Glider Shapes

The basic list raised by Gary is good. But there's nothing wrong with
parellelogram sticks.

If its less than 1:40 I'm not interested. It should be 'expandable' so
an optional upgrade to 18m wings perhaps?

The World class was based on price and it flopped heavily so sorry
price is way down the list.

I dont see why a 1:40 ship cant be built for low cost. Surely its the
airfoil and materials technology that have come on. An 1:40 libelle
must be possible with a modern aifoil or a 1:45 LS4

"nimbusgb" wrote in message
...
The basic list raised by Gary is good. But there's nothing wrong with
parellelogram sticks.

If its less than 1:40 I'm not interested. It should be 'expandable' so
an optional upgrade to 18m wings perhaps?

The World class was based on price and it flopped heavily so sorry
price is way down the list.

I dont see why a 1:40 ship cant be built for low cost. Surely its the
airfoil and materials technology that have come on. An 1:40 libelle
must be possible with a modern aifoil or a 1:45 LS4

Exactly. There is no reason that a 'medium performance' glider should cost
much less than a 40 - 45:1 glider. They'll weight about the same and have
about the same parts count. The difference is almost entirely in the shape
and finish. If the manufacturer skimps on those, it won't sell at any price
so he might as well go for performance.

The main cost factor is production rate. Start on the demand side of the
economic equation. Re-jigger handicaps and competition classes to favor the
design. 'Seed' 2 - 3 gliders a year at large discounts into clubs that
foster X/C and competition as judged by their performance in the OLC and
their support for younger pilots in the Junior Class. The opportunity to
win an option to buy a new high performance glider glider at half price
would really drive the popularity of the OLC - AND the new glider.

On the supply side, once the manufacturer sees the demand, it's more likely
that investments will be made in cost saving production methods and tooling.
When the production rate ramps up, the unit cost will fall. For this to
work, the price has to fall far enough that used gliders don't 'suck the
air' out of the market - that's the incentive for the maker to keep the
price low.

It seems IMHO that picking a popular glider design that is now out of
production and tuning it up for mass production is a low risk way to go. An
LS-4 fits the bill nicely although there are probably others.

Even though some clubs will fear retractable gear I'd say keep it. As a
compromise, add threadded hard points on the belly allowing for a
sacrificial lightweight UHMWPE plastic skid to protect the belly in the
event of a gear-up. The hard points themselves would add little drag,
weight or cost.

Bill Daniels

[My original posting got lost]
How about a robust, easily loaded and unloaded trailer
under $10K. That will foster lots more gliding -- especially
on weak days.

At 17:18 05 January 2008, Bill Daniels wrote:

'nimbusgb' wrote in message

.com...
The basic list raised by Gary is good. But there's
nothing wrong with
parellelogram sticks.

If its less than 1:40 I'm not interested. It should
be 'expandable' so
an optional upgrade to 18m wings perhaps?

The World class was based on price and it flopped
heavily so sorry
price is way down the list.

I dont see why a 1:40 ship cant be built for low cost.
Surely its the
airfoil and materials technology that have come on.
An 1:40 libelle
must be possible with a modern aifoil or a 1:45 LS4

Exactly. There is no reason that a 'medium performance'
glider should cost
much less than a 40 - 45:1 glider. They'll weight
about the same and have
about the same parts count. The difference is almost
entirely in the shape
and finish. If the manufacturer skimps on those, it
won't sell at any price
so he might as well go for performance.

The main cost factor is production rate. Start on the
demand side of the
economic equation. Re-jigger handicaps and competition
classes to favor the
design. 'Seed' 2 - 3 gliders a year at large discounts
into clubs that
foster X/C and competition as judged by their performance
in the OLC and
their support for younger pilots in the Junior Class.
The opportunity to
win an option to buy a new high performance glider
glider at half price
would really drive the popularity of the OLC - AND
the new glider.

On the supply side, once the manufacturer sees the
demand, it's more likely
that investments will be made in cost saving production
methods and tooling.
When the production rate ramps up, the unit cost will
fall. For this to
work, the price has to fall far enough that used gliders
don't 'suck the
air' out of the market - that's the incentive for the
maker to keep the
price low.

It seems IMHO that picking a popular glider design
that is now out of
production and tuning it up for mass production is
a low risk way to go. An
LS-4 fits the bill nicely although there are probably
others.

Even though some clubs will fear retractable gear I'd
say keep it. As a
compromise, add threadded hard points on the belly
allowing for a
sacrificial lightweight UHMWPE plastic skid to protect
the belly in the
event of a gear-up. The hard points themselves would
add little drag,
weight or cost.

