soaring into the future

I don't think the big manufacturers really care about the average joe
with a "medium class" wage. If you need to ask the price of these new
ships then you can't afford one. Not all of us are successful stock
market investors, bankers, real estate sharks, own companies,
etc................I would be willing to speculate that very few
people take out a loan for a $100k sailplane. I don't mean to offend
anyone here, so please don't take it that way.

I just feel, as a wage monkey, that there needs to be an advocate for
the little guy who want's to play, and not have to settle for someone
else's last-years-toy.

I bet a slick looking machine can be built for quite a bit under 40K,
especially if is built here in the US, and the workers enjoy what they
do. This will certainly spin off another discussion on
wages.................but didn't Tor use "cheap" labor to make the
Spirit?

Marc.............care to chime in what the design looks like?

Cheers,
Brad

On Dec 26, 12:05*pm, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net 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.

Bill Daniels

The major issues that made the World Class PW-5 a non-starter were;
1) an early FAI requirement that the glider be capable of being
homebuilt. 2) a "non-standard" design (at least in terms of modern
glider configurations). 3) Performance that doesn't get the average
pilot to the next thermal - 38:1 or 40:1 allows a pilot of average
skill to fly X-C on the average day. 4) The mistaken concept that a
small, lightweight glider can be produced at a lower cost than a
typical 15m ship.

Bill is right on the money about production requirements. The
materials in a glider are a much smaller portion of the cost than
labor. The materials cost difference between building a 13m glider and
a 15m ship in negligible. Assuming a viable design was available,
such as the LS-4, the key to building a reasonably economic version is
in production engineering and tooling. I did an extensive tooling
work-up for a client considering WorldClass production a number of
years ago and then a follow-up on another glider project at a later
date. The cost to produce serial production tooling is in the
$100-150K range; then about another $100K is required for production
support fixtures, etc. to create a workable current technology
manufacturing cell.

In the original World Class estimates the consultants predicted a
worldwide demand for I think it was something like 4,000 production
units. Obviously, numbers like that are not in the realm of reality. A
run of 400 gliders over say 10-15 years would be considered a great
success by typical glider production standards.

So the classic manufacturing dilemma is this: It might be possible to
build a glider with less than a $250K up- front investment in tooling,
but the per unit cost would be high because of the labor involved. The
labor can be reduced with a more sophisticated production set-up, but
then the capitol investment increases and the ROI becomes less
attractive. This doesn't even touch on the issues of actually
operating and managing a facility, then certification (ultimately
necessary for a serial production aircraft).

For the most part, the German (European) glider manufacturers operate
in a bubble that exists because they have evolved over a long period
of time. To duplicate that, and then improve it to modern production
capabilities, is a daunting task made more so by the real world
economics of the situation. With that said, we have the technology
and composites know-how to improve the manufacturing state-of-the-art...
what is required is funding that is developmental and long term. So
who has a pile of money they'd like to invest for the good of the
sport of soaring? By the way - Once it was in place, the
manufacturing techniques that could be used to "mass" produce a one-
class design could also be used to produce the most advanced current
design gliders.

Bob Lacovara

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
news
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

Exactly. Traditional hand labor can't produce any glider for that price.
But state-of-the-art composite manufacturing processes MAY be able to do it
if you can ramp up the production rate.

Hopefully, all the development going into windmill blade production will
result in the right manufacturing base.

BTW, it's not the LS-4 or the price - it's the combination.

Bill Daniels

Exactly. *Traditional hand labor can't produce any glider for that price..
But state-of-the-art composite manufacturing processes MAY be able to do it
if you can ramp up the production rate.


Bill,

I think you could do hand-layup and still have an attractive price. A
good portion of the work is the finish work, and with the high gloss
the new ships have, you pay for it.

Simple airframes with reduced part counts, are a start.

The up-front tooling costs to use automated processes would be way to
costly, at least for a small company to bootstrap itself into this
biz. IMHO.

Brad

Brad wrote:
The up-front tooling costs to use automated processes would be way to
costly, at least for a small company to bootstrap itself into this
biz. IMHO.

I'd say that a big part of the necessary innovation will be in figuring
out how to fabricate low cost equipment and tooling that can automate
some aspects of the production process without breaking the bank. Given
commodity availability of laser-based precision 3D locating devices,
servos and associated controllers, plus ubiquitous computers, the main
thing that seems to missing is rethinking the nature of the tooling one
uses for these processes.

