Grow soaring thru entertainment

John wrote:

Added a similar comment when I filled in the SSA soaring survey.

Want to grow soaring? Market soaring as low-cost entertainment to
generate mass appeal. Develop a commercial gliding site that focuses
on giving rides only, quickly and cheaply.
...

I was involved in something looking like this last summer. It was
not a commercial gliding site, just a little club that had a deal
with the local municipality. As this town organizes and sponsors
various summer (i.e. holidays) activities for teenagers, the club
proposed gliding rides. The deal was that the club proposed 16
flights per day during 4 days, 8 short flights (just gliding back
from winch launch height) in the morning and 8 longer flights (20 mn)
in the afternoon for 2 groups of 8 teenagers, each boy/girl having
in alternance a short flight in the morning one day and a long flight
in the afternoon the other day, other activities were proposed for
the non flying half day. Two 2-seaters were used, each one for the
half of the flights.

I am dubious about the impact of such an action for the growth of
soaring. Of course this makes that youngsters discover a sport
they would probably never heard of otherwise, but this would probably
not be followed by any personnal committment in this sport, for many
reasons. One of them is the age of participants, which implies that
they participation is probably not their own decsision (or not completely)
but rather the decision of their parents. As this is a sponsorized activity,
the youngs and parents interested are probably among those who would
never have the money for a continued practice of the sport. Although
some of the kids were really interested, the lack of interest of some
others was clearly demonstrated by the fact that on of them fell asleep
during a long flight.

However, as opposite to John's proposal, I think that a sufficiently
long flight is essential to the promotion of our sport, i.e. a flight
with a duration that clearly shows the ability of saiplanes to
stay in the air by they own means (or rather the combination of
the energy present in the air and the skills of the pilot).

Robert Ehrlich wrote:
they participation is probably not their own decsision (or not completely)
but rather the decision of their parents. As this is a sponsorized activity,
the youngs and parents interested are probably among those who would
never have the money for a continued practice of the sport. Although

Isn't it that the most obvious evidence that something is badly rotten
in the domain of soaring? You are here considering as a plain fact that
most of the population cannot practice soaring because it is too expensive
(which is in fact the case). My prediction is that soaring will die soon
is nothing is done so that "the masses" can afford practising it.
Because rich people are frequently old, and old people are not the best ones
to practice such a dangerous sport. They are not the best ones either to
enroll young people in the clubs. And most of the rich people are much
too busy running their businesses to afford spending days and days
at the airport, except retirees. There is a number one requirement to
halt the decline of soaring, drastically reduce costs, and in particular
drastically reduce price of gliders, which is the major factor in the
equation. It is not in the interest of glider factories, and it is not in the
interest of the second hand market. But there is not a single concurrential
industry that has not cut costs drastically in the last ten years. Only
glider factories allow themselves to regularly augment their prices
each year. This gives buyers the illusion that they fly cheap, since
they can resell their machines "the same price they bought it or more".
But the real price at the end is the decline of soaring.

some of the kids were really interested, the lack of interest of some
others was clearly demonstrated by the fact that on of them fell asleep
during a long flight.

You cannot expect to have 100% success in any activity. But 100%
of currently practising pilots began once.


However, as opposite to John's proposal, I think that a sufficiently
long flight is essential to the promotion of our sport, i.e. a flight
with a duration that clearly shows the ability of saiplanes to
stay in the air by they own means (or rather the combination of
the energy present in the air and the skills of the pilot).

I agree with you. You cannot expect to obtain a non vanishing percentage
of hooked young people without showing them the real beauties of soaring.
It is here that i disagree with Lennie. Having a good performing glider
40:1 allows to easily show what is really the beauty of gliding, in
particular going XC. With less performing gliders, only excellent pilots
can do the same. Hence, contrary to what he states and thinks, the real
elitism is in his position, thinking that one can have a lot of fun
with 30:1 gliders. Except excellent pilots, most of those who use such
gliders spend their time circling around the airport, and, as Lennie
has observed himself, this doesn't remain fun for very long. So, in my
opinion, the true problem is to build a good performing glider,
allowing to safely do XC, but not necessarily a top performer, at
very cheap prices, by whatever means necessary to achieve this aim
("outsourcing" comes to mind).


