If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus C - why so cheap?
A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on
Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a 1-26? I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at OTHER gliders (don't tell UF). Jim |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus C - why so cheap?
On Jul 21, 12:00*pm, jim wynhoff wrote:
A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus *that sold for under $7k on Wings and Wheels. *Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a 1-26? *I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at OTHER gliders (don't tell UF). Jim The Phoebus probably has a poor finish and combined with no trailer it is probably a fair deal if you do not mind doing some work. The Phoebus C is a very nice 39:1 sailplane with good glide up to around 80 knots. I owned one and found it to be very docile and fun to fly, even with the dreaded full flying stab and off center cg towhook. I ended up spending more time fixing up the trailer than flying it though. Mike |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus C - why so cheap?
On Jul 21, 1:00*pm, jim wynhoff wrote:
A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus *that sold for under $7k on Wings and Wheels. *Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a 1-26? *I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at OTHER gliders (don't tell UF). Jim i've heard there can be issues with the balsa core that may be difficult or impossible to inspect. they're basically first generation glass. don't forget that there were 700 1-26's built, there is tons of expertise, spare parts, a strong type organization, and they are robust as hell. I do find a nice webpage from Bruno Vassel that he had about his Phoebus and also a Yahoo Group, but have a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association. Resale value involves a lot more than performance. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
[quote=mike;735376]On Jul 21, 12:00*pm, jim wynhoff
Also, there seems to be a life cycle to any generation of machinery, whether it is a glider, automobile, or even household appliance. In the phoebus's pinnacle of popularity, they seem to have commanded prices on a scale of five to six thousand dollars, when an average home ran about twice that, at least here in oklahoma. today half a house money will buy a nice $60,000 to $80,000 glider! In 2006 I bought a 1967 SHK-1 needing paint for $5000. In 1967 this glider traded hands for about $7500. In the obove "house" ratio My $5000 was about $500 in comparable 1967 buying power! The 24 months I spent removing three previous paint jobs and refinishing my SHK were a labor of love, however dusty and tedious. For my effort I have a pretty, clean, and 40 pound lighter classic 39/1 glider barely worth $5000. Of course that is "market" value. I guess in short, If someone isn't flying competition where a classic would be outclassed, we are living in a time of unprecedented GOOD DEALS! Time to join the vintage sailplane association! Scott W. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus C - why so cheap?
On Jul 21, 12:49*pm, Tony wrote:
On Jul 21, 1:00*pm, jim wynhoff wrote: A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus *that sold for under $7k on Wings and Wheels. *Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a 1-26? *I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at OTHER gliders (don't tell UF). Jim i've heard there can be issues with the balsa core that may be difficult or impossible to inspect. *they're basically first generation glass. *don't forget that there were 700 1-26's built, there is tons of expertise, spare parts, a strong type organization, and they are robust as hell. *I do find a nice webpage from Bruno Vassel that he had about his Phoebus and also a Yahoo Group, but have a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association. Resale value involves a lot more than performance. Hi Tony, If having an association makes one glider more valuable than another, the 1-26 is surely the most valuable glider in the world! Concerning balsa core issue hearsay; Before I bought my Phoebus C, I researched the balsa core issue, and really could not find any issues that would justify the claim. Apart from a problem with mold on a ASW-15 shear web, that was found during an inspection, resulting in the issuance of an AD, I do not know of another balsa related problem. I also know of no problems resulting in crashes caused by using balsa as a core material. Concerning first generation glass....these sailplanes were built very well and sometimes over designed to take into consideration any unknowns concerning the new materials being used. This resulted, for example, in the Phoebus having a 12 G spar. This also applies, to a degree to the Libelle 301. After its certification in Germany, some of the wings were sold for use in the Diamant where another 100 pounds or so were added to the "wings load" with no modifications to the spar or wings construction. And then there is the abuse endured by some of the modified 301's which are still around.... Mike |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus C - why so cheap?
Hi Tony,
If having an association makes one glider more valuable than another, the 1-26 is surely the most valuable glider in the world! Concerning balsa core issue hearsay; Before I bought my Phoebus C, I researched the balsa core issue, and really could not find any issues that would justify the claim. Apart from a problem with mold on a ASW-15 shear web, that was found during an inspection, resulting in the issuance of an AD, I do not know of another balsa related problem. I also know of no problems resulting in crashes caused by using balsa as a core material. Concerning *first generation glass....these sailplanes were built very well and sometimes over designed to take into consideration any unknowns concerning the new materials being used. This resulted, for example, in the Phoebus *having a 12 G spar. This also applies, to a degree to the Libelle 301. *After its certification in Germany, some of the wings were sold for use in the Diamant where another 100 pounds or so were added to the "wings load" with no modifications to the spar or wings construction. And then there is the abuse endured by some of the modified 301's which are still around.... Mike mike, i certainly think that the support network is part of the reason for the relatively high resale value for 1-26's. if resale was based on pure performance my cherokees would be worth more than a 1-26. as it is i could maybe sell both of the Cherokees for the value of a good 1-26 with trailer. I'll believe you on the balsa. I have heard stories of some neglected gliders having problems with the cores getting wet and rotting. Perhaps they are just stories or perhaps they were discovered before causing problems in flight. I hear you on first generation glass being robust, for sure. i was just saying that its an old glider and that could be adversely affecting the value. I've noticed after reading through the Soaring Magazine archive that most gliders seem to be immune to inflation. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus C - why so cheap?
