One Design viability?

With winter upon us in the northern hemisphere, the annual PW5 thread had=
reappeared. I started thinking about this ship and one design racing an=
d thought I might post this. I started thinking about this topic in the =
summer when I saw two full size bus conversion RV's pulling two brand-new=
looking glider trailers on what appeared to be a trip to a national cont=
est. From my location in Colorado and then license plates on the caravan=
, it was at least a 3 day drive. Pilots have every right to spend their=
hard earned money in whatever way they see fit, but watching $200K+ roll=
ing down the road reminded me of the yacht racing aspect of our sport.

With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of tim=
e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship be=
ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? P=
articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design still r=
equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. It s=
till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. 1-26ers =
love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm to=
another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship whi=
ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =20

And I just don't see how any bird being built currently can price itself =
below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up the little PW5, maybe=
we need to look harder at the concept of one design racing. I like the =
idea but am not sure that in this day and age that is where so much effor=
t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought I would write this o=
ut. =20

Good points.

The people who buy PW-5's generally are newer pilots who are buying
their first ship. Often, it is while owning the PW-5 that they get
interested in XC, and decide that they need a ship with longer legs.

Thus, the entire premise of the World Class is questionable. It is
designed to be a one-design racing ship, but it is bought by pilots who
are at the opposite end of the spectrum from racing pilots.

Why don't racing pilots buy it? Well, In essence, we already have
several one-design classes -- the Standard, the 15-Meter, and the
18-Meter. In terms of performance, there is no appreciable difference
between the various gliders that fly in these classes. Why would a
racing pilot sell his "one-design" Standard ship for a one-design World
Class glider with lower performance?

I suspect any World Class glider would be a flop, even if it was an
LS-4. Who would buy a World Class LS-4? The racers won't trade down
from their LS-8s. And the current PW-5 owners would view the '4 as too
high performance for their skill level. The market likely would be
limited to those who presently buy used LS-4s, LS-3, Mosquitoes, etc,
but to reach that market the glider fully outfitted would have to sell
for $30,000 or less (at $35,000 it would have to compete with used LS-6s
and Ventuses). Is that price possible? Even with minimal instruments
and a basic trailer, after shipping only about $15,000 would be left for
the glider.



Stewart Kissel wrote:
With winter upon us in the northern hemisphere, the annual PW5 thread had=
reappeared. I started thinking about this ship and one design racing an=
d thought I might post this. I started thinking about this topic in the =
summer when I saw two full size bus conversion RV's pulling two brand-new=
looking glider trailers on what appeared to be a trip to a national cont=
est. From my location in Colorado and then license plates on the caravan=
, it was at least a 3 day drive. Pilots have every right to spend their=
hard earned money in whatever way they see fit, but watching $200K+ roll=
ing down the road reminded me of the yacht racing aspect of our sport.

With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of tim=
e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship be=
ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? P=
articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design still r=
equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. It s=
till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. 1-26ers =
love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm to=
another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship whi=
ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =20

And I just don't see how any bird being built currently can price itself =
below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up the little PW5, maybe=
we need to look harder at the concept of one design racing. I like the =
idea but am not sure that in this day and age that is where so much effor=
t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought I would write this o=
ut. =20

"Greg Arnold" wrote in message
news:VzMxb.7716$ZE1.5967@fed1read04...

IMHO, you're all a day late and a dollar short.

Back in the days when the summers lasted forever and I had a full head of
hair, I was minded to take up the sport of gliding. I stumbled along to
the Scottish Gliding Union where a crazy old German by the name of Ansgar
Samble (Hi, Ansgar. I still remember your full brake approaches, you
*******!) proceeded to try to teach me how to fly. Eventually, that task
was finished by the tiny but perfectly-formed Alan Middleton from Deeside,
and I became a fully-fledged glider pilot, ready to take on the world.

What happened next? I'll tell you what, me boyos! I'd spend days, weeks,
months, at the club working my ass off and maybe - maybe - as a reward get a
fifteen minute flight in a knackered Swallow, which taught me naught but the
folly of not owning my own piece of plastic. Sure, I could have beavered
away and in 3 or 4 years have accumulated a Silver C or some such nonsense,
but I'd also have had to dedicate my life and soul to the club merely to
have the opportunity to do so in a club machine. So I buggered off,
competed with varying degrees of success in a half-dozen other sports at a
quarter of the cost in terms of finance and time, and had a great life.

Fast forward thirty years. Youngest son sees glider in air and says, "That
looks like fun". "Ah", says I, "It is, but it requires that you commit
your entire existence to the sport or that you drain your meagre Trust fund
dry. Do either of these options appeal to you?". "Piffle", says youngest
son, "Point the car at the SGU and prove your lies!" So I did.