--

Michel TALON

The "Gliders have to be cheaper for soaring to grow" argument was raging 45
years ago when I first started soaring. It led to the Standard Class which
sought to simplify and standardize gliders so that they could be built in
greater numbers at lower costs. The problem is that the economies of scale
that would result in lower unit costs kick in at far larger production runs
that any design has ever achieved. No manufacturer is willing to bet the
farm by investing huge sums in production tooling until the demand is
established. Demand has to come first, THEN we might get cheaper gliders.

If we can't expect new cheaper gliders to stimulate demand, how do we attack
the remaining costs?

Looking hard at the yearly costs of participation, air tow looms large. The
50-75 flights required to attain a glider certificate will likely cost
something like $3000. Glider rental cost won't come down until the prices
do and I wouldn't ask the instructors to reduce their fees since we need
them badly. If 50 of the 75 flights were by winch instead of airtow, the
$3000 drops to $300. That's a pretty significant drop in up front cost for
a student pilot.

Another cost built into everything related to soaring is insurance.
Premiums are based on losses expected and losses are very large in the
landing phase. (I just completed Bob Wander's CFI-G Renewal course)

Why are losses very high in the landing phase? I think it may be that we
just don't do many landings so our landing skills get rusty. The average
glider pilot does maybe 10 to 20 landing a year? The average power pilot
does 100 to 200 landings a year - and if the power pilot screws up an
approach, he can go around.

With winch launch costs so low, it's likely that many pilots would fly winch
launches just for the landing practice with the result that skills would
stay sharp and losses would go down.

Would expanded winch launch operations solve everything wrong with soaring?
Of course not, but it might address a few of them.

Bill Daniels

"Michel Talon" wrote in message
...
Robert Ehrlich wrote:
they participation is probably not their own decsision (or not
completely)
but rather the decision of their parents. As this is a sponsorized
activity,
the youngs and parents interested are probably among those who would
never have the money for a continued practice of the sport. Although

Isn't it that the most obvious evidence that something is badly rotten
in the domain of soaring? You are here considering as a plain fact that
most of the population cannot practice soaring because it is too expensive
(which is in fact the case). My prediction is that soaring will die soon
is nothing is done so that "the masses" can afford practising it.
Because rich people are frequently old, and old people are not the best
ones
to practice such a dangerous sport. They are not the best ones either to
enroll young people in the clubs. And most of the rich people are much
too busy running their businesses to afford spending days and days
at the airport, except retirees. There is a number one requirement to
halt the decline of soaring, drastically reduce costs, and in particular
drastically reduce price of gliders, which is the major factor in the
equation. It is not in the interest of glider factories, and it is not in
the
interest of the second hand market. But there is not a single
concurrential
industry that has not cut costs drastically in the last ten years. Only
glider factories allow themselves to regularly augment their prices
each year. This gives buyers the illusion that they fly cheap, since
they can resell their machines "the same price they bought it or more".
But the real price at the end is the decline of soaring.

some of the kids were really interested, the lack of interest of some
others was clearly demonstrated by the fact that on of them fell asleep
during a long flight.

You cannot expect to have 100% success in any activity. But 100%
of currently practising pilots began once.


However, as opposite to John's proposal, I think that a sufficiently
long flight is essential to the promotion of our sport, i.e. a flight
with a duration that clearly shows the ability of saiplanes to
stay in the air by they own means (or rather the combination of
the energy present in the air and the skills of the pilot).