On 7/21/2010 1:49 PM, Tony wrote:
On Jul 21, 1:00 pm, jim wrote: A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a 1-26? I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at OTHER gliders (don't tell UF). Jim i've heard there can be issues with the balsa core that may be difficult or impossible to inspect. they're basically first generation glass. don't forget that there were 700 1-26's built, there is tons of expertise, spare parts, a strong type organization, and they are robust as hell. I do find a nice webpage from Bruno Vassel that he had about his Phoebus and also a Yahoo Group, but have a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association. Resale value involves a lot more than performance. In case there may be some slight relevance, it's observed that the first generation of glass sailboats were helluva stout - but where wood was imbedded as stringers etc., they can be expected to have rotted out... Brian W |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus C - why so cheap?
On 7/21/2010 6:44 PM, brian whatcott wrote:
On 7/21/2010 1:49 PM, Tony wrote: On Jul 21, 1:00 pm, jim wrote: A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a 1-26? I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at OTHER gliders (don't tell UF). Jim i've heard there can be issues with the balsa core that may be difficult or impossible to inspect. they're basically first generation glass. don't forget that there were 700 1-26's built, there is tons of expertise, spare parts, a strong type organization, and they are robust as hell. I do find a nice webpage from Bruno Vassel that he had about his Phoebus and also a Yahoo Group, but have a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association. Resale value involves a lot more than performance. In case there may be some slight relevance, it's observed that the first generation of glass sailboats were helluva stout - but where wood was imbedded as stringers etc., they can be expected to have rotted out... Brian W Another data point -- some incredibly expensive boats are built with balsa coring below the waterline. See, for example, Baltic Yachts, which has an excellent reputation for high quality. http://www.balticyachts.fi/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus C - why so cheap?
On Jul 21, 6:50*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
On 7/21/2010 6:44 PM, brian whatcott wrote: On 7/21/2010 1:49 PM, Tony wrote: On Jul 21, 1:00 pm, jim wrote: A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a 1-26? I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at OTHER gliders (don't tell UF). Jim i've heard there can be issues with the balsa core that may be difficult or impossible to inspect. they're basically first generation glass. don't forget that there were 700 1-26's built, there is tons of expertise, spare parts, a strong type organization, and they are robust as hell. I do find a nice webpage from Bruno Vassel that he had about his Phoebus and also a Yahoo Group, but have a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association. Resale value involves a lot more than performance. In case there may be some slight relevance, it's observed that the first generation of glass sailboats were helluva stout - but where wood was imbedded as stringers etc., they can be expected to have rotted out.... Brian W Another data point -- some incredibly expensive boats are built with balsa coring below the waterline. *See, for example, Baltic Yachts, which has an excellent reputation for high quality.http://www.balticyachts.fi/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Also insulation/flotation in LPG tankers, floors in airliners (alum/ balsa sandwich). After the Logan contest is over I'm going to ping Bruno about his experience with the Phoebus. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus C - why so cheap?
On Jul 23, 10:28*am, Grider Pirate wrote:
On Jul 21, 6:50*pm, Greg Arnold wrote: On 7/21/2010 6:44 PM, brian whatcott wrote: On 7/21/2010 1:49 PM, Tony wrote: On Jul 21, 1:00 pm, jim wrote: A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a 1-26? I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at OTHER gliders (don't tell UF). Jim i've heard there can be issues with the balsa core that may be difficult or impossible to inspect. they're basically first generation glass. don't forget that there were 700 1-26's built, there is tons of expertise, spare parts, a strong type organization, and they are robust as hell. I do find a nice webpage from Bruno Vassel that he had about his Phoebus and also a Yahoo Group, but have a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association. Resale value involves a lot more than performance. In case there may be some slight relevance, it's observed that the first generation of glass sailboats were helluva stout - but where wood was imbedded as stringers etc., they can be expected to have rotted out... Brian W Another data point -- some incredibly expensive boats are built with balsa coring below the waterline. *See, for example, Baltic Yachts, which has an excellent reputation for high quality.http://www.balticyachts.fi/-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Also insulation/flotation in LPG tankers, floors in airliners (alum/ balsa sandwich). After the Logan contest is over I'm going to ping Bruno about his experience with the Phoebus.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I helped John Campbell work on his Phoebus C way back in 1987 or 1988. At that time, it was a 25 year old glider. I don't recall any major issues or quirks, other than some slight problems with some wooden covers (non-structural). These were related more to poor maintenance than any design issues. The glider flew wonderfully, though it looked kinda funky at higher speed with wing tips that drooped due to the washout. It's like any of the older ships. The ratio of flying to maintenance will be worse. But if you have some time and talent, it's probably a great deal. P3 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CHEAP Los Angeles C-172 Flying Club CHEAP | [email protected] | Aviation Marketplace | 7 | May 7th 09 03:32 PM |
CHEAP Los Angeles C-172 Flying Club CHEAP | [email protected] | Owning | 1 | May 7th 09 03:32 PM |
CHEAP Los Angeles C-172 Flying Club CHEAP | Sunho | Owning | 2 | May 7th 09 12:13 AM |
CHEAP Los Angeles C-172 Flying Club CHEAP | xyzzy | Owning | 0 | April 6th 09 03:31 PM |
Phoebus B | AFSax | Soaring | 2 | August 18th 05 08:51 PM |