We need an ASW-19 rebirth for $25,000

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 12:03:34 AM UTC-5, wrote:
You can not certificate a new, built in the USA aircraft as Experimental-air race and demonstration.

Wasn't this done with the few Duckhawk's that were built?

looks like the Duckhawks have Experimental - Racing Airworthiness Certificates

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 5:39:26 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
SNIP
I bet that's not too far off from what you'd pay for a GP 11, and the GP 11 performs a lot better than a PW-5.

Andy Blackburn
9B

Thanks for the GP 11 shout-out Andy.

Base Price for a GP 11, with calculated 38-39 L/D, is 43,900 EUR, with 11,900 EUR for a trailer and up to 12% discount with 50%-100% deposit. That's about as good a deal in a new-built glider as your likely to get out there folks.

Simple, robust, good performance, new materials and aerodynamic design, and perfect for club use.

BUT, there has been very little to no interest to date. We all representing GP Gliders wish this lack of interest was not the case. If you have any interest in this type of glider, give me a shout as the factory will only enter production if there is demand.

Tim McAllister
GP Gliders USA

I've got it!

You're that "Flexi Seal" guy, aren't you? What do you want? This
(shaking his head in a black and white video)? Or... /_*THIS*_/ (in
full living color)? What choice is there? We need an ASH-31mi (with
fixed gear and no flaps) for $15K.

I love you, Sean, but you'd get more takers as a barker at the county fair.

On 3/22/2017 7:17 PM, wrote:
Sorry, no chicken dinner.

You are comparing apples to oranges from 2 decades ago where political environments have changed, in an attempt to prove that gliders MUST cost a fortune. It's just as silly as the prison example above, or the production plant in Mexico. One of the big reasons this sport has gone dow hill has been from the cult mantra that NOTHING can be changed (period), which is just ridiculous! Thus no structured group effort is made to change.

My point is this, you all say it can't be done, I say it already has been done. The PW-5 was created at an affordable price. And it absolutely could be created again, perhaps not in the same country, or by the same manufacture, and hopefully not the same design! But it has been done before and therefor can be done again.

After this in depth discussion I sincerely believe that the reason gliders cost so much is because there just isn't anyone capable of manufacturing a sailplane that actually wants to produce an affordable glider. The desire seems to be in only the extreme cutting edge technology. Sailboat, airplane, automobile and other transportation designs all have varieties available ranging from basic to advanced, except soaring.

Therefor, pilots are forced to choose between a sailplane that is the price of a Ferrari or Maserati, or an antique worn out old fiberglass ship that is crazed over and who knows just how safe it really is since there's no data on the structural integrity of 50 year old fiberglass.

Rant over, go ahead, flame away.

--
Dan, 5J

It's just as it is:

For 25 k€, you'll get a pristine 40:1 glider tomorrow. Classifieds are full of them. It will have at most 20% of its service life expectance, it will have a trailer, instruments and everything. Pay today, fly the next day.

There is just no market *at all* for a re-birthed glider. Never has been, never will be.
If this Sean/Wilbur troll doesn't believe it, why doesn't he just take a million or three and go waste it on his business model? Right, because there is no business model to start with...

Bert TW

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 10:42:13 AM UTC-7, Tim wrote:

Thanks for the GP 11 shout-out Andy.

Base Price for a GP 11, with calculated 38-39 L/D, is 43,900 EUR, with 11,900 EUR for a trailer and up to 12% discount with 50%-100% deposit. That's about as good a deal in a new-built glider as your likely to get out there folks.

Simple, robust, good performance, new materials and aerodynamic design, and perfect for club use.

BUT, there has been very little to no interest to date. We all representing GP Gliders wish this lack of interest was not the case. If you have any interest in this type of glider, give me a shout as the factory will only enter production if there is demand.

Tim McAllister
GP Gliders USA


There you have it.

You can order a glider with ASW-19 performance for LESS than the inflation-adjusted price of a PW-5. Only problem is not enough people seem to want one. Not exactly sure why that is. Possibly available time is a bigger constraint than money for many and for the rest buying an actual ASW-19 on the used market is a better value proposition than a brand-new glider optimized for minimum possible cost.

Troll-on.

9B

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:58:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 10:36:41 AM UTC-7, wrote:
How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?

Because it had a tube tailboom and did not have a T-tail.


Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!

Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.

How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?