I agree with you. You cannot expect to obtain a non vanishing percentage
of hooked young people without showing them the real beauties of soaring.
It is here that i disagree with Lennie. Having a good performing glider
40:1 allows to easily show what is really the beauty of gliding, in
particular going XC. With less performing gliders, only excellent pilots
can do the same. Hence, contrary to what he states and thinks, the real
elitism is in his position, thinking that one can have a lot of fun
with 30:1 gliders. Except excellent pilots, most of those who use such
gliders spend their time circling around the airport, and, as Lennie
has observed himself, this doesn't remain fun for very long. So, in my
opinion, the true problem is to build a good performing glider,
allowing to safely do XC, but not necessarily a top performer, at
very cheap prices, by whatever means necessary to achieve this aim
("outsourcing" comes to mind).


--

Michel TALON

Bill Daniels wrote:

Looking hard at the yearly costs of participation, air tow looms large. The
50-75 flights required to attain a glider certificate will likely cost
something like $3000. Glider rental cost won't come down until the prices
do and I wouldn't ask the instructors to reduce their fees since we need
them badly. If 50 of the 75 flights were by winch instead of airtow, the
$3000 drops to $300. That's a pretty significant drop in up front cost for
a student pilot.


From what i can see here, winch launches don't make a big difference in the
total cost. Maybe you can hope a 20% gain in the total cost, which is good
but not sufficient. Fortunately in our country instructors instruct
for free ... Airports are more or less subsidized, hence don't cost much.
The real burden is the cost of new gliders if you want to maintain your fleet
current. You all assume that it is impossible to cut on glider prices. In
my opinion it is false. Let me just mention the Pegase which has been built
in France approximately at the same time as the German LS4 and with basically
the same performances. The Pegase was 1/3 cheaper, and you can be sure that
the factory was extremely far from efficient. Now where Lennie is perfectly
right, the snobism and elitism occurring in the soaring community was such
that the Pegase has always been badmouthed compared to the LS4, while
they are both excellent gliders. The clubs which have bought a large
quantity of Pegase have been able to offer modern gliders to their members
(Buno-Bonnevaux is an example) at reasonable price, and the result has
been excellent soaring performance for these clubs. Now wonder the price at
which a glider could be built in India, for example!


--

Michel TALON

I think you're quite wrong on this, Michel. The cost of a glider is mainly
man hours and development; materials count for something like a third. And
it's fairly easy to sell a glider 1/3 cheaper than competing models if you
take the design and the structure from a competitor and build it with a
different airfoil... although I must admit that I'll prefer the Pégase over
the LS4 anytime.
DG and others already switched the man hours to the cheaper countries like
Slovenia, but it's still hard to make a profit in this small market even
though price tags are high. And the reality is: if there is no profit to be
made, nobody will manufacture any gliders.
And no, Michel, instruction is not for free in France. Most medium and large
clubs in France have one or more instructors which are payed (and numerous
instructors who are not payed) - and even though the student doesn't pay a
fee by the hour, where do you think do the salaries come from ?!

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Michel Talon" a écrit dans le message de
...
Bill Daniels wrote:

Looking hard at the yearly costs of participation, air tow looms large.
The
50-75 flights required to attain a glider certificate will likely cost
something like $3000. Glider rental cost won't come down until the
prices
do and I wouldn't ask the instructors to reduce their fees since we need
them badly. If 50 of the 75 flights were by winch instead of airtow,
the
$3000 drops to $300. That's a pretty significant drop in up front cost
for
a student pilot.


From what i can see here, winch launches don't make a big difference in
the
total cost. Maybe you can hope a 20% gain in the total cost, which is good
but not sufficient. Fortunately in our country instructors instruct
for free ... Airports are more or less subsidized, hence don't cost much.
The real burden is the cost of new gliders if you want to maintain your
fleet
current. You all assume that it is impossible to cut on glider prices. In
my opinion it is false. Let me just mention the Pegase which has been
built
in France approximately at the same time as the German LS4 and with
basically
the same performances. The Pegase was 1/3 cheaper, and you can be sure
that
the factory was extremely far from efficient. Now where Lennie is
perfectly
right, the snobism and elitism occurring in the soaring community was such
that the Pegase has always been badmouthed compared to the LS4, while
they are both excellent gliders. The clubs which have bought a large
quantity of Pegase have been able to offer modern gliders to their members
(Buno-Bonnevaux is an example) at reasonable price, and the result has
been excellent soaring performance for these clubs. Now wonder the price
at
which a glider could be built in India, for example!


