[My original posting got lost]
How about a robust, easily loaded and unloaded trailer
under $10K. That will foster lots more gliding -- especially
on weak days.

At 17:18 05 January 2008, Bill Daniels wrote:

'nimbusgb' wrote in message

.com...
The basic list raised by Gary is good. But there's
nothing wrong with
parellelogram sticks.

If its less than 1:40 I'm not interested. It should
be 'expandable' so
an optional upgrade to 18m wings perhaps?

The World class was based on price and it flopped
heavily so sorry
price is way down the list.

I dont see why a 1:40 ship cant be built for low cost.
Surely its the
airfoil and materials technology that have come on.
An 1:40 libelle
must be possible with a modern aifoil or a 1:45 LS4

Exactly. There is no reason that a 'medium performance'
glider should cost
much less than a 40 - 45:1 glider. They'll weight
about the same and have
about the same parts count. The difference is almost
entirely in the shape
and finish. If the manufacturer skimps on those, it
won't sell at any price
so he might as well go for performance.

The main cost factor is production rate. Start on the
demand side of the
economic equation. Re-jigger handicaps and competition
classes to favor the
design. 'Seed' 2 - 3 gliders a year at large discounts
into clubs that
foster X/C and competition as judged by their performance
in the OLC and
their support for younger pilots in the Junior Class.
The opportunity to
win an option to buy a new high performance glider
glider at half price
would really drive the popularity of the OLC - AND
the new glider.

On the supply side, once the manufacturer sees the
demand, it's more likely
that investments will be made in cost saving production
methods and tooling.
When the production rate ramps up, the unit cost will
fall. For this to
work, the price has to fall far enough that used gliders
don't 'suck the
air' out of the market - that's the incentive for the
maker to keep the
price low.

It seems IMHO that picking a popular glider design
that is now out of
production and tuning it up for mass production is
a low risk way to go. An
LS-4 fits the bill nicely although there are probably
others.

Even though some clubs will fear retractable gear I'd
say keep it. As a
compromise, add threadded hard points on the belly
allowing for a
sacrificial lightweight UHMWPE plastic skid to protect
the belly in the
event of a gear-up. The hard points themselves would
add little drag,
weight or cost.

Bill Daniels