Is everybody afraid of World Class?

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:49:52 UTC, Bruce Hoult wrote:

: f the sport was growing then there wouldn't be enough older high
: performance gliders to go around

Only if it was growing faster than people bought new gliders.
Basically, wooden gliders rot away and plastic ones don't, so it's
inevitable that cheap old plastic gliders dominate the budget end of
the market. I find the comparison with sailing interesting: hardly
anyone makes entry-level 21 footers in the UK market, because there
are just so many second hand boats to choose from at the same price.

Ian

--

Ian Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:49:52 UTC, Bruce Hoult wrote:

: f the sport was growing then there wouldn't be enough older high
: performance gliders to go around

Only if it was growing faster than people bought new gliders.
Basically, wooden gliders rot away and plastic ones don't, so it's
inevitable that cheap old plastic gliders dominate the budget end of
the market.

It is inevitable, but not because of rot: the factories stopped making
wooden gliders about 35 years ago, so their number decreases as they are
crashed or neglected. Plastic gliders also suffer from crashes and
neglect, but they are still being built, so there is a ready supply of
"new" old ones.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In article cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-ItubrYhRIIMd@localhost,
"Ian Johnston" wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:49:52 UTC, Bruce Hoult wrote:

: f the sport was growing then there wouldn't be enough older high
: performance gliders to go around

Only if it was growing faster than people bought new gliders.
Basically, wooden gliders rot away and plastic ones don't, so it's
inevitable that cheap old plastic gliders dominate the budget end of
the market.

Not in NZ, as far as I can see. I see ads for airworthy Oly's and K6's
and the like for NZ$6k - $12k. I don't think you've get anything much
glass for under $20k and I include PW-5's in that.

-- Bruce

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

I personally liked the retract Russia polar so much, and the low weight,
and the assembly, that I'd consider buying one, but I'd like to see
how the "ruggedness factor" plays out first with the ones at the field.


Mark,

You should look into the Apis line of gliders, www.apisgliders.com.

Better engineered and built than the Russia and more bang for the buck than the
Sparrowhawk.

There is one Apis 13 based in San Diego.

Robert Mudd
Apis Saiplanes inc.

Jacek, you,re so right.
3 years ago a polish junior was invited to our world class national
comp.
He did not have a glider for 2 (1000pts ea) days....and you know what
happened.
The same kid won world championships in PW-5 next year.
And the same "kid"(he is not a junior now) won this year's club class
world championship.
Lets look at the american champion.
U.S. is a nobody on the world's arena for the last 20 years. There is
no role model.
In his life time ,US average instructor did not fly further from
airport than his L/D would alow ( off duty, his glider has to have min
40 L/D).This is why a american pilot would be afraid of the
PW-5.(Germans just don't want to lose the customers buying expensive
fiber).
U.S. average junior gets discounts (great start) on flying but nobody
(except his father or his uncle) will coach him in cross country
flying.
Juniors here don't deserve to have their own regionals or nationals.
Instructors wannabes don't have yearly camps to get their licence and
be new soaring leaders/cross country promoters for juniors.
Lately the only bright star in the U.S. sky is Garret Willat and his
friends from New Mexico and Colorado, whose successful struggle to
form and unite U.S. junior's commiunity.
Juniors don't mind flying PW-5 or Libelle, they are not afraid.
They don't cry if they get a 7 hour task like most comp pilots in US.
US World Class pilots support fully every year juniors (paying for
tows and entry fees and for the glider) at PW-5 competitions.
Ryszard Krolikowski

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:53:31 UTC, Bruce Hoult wrote:

: In article cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-ItubrYhRIIMd@localhost,
: "Ian Johnston" wrote:

: Only if it was growing faster than people bought new gliders.
: Basically, wooden gliders rot away and plastic ones don't, so it's
: inevitable that cheap old plastic gliders dominate the budget end of
: the market.
:
: Not in NZ, as far as I can see. I see ads for airworthy Oly's and K6's
: and the like for NZ$6k - $12k. I don't think you've get anything much
: glass for under $20k and I include PW-5's in that.

I don't doubt that there may be special situations - places a long
shipping charge away from glider manufacturers - where things are
different. In the UK, the 8 grand which it would have taken to buy a
nice Ka6E ten years ago will now buy you something quite respectable
in the Astir line.

Ian

I'm a big fan of light aircraft with light wings. So yes, the
Apis is interesting.

Unfortunately, there aren't too many around. It's easier for me to
research accident reports and prices of the PW-5 and Russia because
there are so darned many of them. There are at least 3 Russias at
Avenal alone.

I'm just not sure there's enough market for the half-dozen or so
light gliders designed in the past ten years. Silent and PW-5 and
Apis and Russia and Sparrowhawk and L-33 and Junior...hmmm...it will
be interesting to see the competition for the next World Class glider.

I'm still not decided on side opening canopy or front. The PW-5
was a bit "athletic" to get into, but at least if one left the canopy
unlocked, there was no issue with it (ask me how I know).
The PW-5 and the Russia also both have inadequate ventilation for
100+ degree heat. If the thermals couldn't get to 4K, it was
just a freakin' sauna. I guess most European test pilots
fly in the winter, eh?

