Manufactures Lack of Images

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 5:15:09 PM UTC-8, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 20:09 07 March 2016, wrote:
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 7:48:49 PM UTC,
wrote:
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:36:03 AM UTC-8, JS wrote:

It broke the test rig, good stuff!

I'm not sure I'd fullyt trust the engineering of folks who can't
design a
simple whiffle tree.

The wing failed to break at well past its design limits so they
continued
and the rig broke. Its the wing engineering that was being tested
not the
rig.

The MOD, after the Grob 103 was issued to the Air Cadets, put one on
the rig. When they had proved the service life they asked the testers to
break the wings. It is said they gave up after they broke the rig 3
times.
Just one other thought, with a waiting list as long as your arm and a
waiting time of over 12 months for some gliders why would anyone
want to spend time and money on marketing?

How do you think they got into that enviable position to start with?

The lion's share of glider marketing is actually done by their customers. Most pilots I know buy gliders that their friends already own. All of the gliders I bought I had the opportunity to see, sit in and talk to their owners. I have never bought a new glider, but am now in the financial position to do so (after a lifetime of effort!). A huge part of this decision is the earned reputation of the glider manufacturer. And make no mistake, some reputations are better than others. I doubt that I would make such a decision based on photos alone. But, they are STILL nice to look at!
Tom