US Dollar sinks to new low against Euro

Earlier, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Many people say they would be delighted
to have a glider with the performance of
an LS4.

Yes, I'm trying to sell them on the HP-24 or its unflapped sister.

Also, it's worth considering that the nicest thing about the LS-4
isn't necessarily its very decent performance, but rather its very,
very sweet handling. The LS-4 is definitely the nicest-flying ship
I've ever flown to date. I think that that low-workload handling is
one of the things that helps bring out the best in pilots, and is the
greater part of what has made the LS-4 so good and so popular.

This performance can now be achieved with
a smaller span glider of 13 M or less.

I consider that an extremly debatable proposition. I'll wait to see a
stub ship consistently beat an LS-4 in unhandicapped, nationals-level
competition before I abandon my grain of salt.

There seems to be something about having a little span that always
makes you want a little more...

Can you guess at the cost reduction that
would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter
glider compared to the 15M LS4?

My guess is "relatively small" in an overall sense.

Smaller factory,

I think that facility size and overhead costs are more closely linked
to product complexity and throughput than to span.

The place where stubbies really shine is where people have to work on
them in their own garages. I've had many people ask about glider kits
that they can build in a 24-foot garage.

less materials,

Theoretically so. But in order to bring that 13m ship closer to your
goal of 15m-type performance, you have to make it lighter per unit of
area than a 15m ship. And that means more costly materials and
processes. That's one of the reasons why Sparrowhawks go for $193 per
pound versus about $100 per pound for a new-run LS-4.

less labor (especially if hand
finishing is needed)

Yes, that's where there might be a direct area-balanced reduction
(It's also one of the big reasons I'm developing a "some assembly
required" glider). It's also the area where I think glider
manufacturing would benefit most from capital investment in tooling
and machinery that reduces the hand labor.

smaller trailer, lower shipping costs (RO-RO is by
volume, I think).

All good points as well. But they also might suggest that there might
be economic benefits to greater geographical diversity of
manufacturing.

In sum, I do think it would be great if there were more soaring pilots
and soaring clubs that were satisfied with the performance they can
get out of 13m or so. And I agree that, all things being equal,
smaller gliders are less expensive than large gliders to manufacture,
own, and operate. Unfortunately, all thing _aren't_ equal. I think
that the unscalable aspects (specifically the pilot and their
physiological requirements) will continue to drive a market that favor
gliders greater than 13m for the general market.

The one somewhat-troubling exception that occurs to me is full-on,
no-holds-barred competition. I believe that where the stakes are high,
there can be competitive advantage in a light, very small glider of
15m or slightly less. What we're talking about is a glider for a 5'2"
pilot of about 108 lbs who doesn't mind launching at 11 lbs/ft^2 in a
machine that provides about as much crash protection as a motorcycle
racing suit.

In the current market, where soaring competitors pay their own way, I
don't see a huge demand for a ship like that, simply because of the
self-selection of contest pilots, and their relatively strong interest
in their own health and well-being. But in some possible future, we
might encounter a market in which the driving economic force comes
from outside the ranks of pilots, and in which competition pilots are
specifically selected for their size as well as their skill,
determination, and risk adversity (or lack thereof). I think I won't
bet on it, but others might.

Thanks, and best regards to all

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