Robertmudd1u wrote:
I personally liked the retract Russia polar so much, and the low weight,
and the assembly, that I'd consider buying one, but I'd like to see
how the "ruggedness factor" plays out first with the ones at the field.


Mark,

You should look into the Apis line of gliders, www.apisgliders.com.

Better engineered and built than the Russia and more bang for the buck than the
Sparrowhawk.

There is one Apis 13 based in San Diego.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

It strikes me as odd that the most vocal argument against the PW-5 seems
to be the "unconventional" aesthetics. Compared to some of the
Schweizer designs or old European mixed construction types, I can't see
the problem. If you compare it with our usual sleek plastic machines, I
agree the high tail boom and conventional tail seem strange, but there
is a logical explanation: a T-tail needs to have a much stronger tail
boom to absorb the torsion loads. To have a conventional tail with
sufficient ground clearance for field landings in crops, it has to be
high-mounted. This design feature thus helps to keep the price down.
Handsome is as handsome does, or?

The second argument is the low performance and high price compared to
some older club class gliders. In a monotype contest, absolute
performance should not really be a point. And financially, I think it
is totally unjustified to compare the price of a new or near new PW-5
with that of a 30-year old club class glider. Their philosophies are
also completely different. You can let a low-hour solo pilot fly the
PW-5 (easy flight characteristics were part of the World Class design,
in order for a young pilot to be able to fly it as his first solo
glider, and fly his first competition in it while being on equal
footing with the other competitors), but I sure wouldn't advocate
putting him in a Standard Cirrus, to name but a very popular club class
glider. And I have seen enough cases of sloppy repairs camouflaged
under a "complete respray" to be very cautious when evaluating such an
old composite glider.

The World Class project was a contest with a deadline; some interesting
projects never left the drawing board, others had an unfinished or
unsatisfactory prototype (for example, I remember the Russia 1
prototype being structurally weak, and the stronger Russia 2 being not
completely up to standard at the time of the testing), others had less
than desirable flight characteristics. At the time, the PW-5 was the
one corresponding most to the letter and spirit of the contest. You
have to take these limitations into account.

But from the start of the project, the top manufacturers (all German)
refused to believe in it, because performance-wise, it was a big leap
backwards. The lack of interest of most of the known competitors (there
were some who played the game, participating at least at the first
World Class contest, like Karl Striedieck and Bruno Gantenbrink) sealed
the fate of the World Class. If FAI itself had really been convinced of
the value of a monotype contest, perhaps it should have decided that
only the World Class Champion could be "World Champion". I bet the
attitude of some competitors would have been completely different.

Aesthetics where not taken into account in the World Class contest.
Perhaps this was a mistake. But I seem to remember that not everybody
was convinced at first that the Discus-wing was appealing to the eye.
It's only when the glider started to win every contest that it suddenly
looked right to everybody.


--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

Ian Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:53:31 UTC, Bruce Hoult wrote:

: In article cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-ItubrYhRIIMd@localhost,
: "Ian Johnston" wrote:

: Only if it was growing faster than people bought new gliders.
: Basically, wooden gliders rot away and plastic ones don't, so it's
: inevitable that cheap old plastic gliders dominate the budget end of
: the market.
:
: Not in NZ, as far as I can see. I see ads for airworthy Oly's and K6's
: and the like for NZ$6k - $12k. I don't think you've get anything much
: glass for under $20k and I include PW-5's in that.

I don't doubt that there may be special situations - places a long
shipping charge away from glider manufacturers - where things are
different. In the UK, the 8 grand which it would have taken to buy a
nice Ka6E ten years ago will now buy you something quite respectable
in the Astir line.

Wouldn't 8 grand in the UK be about $20K in NZ?

But the answer was about relative prices, really: What would it take to
buy something respectable in the Ka6 line in the UK?

And do you think the used glider prices have fallen because of reduced
demand (less people that want gliders) or increased supply (more people
are buying new ones)?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:412874c6$1@darkstar...
I'm still not decided on side opening canopy or front. The PW-5
was a bit "athletic" to get into, but at least if one left the canopy
unlocked, there was no issue with it (ask me how I know).

You just touched on my pet peeve. At least one Russia has come to grief
after a typical unlocked canopy incident. Unlocked side-opening, (and
front-opening back) canopies represent a continuing source of glider accidents
that could easily be "designed away" by manufacturers. We insist on automatic
control hookups on new gliders because they prevent accidents, so I don't
understand why we tolerate those crappy canopy latches that are so easily left
unlocked or accidentally unlocked in flight.

The L-13 canopy latch is a better (though far from perfect) example of a
side-canopy latch. If properly maintained, it is almost idiot proof because it
latches automatically, much like your car door or the hood of your car. Your
basic cam-acting door latch was probably invented hundreds of years ago; why
can't we have this "space-age" technology in our gliders?

Vaughn