The "Gliders have to be cheaper for soaring to grow" argument was raging 45
years ago when I first started soaring. It led to the Standard Class which
sought to simplify and standardize gliders so that they could be built in
greater numbers at lower costs. The problem is that the economies of scale
that would result in lower unit costs kick in at far larger production runs
that any design has ever achieved. No manufacturer is willing to bet the
farm by investing huge sums in production tooling until the demand is
established. Demand has to come first, THEN we might get cheaper gliders.

If we can't expect new cheaper gliders to stimulate demand, how do we attack
the remaining costs?

Looking hard at the yearly costs of participation, air tow looms large. The
50-75 flights required to attain a glider certificate will likely cost
something like $3000. Glider rental cost won't come down until the prices
do and I wouldn't ask the instructors to reduce their fees since we need
them badly. If 50 of the 75 flights were by winch instead of airtow, the
$3000 drops to $300. That's a pretty significant drop in up front cost for
a student pilot.

Another cost built into everything related to soaring is insurance.
Premiums are based on losses expected and losses are very large in the
landing phase. (I just completed Bob Wander's CFI-G Renewal course)

Why are losses very high in the landing phase? I think it may be that we
just don't do many landings so our landing skills get rusty. The average
glider pilot does maybe 10 to 20 landing a year? The average power pilot
does 100 to 200 landings a year - and if the power pilot screws up an
approach, he can go around.

With winch launch costs so low, it's likely that many pilots would fly winch
launches just for the landing practice with the result that skills would
stay sharp and losses would go down.

Would expanded winch launch operations solve everything wrong with soaring?
Of course not, but it might address a few of them.

Bill Daniels

"Michel Talon" wrote in message
...
Robert Ehrlich wrote:
they participation is probably not their own decsision (or not
completely)
but rather the decision of their parents. As this is a sponsorized
activity,
the youngs and parents interested are probably among those who would
never have the money for a continued practice of the sport. Although

Isn't it that the most obvious evidence that something is badly rotten
in the domain of soaring? You are here considering as a plain fact that
most of the population cannot practice soaring because it is too expensive
(which is in fact the case). My prediction is that soaring will die soon
is nothing is done so that "the masses" can afford practising it.
Because rich people are frequently old, and old people are not the best
ones
to practice such a dangerous sport. They are not the best ones either to
enroll young people in the clubs. And most of the rich people are much
too busy running their businesses to afford spending days and days
at the airport, except retirees. There is a number one requirement to
halt the decline of soaring, drastically reduce costs, and in particular
drastically reduce price of gliders, which is the major factor in the
equation. It is not in the interest of glider factories, and it is not in
the
interest of the second hand market. But there is not a single
concurrential
industry that has not cut costs drastically in the last ten years. Only
glider factories allow themselves to regularly augment their prices
each year. This gives buyers the illusion that they fly cheap, since
they can resell their machines "the same price they bought it or more".
But the real price at the end is the decline of soaring.

some of the kids were really interested, the lack of interest of some
others was clearly demonstrated by the fact that on of them fell asleep
during a long flight.

You cannot expect to have 100% success in any activity. But 100%
of currently practising pilots began once.


However, as opposite to John's proposal, I think that a sufficiently
long flight is essential to the promotion of our sport, i.e. a flight
with a duration that clearly shows the ability of saiplanes to
stay in the air by they own means (or rather the combination of
the energy present in the air and the skills of the pilot).

I agree with you. You cannot expect to obtain a non vanishing percentage
of hooked young people without showing them the real beauties of soaring.
It is here that i disagree with Lennie. Having a good performing glider
40:1 allows to easily show what is really the beauty of gliding, in
particular going XC. With less performing gliders, only excellent pilots
can do the same. Hence, contrary to what he states and thinks, the real
elitism is in his position, thinking that one can have a lot of fun
with 30:1 gliders. Except excellent pilots, most of those who use such
gliders spend their time circling around the airport, and, as Lennie
has observed himself, this doesn't remain fun for very long. So, in my
opinion, the true problem is to build a good performing glider,
allowing to safely do XC, but not necessarily a top performer, at
very cheap prices, by whatever means necessary to achieve this aim
("outsourcing" comes to mind).


--

Michel TALON