Opinions on fleet replacement strategies.

I have been involved in discussions at a couple of clubs looking at the
inevitable replacement of wood and fabric trainers.

There are many, often polarised views on subjects like:
Whether we should ever plan on replacing the K13
Whether Scheibe Bergfalkes are worth keeping.
The "XYZ" trainer is a bit of a pig to fly, but it IS paid for and will probably
last another 10 years so why worry.
Will we be able to get anything for them if we want to sell them in five years.
Whether there is anything available that has the necessary characteristics:
Low airframe weight - we have to winch launch this.
Reasonable performance.
Good control harmonisation for training.
Robust enough for rough airfields and winch launching.

So then we start thinking of what can we replace it with:

Whether a Grob G103 is any use as a trainer - it is so heavy, and the older
versions have far from perfect control responses.
Whether the K21 is the best option - again too heavy, and too expensive.
Whether the PW6 is the answer - again, a bit heavy and a bit expensive new, and
too new to be available second hand at reasonable prices.
Whether the TST-14 might not be a bad idea - it is certainly dimensionally
correct, and the weight and price looks good. So am I too cynical wondering
about the catch...
The DG500s look great except for that empty weight - that would not work on a
short winch runway.
Whether all metal aircraft like the L23 and Peregrine should even be considered,
given that we have no metal maintenance skills available.
The Scheibe SF34 / Alliance 34 looks on paper about right, but there are few
complimentary comments about them . Why is this design unpopular.


General opinion appears to be that:
The Scheibes are already worthless - you can only get their instruments value.
(They are advertised at 2500 Euro)
The K13s are starting to go the same way as maintenance climbs and age starts to
creep up.(look at the number on offer - and the prices)
Metal is not practical.
Composite seems to be going inexorably in the "more" direction
More span, weight and cost than we can reasonably invest in.

So we have a dilemma -

We have to find something that we can afford, that is
1] good for training.
2] does not break winch cables the whole time.
3] is possible to make a financial case for in clubs that have 15-20 active members.
4] Has good enough ground handling (wingspan, total weight and general balance)
that it does not become a hangar queen.

Maybe it is not possible, and I know I have left a number of fine aircraft out
of both sides of the argument. Fact is we will need to replace at least three
trainers in the next five years, and there are no obvious candidates.

Any thoughts on what we should do here? Other than start saving...

Bruce,

Have you considered the side-by-side two seater 'Taurus'?

http://www.mcp.com.au/pipistrel-usa/models/taurus.html

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina

At 13:06 16 June 2006, Bruce Greef wrote:
I have been involved in discussions at a couple of
clubs looking at the
inevitable replacement of wood and fabric trainers.

There are many, often polarised views on subjects like:
Whether we should ever plan on replacing the K13
Whether Scheibe Bergfalkes are worth keeping.
The 'XYZ' trainer is a bit of a pig to fly, but it
IS paid for and will probably
last another 10 years so why worry.
Will we be able to get anything for them if we want
to sell them in five years.
Whether there is anything available that has the necessary
characteristics:
Low airframe weight - we have to winch launch this.
Reasonable performance.
Good control harmonisation for training.
Robust enough for rough airfields and winch launching.

So then we start thinking of what can we replace it
with:

Whether a Grob G103 is any use as a trainer - it is
so heavy, and the older
versions have far from perfect control responses.
Whether the K21 is the best option - again too heavy,
and too expensive.
Whether the PW6 is the answer - again, a bit heavy
and a bit expensive new, and
too new to be available second hand at reasonable prices.
Whether the TST-14 might not be a bad idea - it is
certainly dimensionally
correct, and the weight and price looks good. So am
I too cynical wondering
about the catch...
The DG500s look great except for that empty weight
- that would not work on a
short winch runway.
Whether all metal aircraft like the L23 and Peregrine
should even be considered,
given that we have no metal maintenance skills available.
The Scheibe SF34 / Alliance 34 looks on paper about
right, but there are few
complimentary comments about them . Why is this design
unpopular.


General opinion appears to be that:
The Scheibes are already worthless - you can only get
their instruments value.
(They are advertised at 2500 Euro)
The K13s are starting to go the same way as maintenance
climbs and age starts to
creep up.(look at the number on offer - and the prices)
Metal is not practical.
Composite seems to be going inexorably in the 'more'
direction
More span, weight and cost than we can reasonably invest
in.

So we have a dilemma -

We have to find something that we can afford, that
is
1] good for training.
2] does not break winch cables the whole time.
3] is possible to make a financial case for in clubs
that have 15-20 active members.
4] Has good enough ground handling (wingspan, total
weight and general balance)
that it does not become a hangar queen.

Maybe it is not possible, and I know I have left a
number of fine aircraft out
of both sides of the argument. Fact is we will need
to replace at least three
trainers in the next five years, and there are no obvious
candidates.

Any thoughts on what we should do here? Other than
start saving...

