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