>flown by someone though. Their owners think they are great
>little ships. They are affordable and relatively new as compared
>to old German glass with scabby gel coats costing the same or
>more $$$. The sport benefits from them, even if the class
>competition never takes off.
>
>OTHER OPINIONS WILL VARY... and yes it is a very long winter.
>
>Brian
>
>At 09:45 07 February 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>>Gettin back to the main subject of this thread. The entry lists
>for the UK
>>Nationals have just been published, and the most popular class
>by far is
>>the 18m Class, followed by the 15m (flaps allowed) Class.
>There is no
>>interest whatsoever in the World Cass, although at least one
>PW5 will be
>>entered in a Regional Competition.
>>
>>Does this tell you anything?
>>
>>Derek Copeland
>>
>>
>>
>