![]() |
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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
X-Wings and Canard Rotor Wings. | Charles Gray | Rotorcraft | 1 | March 22nd 05 12:26 AM |