Ray Lovinggood wrote:
Bruce,

Have you considered the side-by-side two seater 'Taurus'?

http://www.mcp.com.au/pipistrel-usa/models/taurus.html

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina

At 13:06 16 June 2006, Bruce Greef wrote:

I have been involved in discussions at a couple of
clubs looking at the
inevitable replacement of wood and fabric trainers.

There are many, often polarised views on subjects like:
Whether we should ever plan on replacing the K13
Whether Scheibe Bergfalkes are worth keeping.
The 'XYZ' trainer is a bit of a pig to fly, but it
IS paid for and will probably
last another 10 years so why worry.
Will we be able to get anything for them if we want
to sell them in five years.
Whether there is anything available that has the necessary
characteristics:
Low airframe weight - we have to winch launch this.
Reasonable performance.
Good control harmonisation for training.
Robust enough for rough airfields and winch launching.

So then we start thinking of what can we replace it
with:

Whether a Grob G103 is any use as a trainer - it is
so heavy, and the older
versions have far from perfect control responses.
Whether the K21 is the best option - again too heavy,
and too expensive.
Whether the PW6 is the answer - again, a bit heavy
and a bit expensive new, and
too new to be available second hand at reasonable prices.
Whether the TST-14 might not be a bad idea - it is
certainly dimensionally
correct, and the weight and price looks good. So am
I too cynical wondering
about the catch...
The DG500s look great except for that empty weight
- that would not work on a
short winch runway.
Whether all metal aircraft like the L23 and Peregrine
should even be considered,
given that we have no metal maintenance skills available.
The Scheibe SF34 / Alliance 34 looks on paper about
right, but there are few
complimentary comments about them . Why is this design
unpopular.


General opinion appears to be that:
The Scheibes are already worthless - you can only get
their instruments value.
(They are advertised at 2500 Euro)
The K13s are starting to go the same way as maintenance
climbs and age starts to
creep up.(look at the number on offer - and the prices)
Metal is not practical.
Composite seems to be going inexorably in the 'more'
direction
More span, weight and cost than we can reasonably invest
in.

So we have a dilemma -

We have to find something that we can afford, that
is
1] good for training.
2] does not break winch cables the whole time.
3] is possible to make a financial case for in clubs
that have 15-20 active members.
4] Has good enough ground handling (wingspan, total
weight and general balance)
that it does not become a hangar queen.

Maybe it is not possible, and I know I have left a
number of fine aircraft out
of both sides of the argument. Fact is we will need
to replace at least three
trainers in the next five years, and there are no obvious
candidates.

Any thoughts on what we should do here? Other than
start saving...







Hi Ray

AS I said I have left many fine options out - and only quoted the main threads
of the club discussions.

I think the Taurus is perfect, and have gone so far as to investigate the cost
and waiting list for delivery as a personal toy. But for a club plane the price
is a deterrent, at 91,000 Euros - versus the TST-14 at 54,000... (Personal
strategy for ownership of one includes winning the lottery)

Also, for winch launching we would prefer minimum weight. I don't know if these
are cleared for assisted launch with the engine running. If this was possible
and safe it would make a difference in some areas.

Self launch might be marginal - both fields are around 5,000" MSL and grass not
tar surface. In both cases the options if the engine quits on take off are less
than plentiful.

What we really need is an updated higher performance
GRP version of the K13, with its easy ground handling,
one piece side hinged canopy for good visibility from
the cockpit, and safe handling and spinning characteristics.
Does such a beast exist? No of course it doesn't!

Derek Copeland

P.S. You can keep your 2-33's.

At 13:24 16 June 2006, wrote:

Bruce Greef wrote:
I have been involved in discussions at a couple of
clubs looking at the
inevitable replacement of wood and fabric trainers.

There are many, often polarised views on subjects
like:
Whether we should ever plan on replacing the K13
Whether Scheibe Bergfalkes are worth keeping.
The 'XYZ' trainer is a bit of a pig to fly, but it
IS paid for and will probably
last another 10 years so why worry.
Will we be able to get anything for them if we want
to sell them in five years.
Whether there is anything available that has the necessary
characteristics:
Low airframe weight - we have to winch launch this.
Reasonable performance.
Good control harmonisation for training.
Robust enough for rough airfields and winch launching.

So then we start thinking of what can we replace it
with:

Whether a Grob G103 is any use as a trainer - it is
so heavy, and the older
versions have far from perfect control responses.
Whether the K21 is the best option - again too heavy,
and too expensive.
Whether the PW6 is the answer - again, a bit heavy
and a bit expensive new, and
too new to be available second hand at reasonable
prices.
Whether the TST-14 might not be a bad idea - it is
certainly dimensionally
correct, and the weight and price looks good. So am
I too cynical wondering
about the catch...
The DG500s look great except for that empty weight
- that would not work on a
short winch runway.
Whether all metal aircraft like the L23 and Peregrine
should even be considered,
given that we have no metal maintenance skills available.
The Scheibe SF34 / Alliance 34 looks on paper about
right, but there are few
complimentary comments about them . Why is this design
unpopular.


