soaring into the future

On Dec 26, 9:22*pm, Shawn wrote:
snip

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 ;-)

*if* such a thing ever comes along, I suspect it will be built in
Poland, Slovakia or some other east Europe country.

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 Dec 26, 1:31 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
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


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.

Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
glider with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as
the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not
understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in
the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific
purpose. And that is sad.

Jacek
Pasco, WA

wrote:
Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
glider with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as
the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not
understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in
the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific
purpose. And that is sad.

I agree, and that is why I say that some of us in the soaring community
need to rethink what we are doing (those of you with an Antares on
order, carry on 8^).

Marc

wrote:
On Dec 26, 1:31 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:

snip

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.

Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
glider with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as
the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not
understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in
the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific
purpose. And that is sad.

The consumer failed by not buying what they didn't want? Supply side at
its worst, sheesh!
"Them pilots shoulda' knowed what's good for 'em and buyed it, dad gummit!"
;-)


Shawn

wrote:

Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
glider with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as
the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not
understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in
the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific
purpose. And that is sad.

I kind of agree with Jacek. The PW-5 did what it was supposed to do;
instead, I suggest it was the World Class idea that failed. I believe
the promoters of the World Class one-design concept badly misjudged the
interest in a one-design class, and what most pilots wanted out it, and
hoped for, was a new glider for half the going price. The price turned
out not as cheap as the promoters thought it would be, but worse, it had
to compete with plentiful gliders in the used market.

I don't think the results would have been much different if the Russia
had been selected. I suspect even fewer World Class gliders would have
been sold had the requirements called for something with the performance
and looks of, say, a Std Cirrus, because the higher price of the glider
would have made the cost difference with used gliders even greater.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

On 26 Dec, 22:31, wrote:

Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
glider with L/D in low 30-ties.

But the FAI didn't specify the price, did they? If the PW-5 had cost
£7,500 fully instrumented and with trailer they'd have sold lots here.
But priced alongside second hand Pegases they didn't stand a chance.

Ian

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

On 29 Dec 2007, 04:02, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Ian wrote:

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.

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.

Agreed. I wonder how many gliders there are in service around the
world? I understand there are about 3,500 on the BGA register, but I
doubt if more than half of these will make it to EASA. There are lots
of older gliders lying around unused or semi-used, and I can't see
many owners bothering to jump through costly hoops with them.

But I digress. I'll guess (finger in the air) 2,000 gliders in the UK,
5,000 in Germany, 5,000 for the rest of Europe, 2,000 for the US,
5,000 for everywhere else. With a bit of bad addition, that's 20,000
worldwide. So a mass-produced run of 1,000 would be a 5% replacement/
augmentation of the worldwide fleet. That's a lot.

And just to make matters worse, the long lifespans of plastic gliders
mean that second-hand performance is comparatively cheap.

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...

There are also price-performance issues. I happily fly 34:1 wood. To
move up to 40:1 glass would cost me a few (five?) thousand. For 45:1,
double it. For 50:1, double it again. For 55:1, double it again. For
60:1, double it again (GPB 80,000 for a second hand ASH-25). So to
clear room for a cheap 40:1 mass-produced glider, lots of pilots have
to make the jump up to 45+:1 ... which is expensive.

Ian