US Dollar sinks to new low against Euro

Stewart Kissel wrote:
http://www.scaled.com/projects/globalflyer.html

That's quite a beasty. I hope it has automated independent pitch
stabilization for each of the booms. I suspect they could get
oscillating relative to each other and cause some nasty problems.

Shawn

Well our intrepid billionaire is going to try and solo
it around the world non-stop



At 00:00 10 November 2004, Shawn wrote:
Stewart Kissel wrote:
http://www.scaled.com/projects/globalflyer.html

That's quite a beasty. I hope it has automated independent
pitch
stabilization for each of the booms. I suspect they
could get
oscillating relative to each other and cause some nasty
problems.

Shawn

Earlier, "Bill Daniels" wrote:

It seems the aerodynamics of gliders has
reached a point of near perfection where
further performance increases are likely
to be very small...

I believe that is true for span-limited performace.

There are probably substantial gains to be had by applying
technological advances to increase span, but at at rates that get very
steep when you look at the overall operational picture.

Where I wish the designers would concentrate
now is in the area of processes and materials
where reductions in manufacturing costs might
be realized. A breakthrough here would have
large impact on the sport.

I think that is sort of a chicken-and-egg kind of thing.

At production run rates of several thousand gliders per manufacturer
per year, I would guess that it would be economically viable to apply
existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically reduce the
per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by drastically, I
mean between to between a quarter and a third of current prices.

The trouble is that without a huge demand for gliders there is no
incentive to spend the capital that it would take to build the
manufacturing infrastructure that it takes to make them inexpensively.
And without plentiful inexpensive gliders, soaring will continue to be
popular among only (relatively) affluent people.

I absolutely agree that it would be great if there were some sort of
breakthrough that would drastically lower the manufacturing costs of
conventional low-volume gliders. But even modest gains in that area
will help nudge us towards the popularity spiral that it will take to
attact real capital investment.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
om...
Earlier, "Bill Daniels" wrote:

It seems the aerodynamics of gliders has
reached a point of near perfection where
further performance increases are likely
to be very small...

I believe that is true for span-limited performace.

There are probably substantial gains to be had by applying
technological advances to increase span, but at at rates that get very
steep when you look at the overall operational picture.

Where I wish the designers would concentrate
now is in the area of processes and materials
where reductions in manufacturing costs might
be realized. A breakthrough here would have
large impact on the sport.

I think that is sort of a chicken-and-egg kind of thing.

At production run rates of several thousand gliders per manufacturer
per year, I would guess that it would be economically viable to apply
existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically reduce the
per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by drastically, I
mean between to between a quarter and a third of current prices.

The trouble is that without a huge demand for gliders there is no
incentive to spend the capital that it would take to build the
manufacturing infrastructure that it takes to make them inexpensively.
And without plentiful inexpensive gliders, soaring will continue to be
popular among only (relatively) affluent people.

I absolutely agree that it would be great if there were some sort of
breakthrough that would drastically lower the manufacturing costs of
conventional low-volume gliders. But even modest gains in that area
will help nudge us towards the popularity spiral that it will take to
attact real capital investment.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

I remember the first fiberglass gliders where huge effort was expended to
make the plugs from which the molds were made. All labor intensive hand
sculpture. Now CNC techniques can cut the plugs or even cut the molds
directly. Where we once used glass fiber we now use carbon/epoxy pultrusion
rods. Some progress is being made.

Recently, I've been playing with solid UHMWPE. I have no idea whether a
glider could be made of it but it's fascinating stuff - very light, strong,
slippery and with fantastic abraision resistance. I understand it can be
injection molded.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
om...
snip
The trouble is that without a huge demand for gliders there is no
incentive to spend the capital that it would take to build the
manufacturing infrastructure that it takes to make them inexpensively.
And without plentiful inexpensive gliders, soaring will continue to be
popular among only (relatively) affluent people.

Partnerships have been popular in Europe. Quite easy to halve or quarter
the price of a glider when you realize you can't fly it yourself all the
time. Look at all the 10-25 year old gliders with 500-2500 hours on them.
At that rate you can afford both the glider and the greens fees.

Frank Whiteley

Also consider the actual number of flights. I think that's where most of the
wear and tear comes from. For instance, one of the ships my club imported from
Europe had almost 6,000 winch launches on it, 3,000 hours, and is pretty ratty.
But the myopic objective of going all glass was met.

