![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 29, 2:18*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On May 28, 9:01*pm, Bill D wrote: There will most likely be a fix eventually but the cost is probably not going to be what people are hoping for. *(I hope I'm wrong about that.) *Please try not to shoot the messenger. I was talking to several folks at a soaring event this weekend, and I had been on the bandwagon of "ditch the L-13s and lets buy something new" for awhile... *But their comments really made me see this in a new light: *We've been considering the L-13 a $10k - $20k airplane, and the idea of dumping $10k - $15k into it for a fix seems "wrong" because its such a huge percentage of the airplane's value. *BUT, there's another way to look at it. *Instead of considering the "street value" of the L-13, try considering the cost of the L-13 repair in contrast with the next-better alternative; which is either a Grob-103 or something like a TST-14 "Bonus" or SZD "Perkoz": G-103 = Roughly $35k+ (also likely to be high-time and parts are ??) TST-14 = Unknown, but gotta be at _least_ $60k+ I'm guessing SZD "Perkoz" = Looks like a sweet setup and cheaper than an ASK-21, but its still ~$85k (public quotes of 65,000 euros) So in light of THOSE costs, dropping $10k - $15k on a Blanik is a hell of a lot cheaper. Of course, its still just a short-term fix. *Like our aging membership issues, we find ourselves in a hole. This time around its equipment and finances. *The US Soaring scene leaned on tired 2-33's (and L-13's) for way too long and did not do a good job of building infrastructure or making stepwise investments in better equipment. *So now we have to try to dig ourselves out of a mess. *I sincerely hope that more clubs do a better job of long-term financial planning than they have done over the last 20 years; it seems that few people consider charging enough money to put aside funds for re-covering, buying new gear, or any other multi-year goals. On the topic of longer-term solutions, I would love to see what the new Lea County State Bank trainer loans look like. *With the EAA and some aviation-oriented banks I can get 7-15 year loan terms on both finished aircraft and even un-built KITS. *It seems that similar financing should be available for sailplanes, with long terms given the lengthy service-life that our aircraft experience. I am also curious if any clubs have self-financed new equipment (by taking out loans from members)? *Getting ~15 members to each pony up $5k - $10k at 5% interest would get you a new trainer. *And promising individuals a ~5% return on their money is a hell of a lot better than most CDs or Money-Market accounts these days; and even better than some stock portfolios! :-P In the "I wish..." column, I'd love to see a non-Euro-currency country out there building an inexpensive (say $50k - $60k) trainer. *The aerodynamics nowadays are well-understood so it should be easy to make something simple that has no "bad habits". *I've always been told that its the tooling and labor costs - especially the labor costs - that's the issue. *So shouldn't it be possible to get a known group of aerodynamic and mechanical engineers together to make a solid design, and then fabricate the darned thing in a region with lower labor costs? I'm thinking South America, India, or another area where technically-oriented people live and they can put something together without major quality-control concerns... Seems like it should be possible (see: Embraer, or some of the aerospace contracting that's done in the Asia-Pacific region). *Of course, Windward performance comes to mind for a "local" solution. *I'm sure they have a few Duckhawk orders to process right now, but I wonder if Windward could switch from PrePreg to some simpler fiberglass & kevlar layups and operate cheaply enough to put out a reasonably-priced trainer that's sold in US Dollars? OK, enough wishing for now... --Noel P.S. *I am sure a few people are thinking about chiming in and saying that a trainer has to be metal because it needs to be tied out. *My only response is: If you can get the trainer down to a reasonable price, you can afford a couple of extra thousand dollars for a nice set of covers. *Also, Polyurethane is probably a good idea (to make repainting/refinishing easier over the next couple of decades), no? Answering your 'PS' first, I fly ASK-21's which are so incredibly easy to rig, we rig them every morning and put them back in their trailers every night. As an old geezer, I've rigged two of them with a couple of teenage CAP cadets to help. Covered trailers are "hangars on wheels" which dramatically extend airframe life. Now, let's say L-13's are now worthless. If you could repair them for $10k, you have a $10k glider which seems like a good deal. But, it would be a 1955 design with a 400Lb payload and probably a 1,500 hour life remaining and no possibility of extensions. OTOH, you could use that $10k for a down payment on an ASK-21 with an 484 Lb payload and a18,000 hour life and charge an extra $10/hr for debt service 'til the loan is paid off. But then, I'm kinda partial to ASK-21's as trainers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Neocons,World Bank and the real message of America:Growth and Energy Independence | fusion | Naval Aviation | 0 | June 9th 07 07:04 PM |
Growth in soaring | fred | Soaring | 63 | April 11th 07 02:24 AM |
Mogas and microbial growth | Economic Girly Man | Owning | 6 | November 13th 04 09:14 AM |
Aircraft growth (question starting with Art Kramer) | Howard Berkowitz | Military Aviation | 9 | June 6th 04 03:26 PM |
Self launch effect on soaring growth | John Jones | Soaring | 12 | April 27th 04 03:53 AM |