Most numerous sailplane type and model in the world?

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 18:41:27 -0800 (PST), Tim Taylor
wrote:



I think we tried to talk the IGC into using the LS-4 as the single
glider for the World Class. You can see how well that worked out;
there are nearly as many PW-5's around as LS-4's, Not! Logic is not
something that happens at IGC meetings,

This argument is quite a bit unfair. I have been in IGC meetings as a
journalist or as a deputy delegate for my country.
Logic is at the center of all discussions, and there are always
advocates for the different opinions.
In the history of World Class creation, the deciding factor was that
the discussions concluded a "new design" would be necessary, to avoid
tying the class to a single manufacturer, allowing licensees and
home-biulders to build their own.

The class failed, despite academic studies which predicted the
production in thousands.

aldo cernezzi

On Feb 5, 9:04*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 2/5/2011 6:41 PM, Tim Taylor wrote:





On Feb 5, 7:17 pm, Whiskey *wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:36 pm, Jamie *wrote:

I would certainly participate in one design racing if the Discus or
the LS-4 was the design.

Jamie Shore

I would as well.

WD

I think we tried to talk the IGC into using the LS-4 as the single
glider for the World Class. *You can see how well that worked out;
there are nearly as many PW-5's around as LS-4's, Not! *Logic is not
something that happens at IGC meetings, the herd mentality somehow
takes over and we now have seven classes. *Next month I am sure they
will want to add 14M and 17M classes for those that have been left out
of the 13.5M and 20M classes. *Yes, the LS-4 could have been the World
Class and there would have been no need for the Club class.

Personally, I think a Club Class centered on the LS4 makes far more
sense than a World Class based on the LS4. There were many more the
gliders in the Club Class already existence than LS4's and they would be
much cheaper than a new LS4.

My fading recollection from being an SSA Director during the World Class
development is no way did the manufacturer want to let go of the still
very valuable LS4 design so that other companies could build it. I'm
sure they would have been delighted to be the only manufacturer for the
World Class, but the other companies would have been hugely upset.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are any of the owners of numerous glider types already organized? I
think there is a libelle organization? The LS-4 design is over 20
years old. Could the glider be legally copied?

Bill Snead
6W

On Feb 5, 9:04*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 2/5/2011 6:41 PM, Tim Taylor wrote:



On Feb 5, 7:17 pm, Whiskey *wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:36 pm, Jamie *wrote:

I would certainly participate in one design racing if the Discus or
the LS-4 was the design.

Jamie Shore

I would as well.

WD

I think we tried to talk the IGC into using the LS-4 as the single
glider for the World Class. *You can see how well that worked out;
there are nearly as many PW-5's around as LS-4's, Not! *Logic is not
something that happens at IGC meetings, the herd mentality somehow
takes over and we now have seven classes. *Next month I am sure they
will want to add 14M and 17M classes for those that have been left out
of the 13.5M and 20M classes. *Yes, the LS-4 could have been the World
Class and there would have been no need for the Club class.

Personally, I think a Club Class centered on the LS4 makes far more
sense than a World Class based on the LS4. There were many more the
gliders in the Club Class already existence than LS4's and they would be
much cheaper than a new LS4.

Agreed. This is the argument for making the commitment to the Club
Class here in the US and then building up the class using the large
numbers of cheaper, high performance gliders that are out there but
not being actively raced (for whatever reasons).

My fading recollection from being an SSA Director during the World Class
development is no way did the manufacturer want to let go of the still
very valuable LS4 design so that other companies could build it. I'm
sure they would have been delighted to be the only manufacturer for the
World Class, but the other companies would have been hugely upset.

Would it be so bad to actually form an organization/racing class that
pits the manufacturers against each other, with the winner getting the
market share of created by a new, vibrant racing class???

That is assuming the best idea is that NEW gliders of a certain type
racing a one design class is THE way forward to re-invigorating glider
racing. The Club Class already offers this basic idea but with already
depreciated gliders for better affordability (but with the
complication and uncertainty of handicapping)

The existing soaring organizations (IGC, national organizations) seem
to want to make everyone happy with their racing class decisions and
proposals when we know that this rarely leads to substantial change in
situations where real changes in thinking are needed.

Clearly, there are no manufacturers that believe or want to create a
new class that potentially takes market share away from their existing
product lines which are very pricey and are one barrier to widespread
racing participation.

However, I will posit that Schemp-Hirth, Schleicher, LS (current
holder of ls4 molds) could break out the molds and start producing
Discus, -24's, LS4's if the economic incentive was there to do so.

There is strong argument here that if we really want to re-invigorate
glider racing, we should junk the existing system and devise classes
and a racing concepts/systems that economically incentivize
particpation.

Look at F1 Motor Racing, it exists, but is just the "tip of the spear"
for auto racing - the best, the most technolgical, the msot expensive,
etc. There is a place for the best, and I can't wait to see the
Concordia fly and race.

BUT, most auto racing is done in various entry level classes that are
alive because they have continually adapted to changing values and
needs within auto racing. The soaring "powers that be" need to start
thinking and acting "strategically" when considering how to preserve,
let alone GROW our sport of glider racing.