By the way, one of the classic arguments against the PW-5 and similar
"low end" gliders, was that it was possible to obtain decent used
gliders with greater performance for the same price. Unfortunately (or
fortunately, if you have one to sell) here in the US the supply of
decent used gliders in the $20K to $30K range has pretty much dried up.
This appears to be due to a combination of market forces, as the sky
high price of new gliders has increased the demand and price for the 10
to 15 year old gliders that used to be the "bread and butter" of the
market. The owners of decent 15 to 20 year old gliders appear to be
holding onto what they have, as they can't be replaced for a reasonable
price. Plus, every US gliderport has a number of 25+ year old glass
gliders rotting in trailers, as it is no longer economical to refinish
them...

Marc

There are many existing and potential soaring pilots who consider
$25000 a HUGE amount of money. Until people start talking about a
rugged 2 seat primary and XC trainer for under $15k with a
complimentary single seat XC capable machine for under $10k brand new,
this is just an academic exercise. Of course anything new would have
to be crashworthy, BRS, auto hookups, tough enough to land off field,
aerodynamic trailer and maybe even self launch too.

I may be crazy but you just wait and see. Until the above comes along
it's going to be business as usual.

I hate the 2-33 as much as the next guy but man those Schweizers
really had some things figured out. Without them I bet soaring would
have died in the US. Now we need the next generation of practical
innovations and solid leadership.

The Sparrow Hawk is awesome but it costs too freeking much! The Hart
Aero Turkey Vulture trainer is affordable but what a turkey! I don't
have the answers but I believe we have the materials and tools and
knowlede to synthesize some answers that are better than another
$25000 piece of glass. Come on! Think outside the freeking box! And
NO I don't want to see any stupid flying wing canard ultralight dacron
honeycomb cheese sandwich vacuum ziploc bagged ASW point zero two five
thousand glass cockpit modern marvel. Give me a simple solid safe
metal, wood or glass glider that doesn't cost a fortune.

MM

Hi Guys,

I think that the tooling required to make the "simple" glider I
propose need not be overly "sophisticated" After being intimately
involved with the Russia kit and the Apis kit, and studying the TST-
Atlas, I really belive that these ships and manufacturing methods are
valid and produce nice aircraft. If all one looks at are the latest
from Europe, or even the racing glass over the last 20 years, you get
the impression that sophisticated tooling and elaborate parts are a
must-have. Indeed, they probably are a must have for these ships, and
these manufacturers have done a marvelous job with their tooling and
thus the parts. But a simple glider does not need all those "parts"

A fuselage plug can be made on a CNC router using REN board or any
suitable tooling medium. My put would be to use a HD REN board, make a
LH and RH plug split along BL-00, wax and PVA the heck out of it and
pull a mold. The fuselage if designed right, would not require vacuum
bagging, therefore several of the internal bits could be installed,
taped in place and co-cured along with the skin lay-up, saving a lot
of time and materials. A tool to wind a fuselage would require A LOT
of money and most likely would not appeal to anyone with high ROI
hopes. Wet lay-up is still a valid way to make a fuselage, I've layed
up several in the last few years and it is actually kinda fun!

As far as the wing goes, I think the LS-3 wing style is the way to go.
Perhaps aerodynamicaly speaking it may suffer over a modern planform,
but most of those modern planforms are on sailplanes that are state of
the art and their prices reflect that. A simple tapered planform
drives simplicity down the line: straight spar along the 40% C,
straight rear spar, straight hinge axis, straight
flaperon.................all these parts and their tooling/jigging
would be far simpler and cheaper to manufacture.

As Shawn shows in the link he posted, 3k carbon can now be found
relatively cheap, compared to a year ago when availability was scarce
and the price over $45 a yard. I would want to use the best material
for the job; if it required carbon or e-glass then use
it.................and of course a good epoxy.

I am a shop forman doing composites; we are daily designing, cutting,
and making tooling and parts and I know somthing like this can be
done. As Jaun Trippe said, it is a Sporting game...............who
wants to play?

Cheers,
Brad

PS................Shawn, glad to hear your pup is
OK.................ours is still at the vet..........