LS-4 ? What about 1-26 ?

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

Janusz Kesik wrote:
U=BFytkownik "Mark James Boyd" napisa=B3 w wiado=
mo=B6ci
news:4194f9b2$1@darkstar...
=20
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=
=2E

=20
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.
=20
Regards,
=20
=20
--
Janusz Kesik

Hi Janusz

Whilst I must admit limited experience, 200 odd hours, 200 odd flights=20
over 3 years, and thus my opinion might not be worth much, I am truly=20
mystified by the bad reputation the Puchatz has. I think it is one of=20
the nicest gliders to fly. I fly some limited aerobatics (loops,=20
chandelles, stall turns and spins) and it always seem predictable and=20
controllable. Sure it scared the hell out me when my instructor first=20
showed me the spin, the transition from level flight to nose down=20
attitude was rather quick, but once you experience it know what to=20
expect it is not a problem. Our club has a firm rule that all aerobatic =

maneuvers must finish 1500 ft AGL and maybe that improves the safety=20
margins. I am wondering if the higher rate of spin accidents relates to =

the frequency with which it is used for spin training. After all if a=20
glider is not used to spin, it will have a lower rate of spin accidents. =

I have flown some 9 different glider types, from Blaniks to Ventus B=20
and the Puchatz would have to be the easiest glider to fly. The part I=20
found most curious is the fact that very experienced pilots seem to have =

got them selves into trouble.

Paul

Actuallly if you look at the statistics (in the UK at least) the Puchacz is
only dangerous when there is an instructor on board! The low time pilots
flying solo don't seem to have any problems.

Basil


"Paul" wrote
Hi Janusz

After all if a
glider is not used to spin, it will have a lower rate of spin accidents.
I have flown some 9 different glider types, from Blaniks to Ventus B
and the Puchatz would have to be the easiest glider to fly. The part I
found most curious is the fact that very experienced pilots seem to have
got them selves into trouble.

Paul

U¿ytkownik "basils27" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:1100868621.FL3kxd/mdA9XvztfGXcFRA@teranews...
Actuallly if you look at the statistics (in the UK at least) the Puchacz
is
only dangerous when there is an instructor on board! The low time pilots
flying solo don't seem to have any problems.

Well, maybe this means that the instructors should look at the mirror more
carefully? A routine, bad habits? Could be. I have heard that Puchacz
requires the 'handbook' recovery (the pupils who fly alone just do it like
it is stated in their handbook) so maybe there's a bug - in a so called
'human factor'?

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