We need an ASW-19 rebirth for $25,000

Since someone said the price was $19,500, that's $88,294.77 in today's
dollars. Still a bunch. For that money you could get at least a used
ASW-27 so why rebuild a '19?

On 3/20/2017 8:25 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
Well, let's just say that the ASW-19, brand new in 1975 cost $25,000,
though I'm sure it was a bit more. Adjusting for inflation, that's
$116,296.72 in today's dollars ($30K inflates to $139,556.07).

Guess that sucks the wind out of your sails, huh, Wilbur? A similar
lookup could just as easily be done for the first production year of
the PW-5.

On 3/20/2017 11:36 AM, wrote:
How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?

Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!

Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market
for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable
price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.

How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?


--
Dan, 5J

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 10:36:41 AM UTC-7, wrote:
How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?

Because it had a tube tailboom and did not have a T-tail.


Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!

Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.

How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?

Bob K and I have discussed the possibility of getting a S-LSA certification for the HP-24. It would cost about $500,000. If that were underwritten by investors, then the HP-24 could be sold as a completed and ready-to-fly glider. There is no other mechanism that would allow for selling a glider built new in the USA. You can not certificate a new, built in the USA aircraft as Experimental-air race and demonstration.

You can not certificate a new, built in the USA aircraft as Experimental-air race and demonstration.

Wasn't this done with the few Duckhawk's that were built?

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 12:03:34 AM UTC-5, wrote:
You can not certificate a new, built in the USA aircraft as Experimental-air race and demonstration.

Wasn't this done with the few Duckhawk's that were built?

looks like the Duckhawks have Experimental - Racing Airworthiness Certificates

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:58:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 10:36:41 AM UTC-7, wrote:
How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?

Because it had a tube tailboom and did not have a T-tail.


Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!

Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.

How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?

Bob K and I have discussed the possibility of getting a S-LSA certification for the HP-24. It would cost about $500,000. If that were underwritten by investors, then the HP-24 could be sold as a completed and ready-to-fly glider. There is no other mechanism that would allow for selling a glider built new in the USA. You can not certificate a new, built in the USA aircraft as Experimental-air race and demonstration.

Ramping up type certificated glider production is estimated at $1M. Tim Barry holds the type certificate for the Krosno-KR03a (Peregrine). They've held Part Making Authorization for several years, but you must build three under FAA observation to become self certifying. This may mean keeping the assembly line up and lights on for an extended time as you will likely only get an FAA visit every four months. If they find something they are happy with, they leave, let you fix it and show up again in four months. The production line was set up, but there was not commercial money available after the 2008 bust. 55 percent of the respondents to a two-seater survey after the L-13's were grounded preferred metal construction.

So, starting without a type certificate, the ramp up cost is likely to be somewhat higher. Bob K has shown some concept images of a two-seater similar to the Schneider ES-65 Platypus, but thought it should be TC'd. Greg Cole showed a concept image of the two-seat trainer at the Barnaby Lecture a few years ago, but said it would only be experimental.

Simply put, there are no pathways to cheap two-seaters. Nor are there pathways to cheap single-seaters because there doesn't appear to be a market.

My experience in the UK (10.5 years over two tours) is getting dated, but ownership syndicates were the order of the day. Private gliders were owned by 3-4 pilots. Club fleets were similar. A syndicate (4) at one club formed and bought a DG-300 from a Swedish Club. They were surprised to find that private ownership of gliders in Sweden was uncommon (in the 1990's) and that clubs had large fleets (socialism?).

From what I've observed, shared ownership of gliders in the US has been rather rare, though it is a bit more common in my club today than it's been in the past 20 years. Splitting the cost and expenses four ways certainly should make several gliders attractive.

The cultures of soaring vary among countries, regions, and clubs for a variety of reasons, including geographic. Tough nut to crack.

Frank Whiteley

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:19:36 PM UTC-6, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:58:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 10:36:41 AM UTC-7, wrote:
How and why, was the PW-5 made for so cheap?

Because it had a tube tailboom and did not have a T-tail.


Nobody can answer this because it proves you are wrong!

Basic sailplanes do not cost a fortune to build. There is a market for entry level gliders with a handicap of 1.00 for a reasonable price. Few pilots want to own a 40-50 year old fiberglass sailplane.

How much did an ASW-19 cost brand new in 1975?