--

Michel TALON

(Michel Talon) wrote in message ...

It is here that i disagree with Lennie. Having a good performing glider
40:1 allows to easily show what is really the beauty of gliding, in
particular going XC.

Tsk,Tsk. Michel, the last part of that statement is not a universal
truth, only your personal opinion


Hence, contrary to what he states and thinks, the real
elitism is in his position, thinking that one can have a lot of fun
with 30:1 gliders.

Here is what we call, in metalworking, "blaming the machine."
Meaning, blame the machine for the shortcomings of the man. If you
cannot find a way to have fun in any glider, it's a tunnel vision of
what you personally perceive as "fun". To suggest that because you
can't, nobody else can, is only an attempt to hide the fact that you
have only a single interest.

Except excellent pilots, most of those who use such
gliders spend their time circling around the airport, and, as Lennie
has observed himself, this doesn't remain fun for very long.

MIchel, nothing will make me angry any faster than someone twisting my
words to mean something I did not say. I plainly stated from the
beginning, that flying local in a 1-26 was the total extent of what I
intended to do. That NEVER changed. There was a short time that I
considered using the glider to save myself a little footwork, but a
few minutes with the "State sized maps" showed me that it would have
been foolhardy on most days, even though possible. I do not like
people that manipulate my words to seemingly support a position that,
in this case, I do not agree with.

Higher performance and lower cost do not go together, one forbids the
other unless you want to sacrifice something like structural integrity
to reach it. In which case, you shouldn't be building airplanes,
maybe lawn chairs.

Lennie the Lurker wrote:

Higher performance and lower cost do not go together, one forbids the
other unless you want to sacrifice something like structural integrity
to reach it. In which case, you shouldn't be building airplanes,
maybe lawn chairs.

I don't agree with that. It doesn't cost one further cent to build a
wing with good aerodynamical qualities, as with poor qualities.
Here clubs have bought large quantities of ASK23 which are
flying bricks compared to LS4s and at similar prices. But i agree
with you if you are speaking of top performance gliders, since then you
need to be absolutely perfect everywhere, and this costs much. Hence
i was advocating a very good, but not top class glider. Other people
have mentioned the possibility to build a large quantity of cheap LS4
for example, this fits perfectly.



--

Michel TALON

Michel Talon wrote:
...
Here clubs have bought large quantities of ASK23 which are
flying bricks compared to LS4s and at similar prices.
...

This is not the exact reality. The total number of ASK23
registered in France is 6, 3 of them (F-CGCV, F-CGCZ and
F-CHAS) are in my club (Centre Aéronautique de Beynes),
the 3 others are at Moret/Episy. Of coures their performance
is not competitive compared to LS4s or any other standard
ship of the same generation with retracting gear. But calling
it a flying brick is execessive. The performance is similar
to the ASK21 (I agree the ASK21 is a little better), the problem
is mainly in their low wing loading, which is also one of
the purpose of their design, in order to make them easy to
handle and very similar to the ASK21. I agree that the price
is excessive, as almost everybody probably does, this is
what made Schleicher stop the production. However this is a
good illustration of the fact that the price is not directly
related to performance. These gliders are very well built,
with expensive materials (honeycomb sandwich), in order to
withstand to the mishandling of beginners, and this has a cost
that can't be reduced.

California can't be worth all that; sell your house,
buy a Stemme with a tank full of gas, and LEAVE!

At 02:30 20 April 2004, Liam Finley wrote:
(Michel Talon) wrote in message
news:...
gliders are not killing the sport. At present i still
consider that a glider
which is sold the price of a house is purely and simply
a scandal, and a
complete waste of money except for the very rich ones.


I don't know much about real estate in France, but
here in California
the price of a brand new Stemme S10 wouldn't buy you
a 1 bedroom condo
in a bad neighborhood.