Let me try to make my point by using an analogy:

You're walking around downtown at lunch. You're hungry. There are
many restaurants around that will serve you food. Tucked into the
corner of a building you see a dodgy-looking sandwich shop that
appears to be old, small, rusty, and with fading/peeling paint on it.

How likely are you to walk in and sample the food?
How likely are you to walk in and tell the owner that he'd get more
business if he just spruced the place up and put out better signage?

Aren't you FAR more likely to just keep walking down the road and eat
somewhere else?

Anyone looked at the hang-gliding & paragliding community lately? Huh
- seems like its got a lot of youth involved in it and I keep hearing
about how their numbers are doing OK. Anyone hear a hang-glider
instructor talk fondly about about using a 30-year-old Rogallo wing to
instruct with? How about a Paragliding instructor wishing he was
still using an early-model 'chute (you know, the ones that were more
prone to collapses)?

I'm not laying all of soaring's troubles at the feet of the 2-33 and
I'm not saying that the ship is worthless. But I AM saying that I
think clubs should consider multiple angles when selecting their
training/club aircraft. Looking at it purely from the standpoint of
"dollars to acquire" or "dollars for routine maintenance" is myopic
and ignores a lot of other things. There's a reason businesses look
at "total cost of ownership" and "opportunity cost" when deciding to
buy big-ticket items.

--Noel