soaring into the future

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

Realistically speaking..................if the "subject" sailplane was
made of modern composites and made in China, and was available for
under $35k......would people buy it?

Brad

Brad wrote:
Realistically speaking..................if the "subject" sailplane was
made of modern composites and made in China, and was available for
under $35k......would people buy it?

Yes, but I think the yuan is heading for readjustment, which will drive
the price higher. You should consider Mexico or elsewhere in Central
America, it will provide some viable work down there, and make the
Republican glider pilots up here that much happier 8^)

Marc

You should consider Mexico or elsewhere in Central
America, it will provide some viable work down there, and make the
Republican glider pilots up here that much happier 8^)

Marc

well, to tell the truth..................to make the repubs happy, I
could probably hire a bunch of illegal ones right here in Washington
State and make it right in town!

Brad
(tongue only slightly in cheek)

Why did the 1-26 do so well and is STILL doing well. For crying out
loud, they still have their own contest a billion years after it was
introduced! I don't understand it but we ought to really take a hard
look at it.

I'm not saying that we want brand new 1-26s. I sure don't. Brand new
Cherokee IIs either. Tony and I have more fun per dollar in our
little wood ships than most out there but we wouldn't mind a little
more performance, modern materials and safety features, easier
rigging... But paying $25000 for it? Are you kidding?!

The PW-5 is a fun glider but it costs a fortune to most people and
looks wrong to most of the rest. I don't think performance is the
reason it didn't "take off"

The new people we need in soaring are only going to desire 40 or 50 to
1 if we teach them that's what they need to have fun, earn badges,
have great flights, keep up with their friends.

Why cant we design a higher performance homebuilt quick kit that has
basic components built by existing manufacturing processes then
quality checked and assembled by individuals,clubs, or commercial
operations? A modular homebuilt (that satisfies the 51% rule) that
handles well, gets better than 35/1, climbs like a woodstock, lands
like a PW, and runs like a Discus and costs $10k as a kit and $15k
finished.

Look at all the creativity and innovation that led to the Cherokee,
the BG-12, the Duster, Scanlon, Tern, Javalin, Bowlus, Carbon Dragon,
Woodstock, Monerai, the HPs... Sure most of those had "issues" some
were real dogs, some were great. But, they all showed a creativity
that seems lacking today. Imagine combining the best aspects of these
classic American homebuilts and applying modern materials,
engineering, and manufacturing to the result.

Somebody is going to do it. Some young genius glider kid in Aero E at
university with no money thinking outside the box. This isn't rocket
science. It's evolution. You can either be part of the new wave or a
dinosaur.

MM

On Dec 26, 10:54*pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
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^).

Most of us can't afford an Antares, but many second-hand good-
condition, well-equipped 40:1 ships are affordable, so why spend a lot
more money on a 30:1 ship than on a 40:1 ship?

Maybe the failure was the initial performance specification from the
FAI. I can't remember if the Junior was a contender or not, but it
fits a lot of the criteria - L/D, suitable for early solo, fixed gear
and so on - and having just started flying a 40:1 ship instead there's
no way I'd consider spending my hard-earned cash on a new PW5 instead
of a second-hand 40:1 Club Class ship.

Is it a failure of mine to want to be able to progress into wind? Or
to want a glider where serious XC (not that I'm capable of that yet!)
can be done in a wider range of conditions, not just on the 'day of
the year' which just about *always* is a working day?