On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 1:45:11 PM UTC+3, Jacopo Romei wrote:
Hello DG300PI,

thanks for letting your concern emerge. This is key to validate my choices.

Interesting to see these figures but wat do they actually mean?
- the high-end gliders are more often flown by high-end pilots

I agree: as obvious as it may sound, no glider "gets there" alone and every ship is usually matched by a pilot with related skills.
This is *exactly* the information I want to show. GliderReview was born to help inexperienced pilots like me navigate the ocean of available gliders. According to this vision, knowing that a glider is usually flown far tells me at least two things:
- it is a glider capable of supporting a pilot able to get that far
- it is a glider that pilots *that* good *nowadays* choose to get that far
I expect both these measures to imply a higher price for the glider.

- what has to be taken into account is the number of gliders per type that are present in certain locations with good, average or less good gliding conditions.

We can re-apply by analogy the same logic he
if a glider has a high average because it is usually flown in Namibia, that means again that it is a glider worth bringing there, thus usually a higher-end ship.

For example, no one ships his/hers Ka8 to Namibia or Australia to fly distance records and you will typically find the more experienced pilots over there.

This is *the* point, not a counterargument: coherently you'll find Ka8 much cheaper than JS1 ;-)

To conclude: I don't need to understand the intimate cause-effect relationship between an indicator and a phenomenon, as long as it lets me understand *a part* of the effects.

As a recap: if a glider is usually flown shorter, it will tend to cost less.

Thank you again!
Would you like to write the review for the DG-300? :-)

I dunno. Booming thermals, high cloudbase -- you could probably do 1000km in a PW5 in Namibia if you just took one there.