Look at all the 10-25 year old gliders with 500-2500 hours on them.
At that rate you can afford both the glider and the greens fees.




Jim Vincent
N483SZ
illspam

Bob Kuykendall wrote:


At production run rates of several thousand gliders per manufacturer
per year, I would guess that it would be economically viable to apply
existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically reduce the
per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by drastically, I
mean between to between a quarter and a third of current prices.

Many people say they would be delighted to have a glider with the
performance of an LS4. This performance can now be achieved with a
smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess at the cost reduction
that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider compared to the 15M
LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor (especially if hand
finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping costs (RO-RO is by
volume, I think).


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Bob Kuykendall wrote:


At production run rates of several thousand gliders per manufacturer
per year, I would guess that it would be economically viable to apply
existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically reduce the
per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by drastically, I
mean between to between a quarter and a third of current prices.


Many people say they would be delighted to have a glider with the
performance of an LS4. This performance can now be achieved with a
smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess at the cost reduction
that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider compared to the 15M
LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor (especially if hand
finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping costs (RO-RO is by
volume, I think).


Eric

You are joking --- right?

Windward Performance is hoping that the recommendation of the EASU for
an ultralight glider (80 kg empty) regulation is taken up by more
European countries. We have heard that Germany has adopted this rule
but haven't confirmed it yet. This combined with a base price of
$33,950 and performance very nearly that of a used LS4 should mean
that Europe as well as the U.S.A. will be a good market for the
SparrowHawk. (I flew closely with an LS4 for a couple hours on a
pretty weak day so can't comment on high speeds. At the speeds we
were flying, there was no difference) Not to mention extremely fun
handling qualities and very safe low speed handling. As more
SparrowHawks have been delivered (12 flying now), people are seeing
that it is not limited, but enhanced by being an ultralight and our
sales have been increasing in the U.S. A European dealer should be
available soon. This will open a MUCH bigger market than the U.S. and
hopefully increased volume will help off set some of the price
increases in materials that we have been suffering.

Best regards,
Doug Taylor
Windward Performance, LLC



Nope, since they don't meet the criteria for being certified and there is
no category like "expereimental' in tha US, and anyway the cost and length
of the certification process would probably discourage the manufacturer to
attempt it.

Doug Taylor wrote:

Windward Performance is hoping that the recommendation of the EASU for
an ultralight glider (80 kg empty) regulation is taken up by more
European countries. We have heard that Germany has adopted this rule
but haven't confirmed it yet. This combined with a base price of
$33,950 and performance very nearly that of a used LS4 should mean
that Europe as well as the U.S.A. will be a good market for the
SparrowHawk. (I flew closely with an LS4 for a couple hours on a
pretty weak day so can't comment on high speeds. At the speeds we
were flying, there was no difference) Not to mention extremely fun
handling qualities and very safe low speed handling. As more
SparrowHawks have been delivered (12 flying now), people are seeing
that it is not limited, but enhanced by being an ultralight and our
sales have been increasing in the U.S. A European dealer should be
available soon. This will open a MUCH bigger market than the U.S. and
hopefully increased volume will help off set some of the price
increases in materials that we have been suffering.

Being classified as ultralight glider raises some other problems: it is
a different category. As a glider pilot and instructor, I am not allowed
to fly them, unless I get a new ultralight licence, for which I a have
to take dual instruction somewhere where it is available, and on an
aircraft which is probably fairly different from the intended ultralight glider.
Anyway I would never be able to fly it at my home field, since ultrlights
are not allowed at a distance under 50 km from Paris and my home field
is at 40 km. Beside that, most gliders in France are club gliders and most
pilots fly club gliders. In order for a club to propose ultralights, the
club has to first propose ultralight instruction, i.e. buy some ultralight
two-seater(s) and have ultralight instructors. This is a big change
involving majors investments and I think few clubs would be ready to do
that, as there is almost no demand for that now. So it seems that the
possible market for the SparrowHawk is rather in private owners. But the
2 most spread motivations of private owners to be private owners rather
than fly club gliders which are a lot less expensive are 1) competing in
the classical FAI classes with the last state of the art glider; 2) being
able to fly wihout being dependant of some help by using a motor glider,
and the SparrowHawk doesn't suit to any of these 2 needs.