Stewart Kissel wrote:

With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of tim=
e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship be=
ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? P=
articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design still r=
equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. It s=
till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. 1-26ers =
love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm to=
another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship whi=
ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =20

And I just don't see how any bird being built currently can price itself =
below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up the little PW5, maybe=
we need to look harder at the concept of one design racing. I like the =
idea but am not sure that in this day and age that is where so much effor=
t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought I would write this o=
ut. =20

[The following opinion is not founded on careful research. I offer it
from the viewpoint of someone that was on the SSA Board of Directors
when Paul Schweizer first proposed the World Class, and has observed the
debate since then]

I've wondered about this also. We have, in effect, one-design contests
in the STD, 15 M, and 18 M classes, because there is little difference
between the top gliders from each manufacturer. It's not a low cost,
one-design, situation, of course, but because the gliders offer what
most pilots want in a glider, they sell well to pilots that aren't
serious competitors.

We have low(er) cost racing via the Sport Class (USA) and the Club Class
(elsewhere). The Sports Class isn't one-design by any measure, but it's
popular anyway. The Club Class isn't one-design, either, but it's method
for selecting gliders for the class comes close in matching
performances, and when the handicap is used, it's just as effective as a
one-design class at equalizing performance.

[I'm not a historian of the 1-26, so I hope knowledgeable people will
correct the following if it needs it]

The 1-26 is a successful one-design class, but it didn't start as a
competition class, but was designed to be the single seat follow-on to
the 2-22 trainer. The class came later, after there were many
(hundreds?) already in existence, and the much smaller number of pilots
interested in competition began competing. An important factor in the
creation and continuing vigor of the class is it's much lower
performance than the other common gliders, making it's own class the
only way it can have a good competition.

In other words, only a very few pilots bought the 1-26 because it
offered one-design competition. The huge majority of owners are
attracted to it for other reasons.

So, what must a one-design class glider have to be successful in this
environment? I think these things:

- look good, like a "real" glider
- have Std Cirrus or better performance (38:1 or better)
- robust and easy to fly for low-time club members
- weather-proof finish to allow outdoor parking
- cost no higher than similar used German gliders

A glider like the above should have enough sales to be profitable to
produce, even if it isn't the World Class glider. Making it the World
Class glider might add a few sales, but I think these will be so few,
that most of the sales must come for other reasons; i.e., because it is
a desirable glider.

A glider like the above would also fit in the Club Class (and the Sports
Class in the USA), giving it another place to compete in addition to
it's own class. Since these two Classes have numerous competitions
already, I suspect most of the competitions the new World Class gliders
would compete in would not be World Class competitions!

So, by my analysis, a successful World Class glider must be successful
even it it isn't the World Class glider, which makes me wonder what
value there would be to having the World Class. Perhaps the effort it
takes to develop and maintain the concept would be better spent on other
aspects of soaring that would be more likely to increase our numbers.
--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA