soaring into the future

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

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.

Bob K is on the road to getting that done. The HP-24 was designed from
the start to make use of production tooling and jigging for a serial
run of airframes.

I have not asked him what he has in to it so far, but my guess is he
could be flying around in one of those expensive 45:1 or 50:1 ships.
But instead he see's a makrket niche and at the same time is
satisfying a dream to design and build his own sailplane.

I am helping as much as I can, since I also have the dream of making
my own ship from the ground up............when we are done, we will
have some nice ships and the molds will be ready to fill for the next
pioneer to step up to the plate.

Brad
HP-24 S/N 2

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