70 kg 31:1 glider is here to stay?

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:33:47 UTC, Jack wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:
:
: And that, with all due respect, is the sort of attitude that explains
: why gliding is in such trouble. I, on the contrary, have enormous
: sympathy for those whose burning desire to fly is thwarted by The
: System, and I'm all in favour of making things cheaper and simpler
: whenever possible.
:
: Cheaper and simpler is good.
:
: But Hang Gliding is not Para Gliding is not Soaring.

I am suret here are hang glider and paraglider pilots who would
disagree.

: Going first class always costs a little more. Your argument that the
: best experience should be available for a price and a degree of effort
: commensurate with the most basic experience flies in the face of all
: human history, Ian.

And since when have I said that? Not only that, it's a very arrogant
assumption to claim that any one of us knows what the "best
experience" is. My point is simply that there are people who love
flying and also want to so it simply or cheaply. I am very happy with
34:1 wood, thank you. Sure, I could spend five times as much on 40:1
glass, but I, personally, would not get five times as much fun out of
it. Others might - that would be their fun, their choice and non of my
business.

: Those who whine or "whinge" (UK), about the cost of fast glass, and
: yet find a 1-26 or a PW-5 beneath them

Who are these people? My point, you may recall, is that having cheap
and cheerful gliders available may well attract people into soaring.
Don't know know anyone who flies a Ka6 or 1-26 who wouldn't fly if it
was Discus or nothing?

:, those who complain that the
: air field is too far away but can't be bothered to move their tent,
: and those who can't abide a bit of study and compliance sound a
: similar note to yours.

You are welcome to say, as I think you are, that real glider pilots
will dedicate every aspect of their lives to flying, and that anyone
who concedes any other pressures or interest isn't worthy of the name.
It's a point of view, I suppose, though not one that I feel would work
very well at UK clubs.

Regards,

Ian

Ian Johnston wrote:

My point is simply that there are people who love
flying and also want to so it simply or cheaply. I am very happy with
34:1 wood, thank you. Sure, I could spend five times as much on 40:1
glass, but I, personally, would not get five times as much fun out of
it. Others might - that would be their fun, their choice and non of my
business.

Then we find nothing about which to disagree.

Cheaper and more accessible is better, all else being equal.


Jack