Tim EY

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On 2/6/2011 11:19 AM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 5, 9:04 pm, Eric wrote:
On 2/5/2011 6:41 PM, Tim Taylor wrote:



On Feb 5, 7:17 pm, Whiskey wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:36 pm, Jamie wrote:

I would certainly participate in one design racing if the Discus or
the LS-4 was the design.

Jamie Shore

I would as well.

WD

I think we tried to talk the IGC into using the LS-4 as the single
glider for the World Class. You can see how well that worked out;
there are nearly as many PW-5's around as LS-4's, Not! Logic is not
something that happens at IGC meetings, the herd mentality somehow
takes over and we now have seven classes. Next month I am sure they
will want to add 14M and 17M classes for those that have been left out
of the 13.5M and 20M classes. Yes, the LS-4 could have been the World
Class and there would have been no need for the Club class.

Personally, I think a Club Class centered on the LS4 makes far more
sense than a World Class based on the LS4. There were many more the
gliders in the Club Class already existence than LS4's and they would be
much cheaper than a new LS4.

Agreed. This is the argument for making the commitment to the Club
Class here in the US and then building up the class using the large
numbers of cheaper, high performance gliders that are out there but
not being actively raced (for whatever reasons).

My fading recollection from being an SSA Director during the World Class
development is no way did the manufacturer want to let go of the still
very valuable LS4 design so that other companies could build it. I'm
sure they would have been delighted to be the only manufacturer for the
World Class, but the other companies would have been hugely upset.

Would it be so bad to actually form an organization/racing class that
pits the manufacturers against each other, with the winner getting the
market share of created by a new, vibrant racing class???

That is assuming the best idea is that NEW gliders of a certain type
racing a one design class is THE way forward to re-invigorating glider
racing. The Club Class already offers this basic idea but with already
depreciated gliders for better affordability (but with the
complication and uncertainty of handicapping)

The existing soaring organizations (IGC, national organizations) seem
to want to make everyone happy with their racing class decisions and
proposals when we know that this rarely leads to substantial change in
situations where real changes in thinking are needed.

Clearly, there are no manufacturers that believe or want to create a
new class that potentially takes market share away from their existing
product lines which are very pricey and are one barrier to widespread
racing participation.

However, I will posit that Schemp-Hirth, Schleicher, LS (current
holder of ls4 molds) could break out the molds and start producing
Discus, -24's, LS4's if the economic incentive was there to do so.

There is strong argument here that if we really want to re-invigorate
glider racing, we should junk the existing system and devise classes
and a racing concepts/systems that economically incentivize
particpation.

Look at F1 Motor Racing, it exists, but is just the "tip of the spear"
for auto racing - the best, the most technolgical, the msot expensive,
etc. There is a place for the best, and I can't wait to see the
Concordia fly and race.

BUT, most auto racing is done in various entry level classes that are
alive because they have continually adapted to changing values and
needs within auto racing. The soaring "powers that be" need to start
thinking and acting "strategically" when considering how to preserve,
let alone GROW our sport of glider racing.

Tim EY

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)


A more pressing problem for the soaring "powers to be" to address is to
come up with an economical 2 place glider to replace all of the grounded
L-13s.

--
Mike Schumann

On Feb 6, 11:37*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 2/6/2011 11:19 AM, Tim wrote:



On Feb 5, 9:04 pm, Eric *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 6:41 PM, Tim Taylor wrote:

On Feb 5, 7:17 pm, Whiskey * *wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:36 pm, Jamie * *wrote:

I would certainly participate in one design racing if the Discus or
the LS-4 was the design.

Jamie Shore

I would as well.

WD

I think we tried to talk the IGC into using the LS-4 as the single
glider for the World Class. *You can see how well that worked out;
there are nearly as many PW-5's around as LS-4's, Not! *Logic is not
something that happens at IGC meetings, the herd mentality somehow
takes over and we now have seven classes. *Next month I am sure they
will want to add 14M and 17M classes for those that have been left out
of the 13.5M and 20M classes. *Yes, the LS-4 could have been the World
Class and there would have been no need for the Club class.

Personally, I think a Club Class centered on the LS4 makes far more
sense than a World Class based on the LS4. There were many more the
gliders in the Club Class already existence than LS4's and they would be
much cheaper than a new LS4.

Agreed. This is the argument for making the commitment to the Club
Class here in the US and then building up the class using the large
numbers of cheaper, high performance gliders that are out there but
not being actively raced (for whatever reasons).

My fading recollection from being an SSA Director during the World Class
development is no way did the manufacturer want to let go of the still
very valuable LS4 design so that other companies could build it. I'm
sure they would have been delighted to be the only manufacturer for the
World Class, but the other companies would have been hugely upset.

Would it be so bad to actually form an organization/racing class that
pits the manufacturers against each other, with the winner getting the
market share of created by a new, vibrant racing class???

