LS-4 ? What about 1-26 ?

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

smjmitchell wrote:

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.


YES

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.

YES

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.

Which means, more than anything else, that one has to concentrate on one
model and only one, because there is no room for high volume production
of several models. As a consequence, any discussion wether 13m gliders
are better than 15m gliders, wether DG gliders are better than the LS4,
or any such futility may have only one consequence, distract people from
the aim.


--

Michel TALON

Which means, more than anything else, that one has to concentrate on one
model and only one, because there is no room for high volume production
of several models. As a consequence, any discussion wether 13m gliders
are better than 15m gliders, wether DG gliders are better than the LS4,
or any such futility may have only one consequence, distract people from
the aim.


Obsolutely ... in essence what you are saying is the same as Henry Ford 100
years ago when he said 'you can have any colour so long as it is black'.

If the price was a lot lower and there was only one choice I don't think
people would have anything to debate. They would just buy the thing.

I guess this just brings us back to the World Class idea which was a great
idea but a botched implementation, based on the response of the soaring
community.

Too bad. It would really be fun to have a one-design that people really
bought into.

Wad.


"smjmitchell" wrote in message
u...

Which means, more than anything else, that one has to concentrate on one
model and only one, because there is no room for high volume production
of several models. As a consequence, any discussion wether 13m gliders
are better than 15m gliders, wether DG gliders are better than the LS4,
or any such futility may have only one consequence, distract people from
the aim.


Obsolutely ... in essence what you are saying is the same as Henry Ford
100
years ago when he said 'you can have any colour so long as it is black'.

If the price was a lot lower and there was only one choice I don't think
people would have anything to debate. They would just buy the thing.

Waduino wrote:
I guess this just brings us back to the World Class idea which was a great
idea but a botched implementation, based on the response of the soaring
community.

Too bad. It would really be fun to have a one-design that people really
bought into.

Isn't the competition for the next World Class glider coming up soon?
I don't see anything "Too bad" about that. With over a decade of
reflection, one would expect the implementation could be improved...

We keep talking about these sub-13meter gliders. I suspect
we will see them as entries...
--

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

Mark

Isn't the competition for the next World Class glider coming up soon?

Maybe in 2009.

I think the whole thing suffers from the "I'd do it for free!" syndrome.
Same thing in flight instructing. Flying is something even the
professionals think is fun. There are so many competitors
who are willing to work for such a low price (because it is fun)
that there is little financial incentive for production.

Look at the APIS, Sparrowhawk, PW-5, Russia, Silent. Have the makers,
I mean the actual workers on these gliders, made anything close to the
amount of money they would if they were employed in a regular
job? $80k/year for 4 years for Greg Cole's skills pretty much wipes out
any possible profit on a Sparrowhawk with a production run of 20 at $30k.

So there's a bunch of folks innovating and making gliders for charity.
If you approached them with the same profit prospects and told them
they'd be manufacturing innovative urinals, they'd run, not walk, away from
the project.

So what do we see? A lot of innovations and great ideas. The downside
is so many competitors chipping away at the fairly small market that
there is little chance for a Henry Ford type operation to succeed.

Are we going to see one patentable "killer" glider? Maybe. A
turbine self-launch Sparrowhawk would be very hard to compete with
based on weight and the non-recurring engineering costs.

But will we see a "killer" design for a larger market? I suspect not.
I think gliding will continue to see a lot of low production run
charitable innovators, each chipping away at buyers. Well, at least this
is the case in the USA, where "experimental" gliders are allowed...




In article ,
smjmitchell wrote:

Which means, more than anything else, that one has to concentrate on one
model and only one, because there is no room for high volume production
of several models. As a consequence, any discussion wether 13m gliders
are better than 15m gliders, wether DG gliders are better than the LS4,
or any such futility may have only one consequence, distract people from
the aim.


Obsolutely ... in essence what you are saying is the same as Henry Ford 100
years ago when he said 'you can have any colour so long as it is black'.

If the price was a lot lower and there was only one choice I don't think
people would have anything to debate. They would just buy the thing.








--

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

Mark

A good perspective --

I think the whole thing suffers from the "I'd do it for free!" syndrome.
Same thing in flight instructing. Flying is something even the
professionals think is fun. There are so many competitors
who are willing to work for such a low price (because it is fun)
that there is little financial incentive for production.

Look at the APIS, Sparrowhawk, PW-5, Russia, Silent. Have the makers,
I mean the actual workers on these gliders, made anything close to the
amount of money they would if they were employed in a regular
job? $80k/year for 4 years for Greg Cole's skills pretty much wipes out
any possible profit on a Sparrowhawk with a production run of 20 at $30k.

So there's a bunch of folks innovating and making gliders for charity.
If you approached them with the same profit prospects and told them
they'd be manufacturing innovative urinals, they'd run, not walk, away from
the project.

So what do we see? A lot of innovations and great ideas. The downside
is so many competitors chipping away at the fairly small market that
there is little chance for a Henry Ford type operation to succeed.

Are we going to see one patentable "killer" glider? Maybe. A
turbine self-launch Sparrowhawk would be very hard to compete with
based on weight and the non-recurring engineering costs.

But will we see a "killer" design for a larger market? I suspect not.
I think gliding will continue to see a lot of low production run
charitable innovators, each chipping away at buyers. Well, at least this
is the case in the USA, where "experimental" gliders are allowed...




In article ,
smjmitchell wrote:

Which means, more than anything else, that one has to concentrate on one
model and only one, because there is no room for high volume production
of several models. As a consequence, any discussion wether 13m gliders
are better than 15m gliders, wether DG gliders are better than the LS4,
or any such futility may have only one consequence, distract people from
the aim.


Obsolutely ... in essence what you are saying is the same as Henry Ford 100
years ago when he said 'you can have any colour so long as it is black'.

If the price was a lot lower and there was only one choice I don't think
people would have anything to debate. They would just buy the thing.









--

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

I think the whole thing suffers from the "I'd do it for free!" syndrome.
Same thing in flight instructing. Flying is something even the
professionals think is fun. There are so many competitors
who are willing to work for such a low price (because it is fun)
that there is little financial incentive for production.


Mark,

I had a long talk with Bob K the other day and he reminded me that the
population of folks out there that would build a glider from a kit are
extremely short in supply; those that would attempt to design and
build and fly their own design are a speck under a microscope.

I dream about designing and building as a very rewarding challenge,
maybe I'll sit in a fuselage I made from my own design someday, maybe
not.....but it is a labor of love for me.....corny as it sounds, but I
do think a decent performing ship can be built by a guy in his garage
for a reasonable amount of $$$.......a one-off with very little hard
tooling will be my approach.

As I've mentioned in a previous post, the days of paper and pencil are
gone, for me everything is on the PC......after experiencing how the
777 was designed I am a believer of the digital mock-up concept.

Cheers,
Brad

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).

There was no certification requirement for the world class. It was
conformal, that is, could be built to specified size and shape by anyone
from any material as part of the rules. One of the ideals.

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

Development and certification costs are fully amortized in some existing
models. If the soaring world adopted the LS-4b (which it has no rights to
presently) as the world class, there would be no development nor
certification costs. Sell a few molds to allow international construction
and sell them. Sell control kits. Charge a license/plans fee for each.
And build them commercially also. Wouldn't take long before the numbers
increased and the world class would percolate to the top of the competition
venues.

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.

Frank Whiteley

"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. 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