LS-4 ? What about 1-26 ?

Frank

Doesn't have to be the LS-4b either. The 304 is another very worthy
candidate. Continuing the PW-5 as a sub-class might also have some benefit.


New =
LS-4b @ 39,000 Euro
304 @ 40,000 Euro
Smyk @ 17,000 Euro

Why jump up the price of a "one class" ship?

U¿ytkownik "F.L. Whiteley" napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci ...
I don't know if production methods have changed much. Last I knew,
composite 15m was 1000 hours labor, by far the largest cost component.
(for
comparison C-172 was something like 372 hours 30 years ago).

So... then we return to what I was talking about previously: move to the
countries where the cost of the workhour is low. Just like here (Poland). We
have experienced tradespersons who are into the glider production technology
(wood, glassfibre, and metal as well). Those guys are well qualified, and
don't want too much in reward - the German worker often wants even 30Euros
for his hour. A Pole here woll be happy working for 3-4 US Dollars per hour.
See the difference?
If the production of glider demands 1000 workhours, then labour cost for
Germany may be 39000US$ (at Euro/Dollar = 1.30) and for Poland 3500US $ (at
3.5US$/h) that makes 35500US $ saved just by moving production from Germany
(just an example) to Poland. Add to this that lots of other things necessary
for production are a lot more affordable here, as well as the social
insurance and taxes too. We may manufacture the same product at tenth part
of the cost employing same skilled persons. Not only glider's but other
manufacturers can (and they do!) move here to benefit from this.

If memory serves, development was done by volunteers and university staff
if
memory serves, so there was only a modest license cost per unit.

The design was simply a Masters Thesis for a group of students of
Politechnika Warszawska (Warsaw University of Technology:
http://www.pw.edu.pl)
done under direction of one of the scientists employed there.

Doesn't have to be the LS-4b either. The 304 is another very worthy
candidate. Continuing the PW-5 as a sub-class might also have some
benefit.

Unlike many others, I still say the PW-5 is a good design, which can be
flown by any pilot, at any moment of his development as a pilot, even the
first solo level. The World Class glider was intended to be a 'glider for
everyone', and it is indeed. Maybe LS-4 is very docile, but still requires
'a little bit' more experience than just after the first solo.

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

All other thinks being equal, features seem to drive up cost.
Retractable gear, water ballast, weights for the tail (like DG-1000),
automatic control hookups, a second occupant, a distinct control system
with flaps...

The most interesting thing about the sparrowhawk is the high price
considering the lack of these features and the one time mold.
I've watched the price increase 40% in the years, and in this case
it seems to be attributed to materials cost.

So the Sparrowhawk seems VERY different from its competitors because
its goal was extremely light weight, not low cost. The PW-5 and Russia
came from low cost, and resulted in less span, the Sparrowhawk was driven
simply by weight.

A comparison of APIS to LS-4 is a little funny, as the features of ballast
and retract are compared to the feature of integrated flaps.
The APIS simply has an all flight speed range that's wider than the
LS-4. But at the top end on strong days? A fully ballasted LS-4
should run away with this.

The idea of integrated flaps which reduce stall speed is good,
and I suspect with such a low bottom end, there is some safety enhancement.
I must wonder, however, what the aileron spin characteristics are with
full flaps. Until there are a goodly number of years (and possible
accident reports) it may be difficult to determine.

The SZD 50-3 looked to me to be a neat glider on paper, but the
abrupt stall/spin characteristics and accident record seem to betray it.



In article ,
smjmitchell wrote:
I don't think that performance is a big cost driver.

The major cost drivers a
* development costs
* certification costs
* labour (for production)
* raw material costs

I suspect that all of these drivers will have a similar value irrespective
of whether the glider is a APIS, 1-26 or LS-4. OK ... maybe the material
cost will vary a little but the difference is not going to result in a
glider that is 1/3 or 1/2 cheaper.

The biggest issue with the cost of airplanes is quite simply VOLUME. They
are generally built by hand using relatively crude production techniques and
basic tooling. A modern small automobile is arguably far more complex than
any glider but is costs a LOT less because of the level of automation in the
mass production process and the large number of units sold. If we want
cheaper gliders then we need to find a way to increase the volume of sales.
Certification and design costs would be amortised over more units and
production costs would dramatically reduce (bigger buying power for raw
materials and better tooling / automated production will reduce labour
cost). This is a chicken and egg thing ... you are not going to increase
volume until the price is reduced and you cannot reduce price (which
requires a new business model and significant investment) without the
evidence of the larger sales potential. In essence we are stuck with
expensive gliders unless we can attract some very wealthy individuals to the
sport who share the vision of cheap gliders and are willing to gamble some
of their money, against conventional business wisdom, simply to see if this
vision can be realised without any guarantee of a return.


"Robertmudd1u" wrote in message
...
Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up
a
little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
Wad
---

Thanks for the nice comment. Yes, the cost has gone up because of the
weakness
of the dollar. Current price of an Apis 13 kit is 16,100 euros or about
$21,000. More costly than a 1-26 to be sure but also a lot more fun to
fly.

Robert Mudd




--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

U¿ytkownik "Mark James Boyd" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:4194f9b2$1@darkstar...
The SZD 50-3 looked to me to be a neat glider on paper, but the
abrupt stall/spin characteristics and accident record seem to betray it.

