I have to chime in here. Some are missing Mark's point.

The report wasn't about 1-26's. 1-26's didn't factor. They weren't underdogs. They weren't even a side story. They finished 79th. Why is there a picture of them with the report? Is this how we are attracting new soaring pilots.

Let me make myself clear... No one is "dissing" 1-26s or the pilots. I myself love my time flying them.

Now... my point:

We should celebrate the airplanes of our past, but are we an antique airplane club or a soaring society? When we take a story about speed flying (which is dominated by glass and carbon aircraft) and show pictures of older (and pretty) rag-and-tube gliders, we look to outsiders more like a historical society.

Again... I also love the old planes. But what inspires typical prospective pilot? I don't think we feature modern planes and the amazing things they can do enough. I've had encounter after encounter with GA pilots that know nothing about soaring. As they learn what is possible with "modern" gliders (even driven by common schlubs like Mark and Myself) their jaws head for the floor. "Holy cow! I've got to give that a try!" is a common response. That is how we grow our membership.

Terry

Again.... I like old planes and I stand in awe of what guys like Tony Condon do with them. Reply as you will, but don't confuse what i've said with glasshole-ism or 1-26 bashing.