Bob K and I have discussed the possibility of getting a S-LSA certification for the HP-24. It would cost about $500,000. If that were underwritten by investors, then the HP-24 could be sold as a completed and ready-to-fly glider. There is no other mechanism that would allow for selling a glider built new in the USA. You can not certificate a new, built in the USA aircraft as Experimental-air race and demonstration.

Ramping up type certificated glider production is estimated at $1M. Tim Barry holds the type certificate for the Krosno-KR03a (Peregrine). They've held Part Making Authorization for several years, but you must build three under FAA observation to become self certifying. This may mean keeping the assembly line up and lights on for an extended time as you will likely only get an FAA visit every four months. If they find something they are happy with, they leave, let you fix it and show up again in four months. The production line was set up, but there was not commercial money available after the 2008 bust. 55 percent of the respondents to a two-seater survey after the L-13's were grounded preferred metal construction.

So, starting without a type certificate, the ramp up cost is likely to be somewhat higher. Bob K has shown some concept images of a two-seater similar to the Schneider ES-65 Platypus, but thought it should be TC'd. Greg Cole showed a concept image of the two-seat trainer at the Barnaby Lecture a few years ago, but said it would only be experimental.

Simply put, there are no pathways to cheap two-seaters. Nor are there pathways to cheap single-seaters because there doesn't appear to be a market.

My experience in the UK (10.5 years over two tours) is getting dated, but ownership syndicates were the order of the day. Private gliders were owned by 3-4 pilots. Club fleets were similar. A syndicate (4) at one club formed and bought a DG-300 from a Swedish Club. They were surprised to find that private ownership of gliders in Sweden was uncommon (in the 1990's) and that clubs had large fleets (socialism?).

From what I've observed, shared ownership of gliders in the US has been rather rare, though it is a bit more common in my club today than it's been in the past 20 years. Splitting the cost and expenses four ways certainly should make several gliders attractive.

The cultures of soaring vary among countries, regions, and clubs for a variety of reasons, including geographic. Tough nut to crack.

Frank Whiteley

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:19:36 PM UTC-6, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:58:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 10:36:41 AM UTC-7, wrote:
How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?

Because it had a tube tailboom and did not have a T-tail.


Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!

Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.

How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?

Bob K and I have discussed the possibility of getting a S-LSA certification for the HP-24. It would cost about $500,000. If that were underwritten by investors, then the HP-24 could be sold as a completed and ready-to-fly glider. There is no other mechanism that would allow for selling a glider built new in the USA. You can not certificate a new, built in the USA aircraft as Experimental-air race and demonstration.

Ramping up type certificated glider production is estimated at $1M. Tim Barry holds the type certificate for the Krosno-KR03a (Peregrine). They've held Part Making Authorization for several years, but you must build three under FAA observation to become self certifying. This may mean keeping the assembly line up and lights on for an extended time as you will likely only get an FAA visit every four months. If they find something they are happy with, they leave, let you fix it and show up again in four months. The production line was set up, but there was not commercial money available after the 2008 bust. 55 percent of the respondents to a two-seater survey after the L-13's were grounded preferred metal construction.

So, starting without a type certificate, the ramp up cost is likely to be somewhat higher. Bob K has shown some concept images of a two-seater similar to the Schneider ES-65 Platypus, but thought it should be TC'd. Greg Cole showed a concept image of the two-seat trainer at the Barnaby Lecture a few years ago, but said it would only be experimental.

Simply put, there are no pathways to cheap two-seaters. Nor are there pathways to cheap single-seaters because there doesn't appear to be a market.

My experience in the UK (10.5 years over two tours) is getting dated, but ownership syndicates were the order of the day. Private gliders were owned by 3-4 pilots. Club fleets were similar. A syndicate (4) at one club formed and bought a DG-300 from a Swedish Club. They were surprised to find that private ownership of gliders in Sweden was uncommon (in the 1990's) and that clubs had large fleets (socialism?).

From what I've observed, shared ownership of gliders in the US has been rather rare, though it is a bit more common in my club today than it's been in the past 20 years. Splitting the cost and expenses four ways certainly should make several gliders attractive.

The cultures of soaring vary among countries, regions, and clubs for a variety of reasons, including geographic. Tough nut to crack.

Frank Whiteley

WRT FAA 'aren't happy with'

From what I've observed, shared ownership of gliders in the US has been rather rare, though it is a bit more common in my club today than it's been in the past 20 years. Splitting the cost and expenses four ways certainly should make several gliders attractive.

