A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Short Wings Gliders



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 2nd 09, 02:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jim Beckman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 186
Default Short Wings Gliders (25)

At 12:30 02 February 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
One of the reasons the PW5 never caught on in the UK, apart from its
appearance, is that you could buy a secondhand Standard Cirrus, Libelle,
Pegasus, ASW19, or any any other first/second generation glass Std Class
15 metre span glider, more cheaply and with much better performance.

These
gliders compete in our 'Club Class' competitions, which are normally
oversubscribed. There is not enough interest in the 'World Class' to
make it worthwhile to organize a National Comp.


So how *do* we explain the continuing (I hope) popularity of the Schweizer
1-26 in America? I mean, the performance really is pretty low in modern
terms. Proponents like to say that one advantage of the 1-26 is that the
retrieves are always shorter. But then somebody like Ron Schwartz
demonstrates that it ain't necessarily so. Flying cross country in a
1-26 does tend to separate the men from the dilettantes, I suppose. And
you can find some sort of one-class 1-26 competition on both sides of the
Mississippi every year. I've been to two 1-26 Championships so far, and
I've gotta admit that the 1-26 crew knows how to have a good time. What
is it about the ship that attracts such a wacky crowd?

Of course, the glider *is* dirt cheap, and you can have unending amounts
of fun painting it any color scheme you want, and still leave it outside.

It is possible that Blairstown now has the highest number of 1-26s of
various models based at one field (I think we've got at least 12 now).
And what attracted the last one or two was the chance to fly with (and
against) other 1-26s on a regular basis. It will be interesting to see
how this develops this year. And I expect the club will encourage our
newer pilots to take the club 1-26s out and run with the rest of the pack.
Such fun, and so cheap.

Jim Beckman (234, 664, 363 and a few others)

  #2  
Old February 2nd 09, 10:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Kuykendall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,345
Default Short Wings Gliders (25)

On Feb 2, 2:14*am, (Michel Talon) wrote:

...The glider factories seem to think that glider buyers
are like Ferrari buyers, who will accept to pay any price
for their toys...


Michel, I think that you have hit the nail on the head. The glider
makers are acting just as you say. And the reason they are doing so
seems to be that they are correct in their assessment; that there
continues to be folks who will pay top dollar for high-performance
sailplanes.

What I don't understand is why you seem to take issue with it. Do you
think that it is unjust or unfair for them to want to make a profit?

In order to make at least enough money to stay in business, the
established glider manufacturers have focused their development and
production on gliders for which they can command the highest prices
and so make the most profit: high-performance racing machines with
cutting-edge aerodynamics and many pilot-friendly amenities. And who
can blame them? That is what businesses do. The business of business
is definitely business. Expecting any business to do otherwise means
that you consider it a charity and begs the question, how much time or
money have you donated lately?

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that the established
glider manufacturers are making excessive profits as we have seen
among greedy Wall Street bankers. We don't see their CEOs flying
around in business jets, and their top managers and engineers don't
get huge bonuses and live in mansions. In fact, when I met the man who
is arguable the best and most prolific sailplane designer ever, he was
wearing a grubby T-shirt and sweeping out a hangar with a borrowed
broom.

To my way of thinking, just about the only folks who make gliders for
free are those who expect to hold posession of said glider when
they're done. That certainly describes the sailplane homebuilders with
whom I hold the honor and privilege of working. But it doesn't and
needn't describe businesses that are in the business of making
gliders.

Thanks, and best regards

Bob K.
  #3  
Old February 2nd 09, 11:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Michel Talon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Short Wings Gliders (25)

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Feb 2, 2:14*am, (Michel Talon) wrote:

...The glider factories seem to think that glider buyers
are like Ferrari buyers, who will accept to pay any price
for their toys...


Michel, I think that you have hit the nail on the head. The glider
makers are acting just as you say. And the reason they are doing so
seems to be that they are correct in their assessment; that there
continues to be folks who will pay top dollar for high-performance
sailplanes.

What I don't understand is why you seem to take issue with it. Do you
think that it is unjust or unfair for them to want to make a profit?


I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is sustainable.
By the way, how many glider factories went bust? Similarly how many
of these car builders who wanted to produce luxury sports cars are
alive? Bugatti does airplane parts nowadays, similarly Hispano-Suiza,
etc. Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for *small
cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free, over
all those years. You have only to consider what Andreas Maurer says to
see what small cost means, in the example of his club in Landau.

--

Michel TALON

  #4  
Old February 3rd 09, 12:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
DRN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Short Wings Gliders (25)

On Feb 2, 5:14*am, (Michel Talon) wrote:
... But i remark that the cost of gliders has
indeed increased exponentially the last twenty years, for reasons which
have nothing to do with concrete factors, but everything to do with
hourly cost of workers, and total lack of will of controlling the costs.
The glider factories seem to think that glider buyers are like Ferrari
buyers, who will accept to pay any price for their toys.


Nope. Why do you think some mfgs are still using lower-cost
(and lower quality) bearings ? Not using stainless cables ?
I have been told, when I specifically asked, that cost control
was the reason. The factories constantly look for ways to
reduce costs.

A primary cost driver is the FAI class definition, which sets
the market. And when there are too many classes, it just
runs up the per-unit costs. And no, it doesn't get hugely
cheaper when you cut the span...

My two cents anyway,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"
  #5  
Old February 3rd 09, 02:38 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andreas Maurer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 345
Default Short Wings Gliders (25)

Salut Michel,

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 10:14:48 +0000 (UTC),
(Michel Talon) wrote:


The glider factories seem to think that glider buyers are like Ferrari
buyers, who will accept to pay any price for their toys.


Facts prove that exactly THIS is what happens at the moment.
..
Just look at the sales numbers of new gliders: By far most of them are
18 meter class ships, half of them self-launchers. They hardly perform
better than a 15m glider (if better at all - some folks doubt this),
are nearly twice as expensive - and yet noone is buying 15m gliders
anymore.

You cannot afford to buy a new glider? Plenty of cheap, used gliders
on the market.
At least in Europe with its huge market of 2nd hand gliders, there's
simply no need to produce a cheap glider.


A closely previous post mentioned that Schleicher was paying heavy fees
to Delft University to get his computations done. Compare this to the
Pegase which was computed at ONERA for free. I have the impression that
the Pegase was the last glider whose aim was allowing a lot of people to
fly.


And incidentally, it shows that one can build a 15m glider of
reasonable simplicity, with performances not that different from the more
complex ASW 20, easier to fly, and much cheaper.



Hmmm.... Pegase... wasn't that the carbon copy of some German
design... fromm... err... aforesaid Schleicher...!?

Let's face it: Schleicher did 95 percent of the design work for the
Pegase (I already hear the French contributors to this group cry out
and start their protest postings).

But it's a completely different case if you are the competitor on a
market who needs to design technology that has to be leading-edge for
the next 15 to 20 years. Schleicher is still market leader... while
Centrair is gone. Clear case who made the right decisions on the long
run.


  #6  
Old February 3rd 09, 04:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Kuykendall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,345
Default Short Wings Gliders (25)

On Feb 2, 6:38*pm, Andreas Maurer wrote:

Schleicher is still market leader... while Centrair is gone...


That has always sort of puzzled me. My basic business philosophy is
"The early bird gets the worm, but it's the second mouse that gets the
cheese." I am endlessly fascinated by counterexamples, they always
contain valuable lessons.

Thanks, Bob K.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
X-Wings and Canard Rotor Wings. Charles Gray Rotorcraft 1 March 22nd 05 12:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.