General opinion appears to be that:
The Scheibes are already worthless - you can only
get their instruments value.
(They are advertised at The K13s are starting to
go the same way as maintenance climbs and age starts
to
creep up.(look at the number on offer - and the prices)
Metal is not practical.
Composite seems to be going inexorably in the 'more'
direction
More span, weight and cost than we can reasonably
invest in.

So we have a dilemma -

We have to find something that we can afford, that
is
1] good for training.
2] does not break winch cables the whole time.
3] is possible to make a financial case for in clubs
that have 15-20 active members.
4] Has good enough ground handling (wingspan, total
weight and general balance)
that it does not become a hangar queen.

Maybe it is not possible, and I know I have left a
number of fine aircraft out
of both sides of the argument. Fact is we will need
to replace at least three
trainers in the next five years, and there are no
obvious candidates.

Any thoughts on what we should do here? Other than
start saving...

Import a bunch of 2-33s from the US. Cheap, easy to
groundhandle, hard
to break, easy to fix (steel tube/fabric/sheetmetal).

In fact, take all of them, please!

66

I vote Scheibe SF34.

Easiest glass trainer to ground handle
Nice handling in the air.
35:1. (just slightly more than the Schweizer 2-33 Schweinflugel)
Great visibility from both seats.
Last I saw were reasonably priced.

But try finding one or more...

Jim

At 16:54 16 June 2006, Bruce Greef wrote:
Ray Lovinggood wrote:
Bruce,

Have you considered the side-by-side two seater 'Taurus'?

http://www.mcp.com.au/pipistrel-usa/models/taurus.html

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina
Hi Ray

AS I said I have left many fine options out - and only
quoted the main threads
of the club discussions.

I think the Taurus is perfect, and have gone so far
as to investigate the cost
and waiting list for delivery as a personal toy. But
for a club plane the price
is a deterrent, at 91,000 Euros - versus the TST-14
at 54,000... (Personal
strategy for ownership of one includes winning the
lottery)

Also, for winch launching we would prefer minimum weight.
I don't know if these
are cleared for assisted launch with the engine running.
If this was possible
and safe it would make a difference in some areas.

Self launch might be marginal - both fields are around
5,000' MSL and grass not
tar surface. In both cases the options if the engine
quits on take off are less
than plentiful.


Bruce,

I didn't know the price of either the Taurus or the
TsT-14. Wow.

Please let us know what works out. Our club will someday
need to replace our only two-seater, the Blanik L-13.

We don't have the restrictions you have, but cost is
always a BIG issue. Since our field elevation is 200
feet above sea level and we have a 5,000' paved runway
for aerotowing with a 180 h.p. Cessna 172, aircraft
weight isn't quite a problem for us as it is with you.
Yea, we probably wouldn't want a really heavy ship,
but boy, wouldn't a Duo or a DG-1000 look nice for
us! (Our state just instituted a lottery and I think
our members had better start playing it.)

Ray

Bruce Greef wrote:

Any thoughts on what we should do here? Other than start saving...

Your subject talks about fleet replacement strategies. You admit your
club has not been saving. The only sensible strategy is to set aside
funds based on your usage of your existing equipment. Consider
starting when putting a glider into service, though it's never too late
to start. What is the anticipated service life? An L-23 is about 6000
hours to the first overhaul. So divide the existing service life by
the number of hours remaining and bank at a rate to cover that cost.
Do the same for each glider in the club fleet. Some may be based on
restoration costs as they may not have a fixed service limit. Find a
useful estimate. Whether this comes from monthly dues or flying fees
is moot, but you must use a realistic cost basis. That's just one
factor in the real cost of soaring and must be considered when you are
setting your rates. You don't necessarily have to set the rates based
on what you want to acquire, but on your sunk costs. The rate will
increase when you replace or upgrade as you adjust the dues or fees
accordingly.

As the funds accumulate, you can decide to draw on these funds for
fleet replacement or expansion. Some clubs avoid growth and promotion
due to lack of available seats. However, if you are setting aside the
funds, upgrading and expansion are not so onerous. If you currently
have three gliders, you may find that you can add another glider
without asking for funds within 2-3 years. Adding the glider will
allow and keep more (satisfied) members and increase the rate at which
the fund builds.

Keep a couple of things in mind. A club is not a business. Yes, you
must have fiduciary responsbility, but your aims are not the same as a
business. If you adopt a realistic strategic economic plan, you can
avoid going to the bank. Financial interest is an expense of doing
business. But a club is not a business, is generally devoid of
business taxation, and has no tax leverage from expensing interest. In
economic terms, financial interest is a loss of future earnings. Keep
that in mind while doing some strategic planning. Your club is much
better off over the long run to set aside funds up front, than paying
interest on any notes later.

If you can replace or upgrade in advance of selling, you will also
leverage your purchase and sale prices. If you are under pressure, it
will cost you every time.

Frank Whiteley