He'll find that times have changed, I hear you mutter. And you're correct.
They have a nice all-glass fleet, a subsidised youth training scheme, and an
ample supply of early solo machines. They even have a big cool-looking
ASH-25 thingie that looks just like the sort of thing you could fly for
1000's of k's. HOWEVER, it's still a sport that demands time, time and
more time. Time to learn to fly - you can't simply turn up and go, time to
rig or drag the beast out of a hanger, time to wait for a launch, time to
derig or hanger pack. And all before you ever get to the stage of
attempting to fly cross country.

What kid has the price of a PW-5, LS-4, or whatever sitting around in his
back pocket? Sure, they've enough for two weeks snowboarding in the Alps,
or for scuba diving in the Red Sea, but by and large they have neither the
cash, nor the desire, to commit a large amount of time or money to one
particular activity. In other words, it isn't the *type* of plane you fly
that makes the sport accessible or keeps people coming back for more, it's
the *structure*. Get that right and you'll be inundated with new pilots,
some of who will be wealthy enough to provide a buoyant glider market,
others will ensure that clubs will be able to afford a varied and healthy
club fleet.

Youngest son was impressed by the SGU, as was I, but is too young to start
training. So we're back to the usual round of karting (A full race
championship winning outfit can be bought for less than £3000. You turn
up, practice, race and go home. Over in two hours. The afternoon's still
free for swimming.), snowboarding and mountainbiking. I reckon he'll give
gliding a try, and I reckon he'll last as long as I did - i.e. long enough
to go solo, then walk away.

Gliding is an anachronism, a sport left over from a different age. I'll
give you guys your due, you haven't simply rolled over and died, but die you
must and die you will. And I suspect you'll do it all the quicker if you
spend your time obsessing over glider design rather than addressing the cost
or time constraints of your sport.


Roger.

"apusapus" wrote in message ...
"Greg Arnold" wrote in message
news:VzMxb.7716$ZE1.5967@fed1read04...

IMHO, you're all a day late and a dollar short.

Back in the days when the summers lasted forever and I had a full head of
hair, I was minded to take up the sport of gliding. I

Trolling the aviation groups with your BS about flying. What is next?
You have a hundred thousand hours and have test flown 5000 types, flew
relief missions to Africa and are the world's greatest physican?
Replace the ZZZ with RRR
Yes people here comes the next one...

Matthew Mazerowski wrote:
"apusapus" wrote in message ...

"Greg Arnold" wrote in message
news:VzMxb.7716$ZE1.5967@fed1read04...

IMHO, you're all a day late and a dollar short.

Back in the days when the summers lasted forever and I had a full head of
hair, I was minded to take up the sport of gliding. I


Trolling the aviation groups with your BS about flying. What is next?
You have a hundred thousand hours and have test flown 5000 types, flew
relief missions to Africa and are the world's greatest physican?
Replace the ZZZ with RRR
Yes people here comes the next one...

Actually, I'm afraid his story is true. We've heard it before from other
people. If it's true, it'd be better to remain silent than offer this
response; if false, no need to reply at all.
--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Ansgar Sambale I think, I remember him well.
Not at all crazy, and not particularly old in the days when you and I knew
him.

He was certainly German, he had been in the Hitler youth and had got to the
UK by being shot down in his Me109. He never went back after the war, I
think his home was in what became E. Germany.

I first met Ansgar in September 1965 when I visited Portmoak with the first
Lasham expedition organised by Alan Purnell, he was the professional in
charge mid-week. I then went again every year until about 1985, Ansgar was
always there, but in the later years he was working for the Fife schools and
not the club. We all had the greatest respect for him.

I learnt to fly on a public course at the London club, Dunstable in October
1963, my instructor was Mike Denham-Till and the other instructor was John
Jeffries. Last season the course instructors at Dunstable were John
Jeffries and Mike Till, and I gather they will be back there next year.
The only change is that in the early 1960's Mike spent his winters ski
instructing in the Alps, now he spends the winters gliding instructing in
New Zealand.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"apusapus" wrote in message
...

snip

Back in the days when the summers lasted forever and I had a full head of
hair, I was minded to take up the sport of gliding. I stumbled along to
the Scottish Gliding Union where a crazy old German by the name of Ansgar
Samble (Hi, Ansgar. I still remember your full brake approaches, you
*******!) proceeded to try to teach me how to fly. Eventually, that task
was finished by the tiny but perfectly-formed Alan Middleton from Deeside,
and I became a fully-fledged glider pilot, ready to take on the world.

snip

Roger.

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." wrote in message
...

Ansgar Sambale I think, I remember him well.
Not at all crazy, and not particularly old in the days when you and I knew
him.

Sorry, I didn't intend to come across as rude. 'Crazy' was a term I was
using, in this instance, with affection.

Having said that, I can't imagine why on my very first flight EVER, Ansgar
considered it appropriate to demonstrate a full brake approach in a creaky
Capstan which left me dangling from the straps as we pointed down at what
felt like 90 degrees. I think it was all part of his "treat 'em rough,
make 'em tough" philosophy. I remember him muttering darkly one spring
morning that in his younger days the gliders would be on the field ready to
fly at sunrise. He couldn't understand why we didn't share his enthusiasm
for flying from early dawn 'til dusk.

