soaring into the future

There are many well known ways to reduce the manufacturing costs of
composite structures. It just takes sophisticated tooling. The problem
with gliders is that no one design has ever been made in sufficient numbers
to justify the up-front costs of that tooling. The result is hand made, low
production rate gliders and high unit costs.

The big advantage of a "one-design" is not so much in leveling the playing
field in contests, it's the hope that the design can be made in large enough
numbers for a manufacturer to justify the costs of advanced manufacturing
methods.

The wingspan or whether a glider has flaps or retractable gear doesn't
matter very much if the numbers are there. The solution doesn't lie in
designing a small, simple glider, it lies in a design that satisfies a large
number of buyers. Find that design, build it in large numbers and the unit
costs can be very low.

For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling for
$25,000 - quite a few I expect.

So, how do you get it started? Don't start a new competition class,
re-jigger an old one. For example, take the sports/club class and provide a
handicap advantage for the "one-design". Any pilot can still fly whatever
but the new design will have an advantage built into its handicap. Over
time, the population of the new design will increase until a real
"one-design" class emerges.

If the design is popular enough and the rules guarantee the handicap
advantage is permanent, the manufacturer may commit to the tooling and
processes that drive down the cost. Of course, you have to have a
commitment from the manufacturer that the price will follow costs down.
Maybe the handicap advantage is only available to gliders whose price is
less than a set figure.


Bill Daniels


"Shawn" wrote in message
. ..
Brad wrote:
Hi Shawn,

snip

I suspect the prepreg technique used in the Sparrowhawk is in the right
direction.

Here is disagree. Greg is fortunate to have use of the huge autoclave
at the Lancair/Columbia factory, I think.
Although Out of Autoclave could be done with the right tooling and
materials. But I think wet layup and vacuum bagging would be cheaper.

Agreed, I'm thinking to make a big dent in glider price (I'm in the
depressed Dollar US, and I *won't* buy a Chinese glider) the method of
manufacturing will have to be very different.
More composite manufacturers making aircraft and wind turbine parts might
make more autoclave space available. Heated molds are a possibility (read
about it on a wind turbine site). I suspect new composite technology is
coming along all the time (not my field). A fuselage formed by winding
carbon fiber tape around a male mold seems pretty straightforward, spars
too. I don't know if a wing could be made with a precise enough profile
in this way, interesting thought though. I know there are specialty
companies applying all sorts of new composite technology. Farming out
rather than investing in house might make a lot of sense in the small
numbers world of sailplane manufacturing. Save on tooling, benefit from
the sub's economy of scale. Certainly not business as usual in the glider
industry.

snip

P.S. Sorry that this is so disjointed, dinner's ready :-)

mines on hold.......had to take a dog to the vets......

Hope the pup's OK. Had to do this three weeks and four stitches to the
leg ago.


Shawn

Bill Daniels wrote:
For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling for
$25,000 - quite a few I expect.

Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing
using traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in
materials and labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling
for $25,000 - quite a few I expect.

Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing
using traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in
materials and labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...

IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.


Shawn

"Shawn" wrote in message
. ..
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling for
$25,000 - quite a few I expect.

Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing using
traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in materials and
labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...

IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.


Shawn

It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of hand
lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.

The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's economic.
Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll get cheap (or
at least cheaper) gliders.

To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
Everything follows from those numbers.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:
"Shawn" wrote in message
. ..
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling for
$25,000 - quite a few I expect.
Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing using
traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in materials and
labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...
IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.


Shawn

It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of hand
lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.

The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's economic.
Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll get cheap (or
at least cheaper) gliders.

To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
Everything follows from those numbers.

How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking
market that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design? The
glider manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral
of building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population
that can afford them.

Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the
community starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think
Tony's adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I
doubt the traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider
addressing such a market...

Marc

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. net...
Bill Daniels wrote:
"Shawn" wrote in message
. ..
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling
for $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing
using traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in
materials and labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...
IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.


Shawn

It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of
hand lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.

The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's
economic. Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll
get cheap (or at least cheaper) gliders.

To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
Everything follows from those numbers.

How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking market
that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design? The glider
manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral of
building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population that
can afford them.

Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the community
starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think Tony's
adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I doubt the
traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider addressing such a
market...

Marc

I love Tony's Cherokee adventures. However, the sad truth is that if the
Cherokee was to be put into commercial production today, it would cost even
more than the LS-4. When you take the route of a deliberately designing a
low performance glider, you set a trap for yourself by building a glider few
will buy. PW-5 is example "A".

With the exception of the large number of hours spent polishing the final
finish, there is really little inherent connection between performance and
cost in modern composite gliders.
A low performance glider, when you take everything like instruments into
account, has essentially the same parts count, empty weight and labor hours
as a high performance glider. The shapes are nearly the same and the
structures must meet the same safety margins. You might as well go for
relatively high performance to insure there will be buyers.

Maybe there is a niche for some "sweat equity". Deliver the glider as
airworthy but without the super finish. Then, provide the materials and
instructions for the new owner to do the finishing task himself.

More likely is the scheme of a 5% handicap advantage for an existing design.
With the price guaranteed, the manufacturer can wait for several hundred
secure escrow deposits before committing to anvanced production methods.
I'd bet there are 1000 people worldwide who would order a $25,000 40:1
glider that came with that built-in 5% advantage.

