"Shawn" wrote in message
...
Bill Daniels wrote:
"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. net...
Bill Daniels wrote:
"Shawn" wrote in message
. ..
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling
for $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing
using traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in
materials and labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...
IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the
traditional fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business
model.


Shawn
It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of
hand lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.

The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's
economic. Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll
get cheap (or at least cheaper) gliders.

To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
Everything follows from those numbers.
How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking
market that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design? The
glider manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral
of building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population
that can afford them.

Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the
community starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think
Tony's adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I
doubt the traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider
addressing such a market...

Marc

I love Tony's Cherokee adventures. However, the sad truth is that if the
Cherokee was to be put into commercial production today, it would cost
even more than the LS-4. When you take the route of a deliberately
designing a low performance glider, you set a trap for yourself by
building a glider few will buy. PW-5 is example "A".

With the exception of the large number of hours spent polishing the final
finish, there is really little inherent connection between performance
and cost in modern composite gliders.
A low performance glider, when you take everything like instruments into
account, has essentially the same parts count, empty weight and labor
hours as a high performance glider. The shapes are nearly the same and
the structures must meet the same safety margins. You might as well go
for relatively high performance to insure there will be buyers.

Maybe there is a niche for some "sweat equity". Deliver the glider as
airworthy but without the super finish. Then, provide the materials and
instructions for the new owner to do the finishing task himself.

More likely is the scheme of a 5% handicap advantage for an existing
design. With the price guaranteed, the manufacturer can wait for several
hundred secure escrow deposits before committing to anvanced production
methods. I'd bet there are 1000 people worldwide who would order a
$25,000 40:1 glider that came with that built-in 5% advantage.

Build it in the US and Europe could buy it for $20K. Build it in the
third world and watch the glider community doubt its quality into oblivion
;-)


Shawn

Lotta truth in that. Even Airbus is talking about shifting production to
the US.

Bill Daniels