soaring into the future

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Shawn wrote:
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!"

It's called "marketing", that's why I got so much crap in my house I
don't need. But, it works both ways, it also sells $100,000 Standard
Class gliders 8^)

I was thinking of "want" the way the Madison Ave. types define it. What
the consumer wants after the product is purchased is irrelevant. ;-)
People didn't want the PW-5 (i.e. it wasn't marketed well) enough to buy it.


Shawn

P.S. Seen many $100K Standard class ships at the field lately?