Why did the 1-26 do so well and is STILL doing well. For crying out
loud, they still have their own contest a billion years after it was
introduced! I don't understand it but we ought to really take a hard
look at it.

I'm not saying that we want brand new 1-26s. I sure don't. Brand new
Cherokee IIs either. Tony and I have more fun per dollar in our
little wood ships than most out there but we wouldn't mind a little
more performance, modern materials and safety features, easier
rigging... But paying $25000 for it? Are you kidding?!

The PW-5 is a fun glider but it costs a fortune to most people and
looks wrong to most of the rest. I don't think performance is the
reason it didn't "take off"

The new people we need in soaring are only going to desire 40 or 50 to
1 if we teach them that's what they need to have fun, earn badges,
have great flights, keep up with their friends.

Why cant we design a higher performance homebuilt quick kit that has
basic components built by existing manufacturing processes then
quality checked and assembled by individuals,clubs, or commercial
operations? A modular homebuilt (that satisfies the 51% rule) that
handles well, gets better than 35/1, climbs like a woodstock, lands
like a PW, and runs like a Discus and costs $10k as a kit and $15k
finished.

Look at all the creativity and innovation that led to the Cherokee,
the BG-12, the Duster, Scanlon, Tern, Javalin, Bowlus, Carbon Dragon,
Woodstock, Monerai, the HPs... Sure most of those had "issues" some
were real dogs, some were great. But, they all showed a creativity
that seems lacking today. Imagine combining the best aspects of these
classic American homebuilts and applying modern materials,
engineering, and manufacturing to the result.

Somebody is going to do it. Some young genius glider kid in Aero E at
university with no money thinking outside the box. This isn't rocket
science. It's evolution. You can either be part of the new wave or a
dinosaur.

MM