Short Wings Gliders

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.

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

On Feb 2, 3:27*pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:

I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is sustainable.

Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
mine.

Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.

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...

If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.

Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
each, but I think it can work the other way as well.

Thanks again, Bob K.

Earlier, I wrote:

...However, I don't think that how they are operating is
damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
their businesses....

What I meant to write was:

...However, I don't think that how they are operating is
damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
soaring pilots, so I do **not** think it is my place to tell them how to run
their businesses....

Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks, Bob K.

This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
started up ever get finished. Of those that do, many pass through three
owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
usually takes about eight years. Of course, gliders are much simpler to
build.

Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
build a bad design as a good one. Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
can tell you how much it costs to build it."

This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
particular location and with any particular construction method.


At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:

I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
sustainable.

Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
mine.

Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.

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...

If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.

Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
each, but I think it can work the other way as well.

Thanks again, Bob K.

On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams wrote:
This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three
owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to
build.

Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
can tell you how much it costs to build it."

This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
particular location and with any particular construction method.

At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:



On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:

I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
sustainable.

Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
mine.

Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.

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...

If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.

Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
each, but I think it can work the other way as well.

Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs,
tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole
thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took
to build the craft painting and polishing it.

Brad

On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams wrote:





This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three
owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to
build.

Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
can tell you how much it costs to build it."

This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
particular location and with any particular construction method.

At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:

I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
sustainable.

Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
mine.

Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.

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...

If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.

Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
each, but I think it can work the other way as well.

Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs,
tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole
thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took
to build the craft painting and polishing it.

Brad- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brad,
That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line
Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. It took 42 hours
to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and
finish. This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.

On Feb 3, 5:07*pm, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad wrote:





On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams wrote:

This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three
owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to
build.

Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
can tell you how much it costs to build it."

This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
particular location and with any particular construction method.

At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:

I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
sustainable.

Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
mine.

Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.

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...

If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.

Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
each, but I think it can work the other way as well.

Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs,
tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole
thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took
to build the craft painting and polishing it.

Brad- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brad,
* That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line
Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. *It took 42 hours
to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and
finish. *This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ah, I remember those days too. mine never lasted long enough to
justify spending too much time with covering/painting. we used to
build voodoo's and nemisis' and smash em up pretty regularly. it was a
lot of fun making the pressure tanks out of pudding cans and
pacifiers! nothing like the sound of a 36XBB at full speed!

Brad

On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams wrote:

This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
started up ever get finished...

It depends on what you mean by "started up." If by that you mean
purchased a plans set and maybe a few of the essentials for one of the
1950s or 1960s designs like FlyBaby or Tailwind, then, yeah, I'd have
to concede the point.

But there is no chance, none at all, that that kind of rate applies to
modern kit aircraft such as Vans pre-punched or quick-build kits for
airplanes like the RV-8. Near as I can tell, just about every one of
those gets finished, and relatively few trade hands in progress.

Collectively, the RV builders constitute one of the worlds most
prolific small aircraft manufacturers, as of yesterday they have
completed and flown 6069 small aircraft; that's about a thousand more
aircraft than are in the current US glider fleet:

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/flights.htm

I work on an RV-8 two nights a week, and I've been to Vans factory in
Aurora, Oregon, and it has been an incredible experience to see what
you can do with a rational and balanced approach to a kit airplane.
With the pre-punched and pre-drilled holes, relatively few jigs are
required and the whole thing sort of just falls together in the
correct alignment. It is easy to get started, and easy to keep making
progress.

The comparison to even the fairly complete Schreder kits of the 1960s
and 1970s is like night and day. There's no stress and anxiety around
transferring measurements and doing hole layouts and wondering if
you're about to ruin a part by drilling a hole in the wrong spot. All
the bulkheads and ribs are formed to shape, and almost all the skins
are trimmed to outline.

What's really amazing about the RVs, and is definitely an example to
look to, is the resale value. Any reasonably well-built and flyable RV
will command a price that is substantially greater than the cost of
the kit plus the cost of the engine and avionics and other items that
went into it.

Thanks again, Bob K.

There have been 8 APIS kit imported into the United States.

6 have been complete and were flown by their original owner/builders.
1 of these has subsequently been sold and is flying with a new owner.
1 was lost in a fatal accident

2 are still being actively completed by their original owners.

John Scott