Bill Daniels

nimbusgb wrote:

If its less than 1:40 I'm not interested. It should be 'expandable' so
an optional upgrade to 18m wings perhaps?

The World class was based on price and it flopped heavily so sorry
price is way down the list.

I dont see why a 1:40 ship cant be built for low cost.

Wow. It keeps sounding more and more like you guys are describing an
HP-24. Very modern looks and performance, roomy enough cockpit for us
'mericans. Optional 18m tips. Very reasonable cost if you are willing
to do final assembly yourself. The biggest problem could be that with
the weak dollar the Europeans may buy out all of Bob's production capacity.

Regards,

-Doug Who is not getting paid by Bob K. to post this. ;-)

Wow. *It keeps sounding more and more like you guys are describing an
HP-24. *Very modern looks and performance, roomy enough cockpit for us
'mericans. Optional 18m tips. *Very reasonable cost if you are willing
to do final assembly yourself. *The biggest problem could be that with
the weak dollar the Europeans may buy out all of Bob's production capacity..

Bob may end up being a very busy boy!

Brad

nimbusgb wrote:
The basic list raised by Gary is good. But there's nothing wrong with
parellelogram sticks.

If its less than 1:40 I'm not interested. It should be 'expandable' so
an optional upgrade to 18m wings perhaps?

The World class was based on price and it flopped heavily so sorry
price is way down the list.

I dont see why a 1:40 ship cant be built for low cost. Surely its the
airfoil and materials technology that have come on. An 1:40 libelle
must be possible with a modern aifoil or a 1:45 LS4

I don't think there is anything wrong with parallelogram sticks... From
a MARKETING standpoint, the classic stick configuration is more likely
to be well received by the masses. Design something into the plane that
could be perceived as "odd", even if it's better, and you risk that
people won't buy the product.

At Dicks Sporting Goods I can buy a blow molded UHMWPE
kayak for $399.00. Thats half a fuselage with a very
smooth finish. Wings could be a box beam spar out of
Graphlite, sort of a rag wing design, with UHMWPE vacuum
formed or blow molded around it for the skin.

At 14:06 05 January 2008, Rlovinggood wrote:
The sailplane of the future, heck, the sailplane of
NOW should have a
finish that never requires sanding nor refinishing
in order to
maintain it's performance. It should come out of the
factory in
perfect condition and stay that way. Waxing would
be 'optional', and
only for those who need some quiet time with their
glider.

Not that I'm trying to put refinishers out of business.
No! There's
a lot of old ships that will still need refinishing
for years to come,
but the NEW ones should have surfaces that will never
need to be
refinished.

Oh yea, this glider of the future with the no-refinish
surfaces,
should have performance capability better than ASG-29/Ventus

2/DG808/
LS10/eta/EB28, etc...


Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

Most Kayaks are not blow molded, but rotationally molded. When you look at
the weight of a typical polyethylene kayak, it is MUCH heavier than the same
type of part would be built using aircraft suitable technology.

Mike Schumann

"Steve Davis" wrote in message
...
At Dicks Sporting Goods I can buy a blow molded UHMWPE
kayak for $399.00. Thats half a fuselage with a very
smooth finish. Wings could be a box beam spar out of
Graphlite, sort of a rag wing design, with UHMWPE vacuum
formed or blow molded around it for the skin.

At 14:06 05 January 2008, Rlovinggood wrote:
The sailplane of the future, heck, the sailplane of
NOW should have a
finish that never requires sanding nor refinishing
in order to
maintain it's performance. It should come out of the
factory in
perfect condition and stay that way. Waxing would
be 'optional', and
only for those who need some quiet time with their
glider.

Not that I'm trying to put refinishers out of business.
No! There's
a lot of old ships that will still need refinishing
for years to come,
but the NEW ones should have surfaces that will never
need to be
refinished.

Oh yea, this glider of the future with the no-refinish
surfaces,
should have performance capability better than ASG-29/Ventus

2/DG808/
LS10/eta/EB28, etc...


Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA








--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

This may be a little off topic, at least the way it is going, but what
about the other end of the spectrum. What is the replacement for the
venerable 2-33? I think a discussion of such a sailplane (glider?)
would be very appropriate. The last BFR I took in a very tired 2-33
made me wonder why anyone would be attracted to soaring arfter such an
experience and that is the introduction many people get. We are
talking about the sailplane that will entice more into soaring as well
as enhancing FBO business.

Greg

Does anybody know the "New" price of the 2-33? What was the last year
they were built and what was the list price. It might be interesting
to compare the price (inflation adjusted and such) with the cost of a
K-21 or DG1000. Of course with the EURO\$ exchange rate the comparison is
mute.

Bob