Unsurprisingly, he was at Portmoak the day I arrived with youngest son and
offered to fly him in the Falke as he didn't qualify for a 'friends and
family' flight in a pure glider. I politely declined, lacking the courage
to see my favourite child thrown about the sky by a pilot who is no longer
in the first flush of youth. However, it was a typically generous gesture
by a man who has a life-long commitment to flying in all its forms, and to
passing on his love of gliding to subsequent generations. As you
suggested, he's a fine guy, and those of us that have met him are all the
better for the experience.

Your mention of the legendary Jeffries - together with your own notoriety
(another term being used with affection) within the gliding community - has
turned this into one of those "they don't make 'em like the used to" posts.
And, sadly, they don't. However, before I get too misty-eyed, why the hell
didn't you guys sort out gliding when it was salvageable? If you chaps had
acted in the 70's and 80's instead of swanning around in your Kestrels, we
might have had a vibrant and challenging sport, rather than a refuge for the
wealthy but largely talentless individuals cluttering the thermals today.


Roger.

However, before I get too misty-eyed, why the hell
didn't you guys sort out gliding when it was salvageable? If you chaps had
acted in the 70's and 80's instead of swanning around in your Kestrels, we
might have had a vibrant and challenging sport, rather than a refuge for the
wealthy but largely talentless individuals cluttering the thermals today.


Telling tales about being a pilot now. Go ahead fraser. Tell them how
you are a doctor. Tell them about your children. Tell them how your a
brave soldier in an elite unit in the Rhodesian army. Tell them about
how you are a master troller. Time to start adding RRRR to the threads
like ZZZZ's. Here is another one.

Stewart Kissel wrote:

With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of tim=
e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship be=
ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? P=
articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design still r=
equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. It s=
till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. 1-26ers =
love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm to=
another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship whi=
ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =20

And I just don't see how any bird being built currently can price itself =
below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up the little PW5, maybe=
we need to look harder at the concept of one design racing. I like the =
idea but am not sure that in this day and age that is where so much effor=
t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought I would write this o=
ut. =20

[The following opinion is not founded on careful research. I offer it
from the viewpoint of someone that was on the SSA Board of Directors
when Paul Schweizer first proposed the World Class, and has observed the
debate since then]

I've wondered about this also. We have, in effect, one-design contests
in the STD, 15 M, and 18 M classes, because there is little difference
between the top gliders from each manufacturer. It's not a low cost,
one-design, situation, of course, but because the gliders offer what
most pilots want in a glider, they sell well to pilots that aren't
serious competitors.

We have low(er) cost racing via the Sport Class (USA) and the Club Class
(elsewhere). The Sports Class isn't one-design by any measure, but it's
popular anyway. The Club Class isn't one-design, either, but it's method
for selecting gliders for the class comes close in matching
performances, and when the handicap is used, it's just as effective as a
one-design class at equalizing performance.

[I'm not a historian of the 1-26, so I hope knowledgeable people will
correct the following if it needs it]

The 1-26 is a successful one-design class, but it didn't start as a
competition class, but was designed to be the single seat follow-on to
the 2-22 trainer. The class came later, after there were many
(hundreds?) already in existence, and the much smaller number of pilots
interested in competition began competing. An important factor in the
creation and continuing vigor of the class is it's much lower
performance than the other common gliders, making it's own class the
only way it can have a good competition.

In other words, only a very few pilots bought the 1-26 because it
offered one-design competition. The huge majority of owners are
attracted to it for other reasons.

So, what must a one-design class glider have to be successful in this
environment? I think these things:

- look good, like a "real" glider
- have Std Cirrus or better performance (38:1 or better)
- robust and easy to fly for low-time club members
- weather-proof finish to allow outdoor parking
- cost no higher than similar used German gliders

A glider like the above should have enough sales to be profitable to
produce, even if it isn't the World Class glider. Making it the World
Class glider might add a few sales, but I think these will be so few,
that most of the sales must come for other reasons; i.e., because it is
a desirable glider.

A glider like the above would also fit in the Club Class (and the Sports
Class in the USA), giving it another place to compete in addition to
it's own class. Since these two Classes have numerous competitions
already, I suspect most of the competitions the new World Class gliders
would compete in would not be World Class competitions!

So, by my analysis, a successful World Class glider must be successful
even it it isn't the World Class glider, which makes me wonder what
value there would be to having the World Class. Perhaps the effort it
takes to develop and maintain the concept would be better spent on other
aspects of soaring that would be more likely to increase our numbers.
--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

All a one design class needs to be successful is a sanctioning
body making it THE choice for contests. Look at the olympics.
Solings for gods sake, tornado's and other low performance
boats. Very strict rules on planform and construction. IMHO
there are much better race boats in the world than what theey use.
The key is that they use them, have contests and promote it as a
class boat.

The PW5 only needs for the sanctioning body of soaring to adopt it
and have a world championship at the venue that the other classes
are held. There are people who would fly for a world title in the class
if it was flown and promoted that way.

Scott.