It's just a glider which was been designed to spin when asked, and not 'to
be afraid' of full acro. Nothing more. It just needs more attention of the
pilot.

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

I'm so new at soaring that I have only taken one glider ride in my life.
Having established that I'm not an expert on much of anything, here's my 2
cents worth. The VOLUME envisioned to make an affordable plane would
possibly make VFR flight impossible because of the huge number of planes in
the air. So getting a cheap sailplane, might kill the sport that you want
to promote. I can imagine having to apply for an airspace usage permit much
as we have to apply months or years in advance for reservations at some of
the most popular National Parks. On the other hand, I'm one of the people
that will have to join a club to have afford access to a plane.

My two cents
....john__________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________

"smjmitchell" wrote in message
u...
I don't think that performance is a big cost driver.

The major cost drivers a
* development costs
* certification costs
* labour (for production)
* raw material costs

I suspect that all of these drivers will have a similar value irrespective
of whether the glider is a APIS, 1-26 or LS-4. OK ... maybe the material
cost will vary a little but the difference is not going to result in a
glider that is 1/3 or 1/2 cheaper.

The biggest issue with the cost of airplanes is quite simply VOLUME. ...

Welcome to soaring, John.

The 'crowded skies' bogy is largely a fabrication of the evening news
'talking heads' and their editors who want to frighten people into watching
their programs (and their sponsors commercials).

In actuality, on the busiest days, there are only about 5000 aircraft
airborne over the 48 states at any time. Most of these are at altitudes
much higher than gliders usually fly or in the vicinity of major airports.
As avgas prices increase, the private piston fleet flies fewer and fewer
hours so the traffic density below 18,000 feet may actually be decreasing.
Most glider flying is done in remote areas where air traffic is very low.
In summary, there's LOTS of room in the sky to fly gliders. The glider
fleet could increase tenfold or more without problems.

Where a problem might arise is with the 'uphill capacity' of a local soaring
operation to launch a large number of gliders. A solution is 'self-launch'
gliders or my preferred solution - winches.

Unfortunately, it's a fact that the population of glider pilots is shrinking
which translates into fewer businesses and clubs where one can find gliders
to fly or tows to launch privately owned gliders.

The choice is a shrinking sport, a stagnant one or a growing one. I think
the happiest choice is a growing one. Cheaper gliders are a part of the
solution.

Bill Daniels





"JohnWN in Burke, VA" wrote in message
news:Uvpld.1596$iR.1168@lakeread04...
I'm so new at soaring that I have only taken one glider ride in my life.
Having established that I'm not an expert on much of anything, here's my 2
cents worth. The VOLUME envisioned to make an affordable plane would
possibly make VFR flight impossible because of the huge number of planes
in
the air. So getting a cheap sailplane, might kill the sport that you want
to promote. I can imagine having to apply for an airspace usage permit
much
as we have to apply months or years in advance for reservations at some of
the most popular National Parks. On the other hand, I'm one of the people
that will have to join a club to have afford access to a plane.

My two cents

....john__________________________________________ ___________________________
_____________________________________

"smjmitchell" wrote in message
u...
I don't think that performance is a big cost driver.

The major cost drivers a
* development costs
* certification costs
* labour (for production)
* raw material costs

I suspect that all of these drivers will have a similar value
irrespective
of whether the glider is a APIS, 1-26 or LS-4. OK ... maybe the material
cost will vary a little but the difference is not going to result in a
glider that is 1/3 or 1/2 cheaper.

The biggest issue with the cost of airplanes is quite simply VOLUME. ...

Apis 13 kit is 16,100 euros

Looks like the Euro price is going up, which is then compounded by the weak
dollar. Too bad.
Wad.


"Robertmudd1u" wrote in message
...
Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up
a
little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
Wad
---

Thanks for the nice comment. Yes, the cost has gone up because of the
weakness
of the dollar. Current price of an Apis 13 kit is 16,100 euros or about
$21,000. More costly than a 1-26 to be sure but also a lot more fun to
fly.

Robert Mudd

Waduino wrote:
Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up a
little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
Wad
---


Build? Fagettaboutit.

"Waduino" wrote in message ...
Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up a
little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
Wad
---
Wad,
A few of us were invited to fly Brad Hill's APIS as part the research
for purchasing our club's next glider. For over two years we had been
looking for a glider that is easy to fly, safe to fly, nice to look at
and has good cross-country performance. We also wanted a glider that
would perform well in the weaker conditions north of Seattle and be
light enough to land out in the small fields near where we fly.

All who flew Brad's Apis remarked at how well it fit all of our
criteria. The triple taper wing of the APIS looks great and the flaps
offer excellent thermalling performance -- with great penetration for
a 300lb glider. All who flew it felt that it was at least as easy to
fly as a 1-26. Our club bought a 13-meter APIS in August and are very
happy with it.

Mark Nyberg
Evergreen Soaring

All who flew it felt that it was at least as easy to
fly as a 1-26. Our club bought a 13-meter APIS in August and are very
happy with it.

Mark Nyberg

They bought the Apis 13 that I built from a kit. Man do I ever miss flying that
glider. Pure fun.

Robert Mudd