Bob K and I have discussed the possibility of getting a S-LSA certification for the HP-24. It would cost about $500,000. If that were underwritten by investors, then the HP-24 could be sold as a completed and ready-to-fly glider. There is no other mechanism that would allow for selling a glider built new in the USA. You can not certificate a new, built in the USA aircraft as Experimental-air race and demonstration.

Ramping up type certificated glider production is estimated at $1M. Tim Barry holds the type certificate for the Krosno-KR03a (Peregrine). They've held Part Making Authorization for several years, but you must build three under FAA observation to become self certifying. This may mean keeping the assembly line up and lights on for an extended time as you will likely only get an FAA visit every four months. If they find something they are happy with, they leave, let you fix it and show up again in four months. The production line was set up, but there was not commercial money available after the 2008 bust. 55 percent of the respondents to a two-seater survey after the L-13's were grounded preferred metal construction.

So, starting without a type certificate, the ramp up cost is likely to be somewhat higher. Bob K has shown some concept images of a two-seater similar to the Schneider ES-65 Platypus, but thought it should be TC'd. Greg Cole showed a concept image of the two-seat trainer at the Barnaby Lecture a few years ago, but said it would only be experimental.

Simply put, there are no pathways to cheap two-seaters. Nor are there pathways to cheap single-seaters because there doesn't appear to be a market.

My experience in the UK (10.5 years over two tours) is getting dated, but ownership syndicates were the order of the day. Private gliders were owned by 3-4 pilots. Club fleets were similar. A syndicate (4) at one club formed and bought a DG-300 from a Swedish Club. They were surprised to find that private ownership of gliders in Sweden was uncommon (in the 1990's) and that clubs had large fleets (socialism?).

From what I've observed, shared ownership of gliders in the US has been rather rare, though it is a bit more common in my club today than it's been in the past 20 years. Splitting the cost and expenses four ways certainly should make several gliders attractive.

The cultures of soaring vary among countries, regions, and clubs for a variety of reasons, including geographic. Tough nut to crack.

Frank Whiteley

WRT FAA 'aren't happy with'

From what I've observed, shared ownership of gliders in the US has been rather rare, though it is a bit more common in my club today than it's been in the past 20 years. Splitting the cost and expenses four ways certainly should make several gliders attractive.

Frank Whiteley

Shared ownership was the norm when I was growing up at what is now Caesar Creek Soaring Club in the mid 1960s. Typically 2 but up to 8 partners. My dad had a partner who flew only on Sundays; we went to church so my dad flew on Saturdays and at contests. I started out with a 1/8 share of a 1-26 (one specific weekend day a month) but flew as much as I wanted because so few of my partners did.

What changed? Lifestyles. I'm not wealthy but earlier in my career I had more money than time regarding gliders so I own my glider outright. I never knew when I'd have a weekend day free and wanted to fly without having to coordinate with a partner. I fly contests and didn't want conflicts there, either.

Shared ownership is less expensive. But cost is only part of the problem. Club gliders and shared ownership gliders often sit on the ground even on good weekend soaring days. Soaring takes a lot of time and is tough on families (although we tried to make it fun for my daughters growing up, with some success). It's tough and frustrating to learn how. It's completely weather dependent so you can't plan ahead. There's a lot more ground time than flying time. Without a motorglider, you're dependent on others for launching and retrieves. You can spend hours waiting for both the former and the latter. Etc.

It's never going to be widely popular, either for participants or spectators. And I'd argue those two aren't that related anyway.

From a purely selfish perspective (the shame of it!), I just hope soaring survives long enough for me to continue enjoying it for a while longer and then sell my glider.

Chip Bearden

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 8:20:45 PM UTC+3, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
...not to mention that they can't keep up with demand for their $200k gliders, what possible incentive do they have to do this?

I'm not sure that's true.

While manufacturers do tend to have a year or so delay from ordering to delivery, I don't think the queue is getting longer. They are producing gliders at, on average, exactly the same rate as new orders are coming in.

Are they losing potential orders because someone isn't prepared to wait a year, but would buy a new glider today if it was sitting in a showroom? Possibly some, but I don't think it's significant.

Security of employment for skilled workers, and the time taken to train new ones are quite enough to explain the queue. You can't hire someone if you can't guarantee them a year's work.

If someone came along with a firm order for 10000 gliders then they could expand and step up the production rate, with a delay of a couple of years.

No doubt DG is very happy to have a few dozen DG1000/1001 ordered by the world's airforces. but it's not enough to fundamentally change the production equation.