That is assuming the best idea is that NEW gliders of a certain type
racing a one design class is THE way forward to re-invigorating glider
racing. The Club Class already offers this basic idea but with already
depreciated gliders for better affordability (but with the
complication and uncertainty of handicapping)

The existing soaring organizations (IGC, national organizations) seem
to want to make everyone happy with their racing class decisions and
proposals when we know that this rarely leads to substantial change in
situations where real changes in thinking are needed.

Clearly, there are no manufacturers that believe or want to create a
new class that potentially takes market share away from their existing
product lines which are very pricey and are one barrier to widespread
racing participation.

However, I will posit that Schemp-Hirth, Schleicher, LS (current
holder of ls4 molds) could break out the molds and start producing
Discus, -24's, LS4's if the economic incentive was there to do so.

There is strong argument here that if we really want to re-invigorate
glider racing, we should junk the existing system and devise classes
and a racing concepts/systems that economically incentivize
particpation.

Look at F1 Motor Racing, it exists, but is just the "tip of the spear"
for auto racing - the best, the most technolgical, the msot expensive,
etc. There is a place for the best, and I can't wait to see the
Concordia fly and race.

BUT, most auto racing is done in various entry level classes that are
alive because they have continually adapted to changing values and
needs within auto racing. The soaring "powers that be" need to start
thinking and acting "strategically" when considering how to preserve,
let alone GROW our sport of glider racing.

Tim EY

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

A more pressing problem for the soaring "powers to be" to address is to
come up with an economical 2 place glider to replace all of the grounded
L-13s.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike, that's true - the training glider fleet is more important to the
overall sport. So, how would these 'powers', who are all unpaid
volunteers, accomplish this?

A more pressing problem for the soaring "powers to be" to address is to
come up with an economical 2 place glider to replace all of the grounded
L-13s.

I wonder how "economical" the available glass trainers are in
comparison to the cost of the older trainers used in the US. What did
a new 2-33 cost?
A new L-13?

Bob

On Feb 6, 2:58*pm, Bob wrote:
A more pressing problem for the soaring "powers to be" to address is to
come up with an economical 2 place glider to replace all of the grounded
L-13s.

I wonder how "economical" the available glass trainers are in
comparison to the cost of the older trainers used in the US. What did
a new 2-33 cost?
A new L-13?

Bob

Production of the L-23 Super Blanik, the succesor of the L-13 Blanik,
was suspended in 2007. The base price new I have for 2006 was about
USD 50,000. By comparison the ASK-21 base price new in 2008 was about
EUR 68,000. The current base price for a new PW-6U is about EUR
54,000, for the SZD-54-2 Perkoz, successor of the SZD-50-3 Puchaz, the
base price new was about EUR 66,000 in 2008. The base price for a new
fixed gear 18m DG-1000 Club was about EUR 77,000 in 2008.

Markus

On Feb 6, 12:58*pm, Bob wrote:
A more pressing problem for the soaring "powers to be" to address is to
come up with an economical 2 place glider to replace all of the grounded
L-13s.

I wonder how "economical" the available glass trainers are in
comparison to the cost of the older trainers used in the US. What did
a new 2-33 cost?
A new L-13?

Bob

A new 1970 2-33 sold for about $22,000 which, in current dollars would
cost about $125,000. In comparison, a new ASK-21 is a bargain.

On Feb 6, 2:17*pm, bildan wrote:


A new 1970 2-33 sold for about $22,000 which, in current dollars would
cost about $125,000. *In comparison, a new ASK-21 is a bargain.

Actually, that doesn't sound quite right. A friend of mine purchased
a new 1-26 in 1972 or 1973 and I believe he paid around $9000 or so.
So the $22K for the 2-33 sounds high. This is all from memory, no
hard data.

My partner and I purchased an almost new LS-1f (50 hrs TT) in 1978 for
$17K, so that also puts in question the stated price for the 2-33.
Any data for the $22K number for the 2-33?

On 2/6/2011 8:19 AM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 5, 9:04 pm, Eric wrote:


BUT, most auto racing is done in various entry level classes that are
alive because they have continually adapted to changing values and
needs within auto racing. The soaring "powers that be" need to start
thinking and acting "strategically" when considering how to preserve,
let alone GROW our sport of glider racing.

That was exactly the thinking that led to the present World Class, but
it didn't work out. It's not an easy problem. We can't be sure what we
think would have worked, like new LS4s, would have turned out any
better, either. I can hear people saying, "Why buy a new World-Class-LS4
when I can buy a used one for half the price, or a new, higher
performance [insert favorite here] for only 20% more?".

Race cars at the entry level are much cheaper than gliders because they
can be built by almost anybody with a welder's torch and some steel
tubing, or because they are based on production models built by the tens
of thousands PER YEAR, and because they don't have to meet stringent
certification. "Changing and adapting equipment" is probably a poor
model for glider world.

My guess is it's not near the top of the sport - competition - that we
need to think and act, but near the bottom, where the new people come
into the sport. More glider operations closer to the people, a lower
cost path to a license, and less time to do it, would have more impact
on the sport than making a competition class more equal and less expensive.

Get the sport growing 5% a year, and we'd have vibrant racing classes in
a few years without changing the rules or the gliders.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)