Frank Whiteley

Shared ownership was the norm when I was growing up at what is now Caesar Creek Soaring Club in the mid 1960s. Typically 2 but up to 8 partners. My dad had a partner who flew only on Sundays; we went to church so my dad flew on Saturdays and at contests. I started out with a 1/8 share of a 1-26 (one specific weekend day a month) but flew as much as I wanted because so few of my partners did.

What changed? Lifestyles. I'm not wealthy but earlier in my career I had more money than time regarding gliders so I own my glider outright. I never knew when I'd have a weekend day free and wanted to fly without having to coordinate with a partner. I fly contests and didn't want conflicts there, either.

Shared ownership is less expensive. But cost is only part of the problem. Club gliders and shared ownership gliders often sit on the ground even on good weekend soaring days. Soaring takes a lot of time and is tough on families (although we tried to make it fun for my daughters growing up, with some success). It's tough and frustrating to learn how. It's completely weather dependent so you can't plan ahead. There's a lot more ground time than flying time. Without a motorglider, you're dependent on others for launching and retrieves. You can spend hours waiting for both the former and the latter. Etc.

It's never going to be widely popular, either for participants or spectators. And I'd argue those two aren't that related anyway.

From a purely selfish perspective (the shame of it!), I just hope soaring survives long enough for me to continue enjoying it for a while longer and then sell my glider.

Chip Bearden

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 4:07:24 PM UTC-6, wrote:
From what I've observed, shared ownership of gliders in the US has been rather rare, though it is a bit more common in my club today than it's been in the past 20 years. Splitting the cost and expenses four ways certainly should make several gliders attractive.

Frank Whiteley

Shared ownership was the norm when I was growing up at what is now Caesar Creek Soaring Club in the mid 1960s. Typically 2 but up to 8 partners. My dad had a partner who flew only on Sundays; we went to church so my dad flew on Saturdays and at contests. I started out with a 1/8 share of a 1-26 (one specific weekend day a month) but flew as much as I wanted because so few of my partners did.

What changed? Lifestyles. I'm not wealthy but earlier in my career I had more money than time regarding gliders so I own my glider outright. I never knew when I'd have a weekend day free and wanted to fly without having to coordinate with a partner. I fly contests and didn't want conflicts there, either.

Shared ownership is less expensive. But cost is only part of the problem. Club gliders and shared ownership gliders often sit on the ground even on good weekend soaring days. Soaring takes a lot of time and is tough on families (although we tried to make it fun for my daughters growing up, with some success). It's tough and frustrating to learn how. It's completely weather dependent so you can't plan ahead. There's a lot more ground time than flying time. Without a motorglider, you're dependent on others for launching and retrieves. You can spend hours waiting for both the former and the latter. Etc.

It's never going to be widely popular, either for participants or spectators. And I'd argue those two aren't that related anyway.

From a purely selfish perspective (the shame of it!), I just hope soaring survives long enough for me to continue enjoying it for a while longer and then sell my glider.

Chip Bearden

Chip,

Let's hope FAA privatization falls on its ass if you want access to airspace without your ADS-B toll beacon.

Thanks for your thoughts.

My involvement with US soaring wasn't until 1981 and I did have a partner in a DG-100, but I didn't sense there were a lot of partnerships in the region. Of course that was in PASCO and the clubs I visited mostly lacked a pulse. PASCO helped create the greater social environment. I had read much about the Chico Soaring Association and was looking forward to joining when I got to California, but the Casamajor brothers had run out of steam by then. The preponderance of commercial operators in the region made it easy to operate independently.

Frank Whiteley

We don't need cheaper gliders until we can fix the declining membership issue.
In my club there are plenty of 35:1 to 40:1 gliders which have been up for sale for between $6000 and $16000 and they're not selling even after being advertised for two or three years. Single Astirs, ASW-15, etc.
I picked up a old 47:1 glider with trailer (Nimbus 2), refurbished it, installed some modern instrumentation and added a Mountain High O2 system for a total cost of under $20,000. Why would I want to purchase a more expensive, newer glider with less equipment and performance?
Even decent condition ASW 20's can be had for around the $25000 mark.

Where I live there are simply not enough students completing their training so the second hand market is abundant especially with the older members heading West one-by-one. A cheap, new glider is not going to fix that problem..