The win-win is that you would have a very successful "one-design" contest
class AND a very popular, cheap glider.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:
"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. net...
Bill Daniels wrote:
"Shawn" wrote in message
. ..
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling
for $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing
using traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in
materials and labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...
IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.


Shawn
It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of
hand lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.

The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's
economic. Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll
get cheap (or at least cheaper) gliders.

To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
Everything follows from those numbers.
How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking market
that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design? The glider
manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral of
building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population that
can afford them.

Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the community
starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think Tony's
adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I doubt the
traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider addressing such a
market...

Marc

I love Tony's Cherokee adventures. However, the sad truth is that if the
Cherokee was to be put into commercial production today, it would cost even
more than the LS-4. When you take the route of a deliberately designing a
low performance glider, you set a trap for yourself by building a glider few
will buy. PW-5 is example "A".

With the exception of the large number of hours spent polishing the final
finish, there is really little inherent connection between performance and
cost in modern composite gliders.
A low performance glider, when you take everything like instruments into
account, has essentially the same parts count, empty weight and labor hours
as a high performance glider. The shapes are nearly the same and the
structures must meet the same safety margins. You might as well go for
relatively high performance to insure there will be buyers.

Maybe there is a niche for some "sweat equity". Deliver the glider as
airworthy but without the super finish. Then, provide the materials and
instructions for the new owner to do the finishing task himself.

More likely is the scheme of a 5% handicap advantage for an existing design.
With the price guaranteed, the manufacturer can wait for several hundred
secure escrow deposits before committing to anvanced production methods.
I'd bet there are 1000 people worldwide who would order a $25,000 40:1
glider that came with that built-in 5% advantage.

Build it in the US and Europe could buy it for $20K. Build it in the
third world and watch the glider community doubt its quality into
oblivion ;-)


Shawn

Bill Daniels wrote:
"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the community
starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think Tony's
adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I doubt the
traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider addressing such a
market...

Marc

I love Tony's Cherokee adventures. However, the sad truth is that if the
Cherokee was to be put into commercial production today, it would cost even
more than the LS-4. When you take the route of a deliberately designing a
low performance glider, you set a trap for yourself by building a glider few
will buy. PW-5 is example "A".

You're misreading what I'm saying. It makes no sense to commercially
produce a Cherokee using present day technology. But, I think the
soaring community has worked itself into a corner where little
compromise is possible.

Perhaps the PW-5 failed because it's performance just wasn't high
enough, but that suggests one either needs to find a way to drastically
reduce (50 to 75%) the production cost of a typical standard class
glider, or convince a sizable portion of the community that there is
more to soaring than glider performance. Somehow, the latter seems more
practical to me.

Marc

On 26 Dec, 20:26, Marc Ramsey wrote:

How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking
market that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design?

Over 2,500 Blaniks, 1,400 Ka-6's (all variants) and 1,100 Ka-8's were
built. I can't offhand think of (or find) any other 1,000+ runs, but
there have been some pretty big productions. There were at least 800
Grunau Babies, 776 Pirats, 700 Schweizer 1-26's, 700 ASK13's, 620
Bocians and 600 Standard Libelles.

The
glider manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral
of building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population
that can afford them.

And just to make matters worse, the long lifespans of plastic gliders
mean that second-hand performance is comparatively cheap. Glider
pilots generally - I think - prefer performance to newness, so a
£15,000 mass-produced glider would be up against hordes of second hand
Libelles, ASW-19's, Pegases, Astirs, Jantars and so on. That, I think,
is what killed the PW-5. About the only country where it did well was
New Zealand where - as I understand it - there was a large fleet of
elderly Ka-6's and the like and little by way of more modern
fibreglass trickling down through the market.

Ian

Ian wrote:
On 26 Dec, 20:26, Marc Ramsey wrote:

How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking
market that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design?

Over 2,500 Blaniks, 1,400 Ka-6's (all variants) and 1,100 Ka-8's were
built. I can't offhand think of (or find) any other 1,000+ runs, but
there have been some pretty big productions. There were at least 800
Grunau Babies, 776 Pirats, 700 Schweizer 1-26's, 700 ASK13's, 620
Bocians and 600 Standard Libelles.

OK, I was wrong (such a rare thing 8^). Given the current worldwide
soaring market, however, I can't see how anyone could count on producing
1000+ units of any design, unless it offers wicked high performance for
a ridiculously low price.

The
glider manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral
of building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population
that can afford them.

And just to make matters worse, the long lifespans of plastic gliders
mean that second-hand performance is comparatively cheap. Glider
pilots generally - I think - prefer performance to newness, so a
£15,000 mass-produced glider would be up against hordes of second hand
Libelles, ASW-19's, Pegases, Astirs, Jantars and so on. That, I think,
is what killed the PW-5. About the only country where it did well was
New Zealand where - as I understand it - there was a large fleet of
elderly Ka-6's and the like and little by way of more modern
fibreglass trickling down through the market.

You need a fairly robust market (lots of people moving up to the latest
and greatest) for these hordes to materialize. When people buy fewer
new gliders (as seems to be the case in the US now), they keep their
older ones...

Marc