Manufactures Lack of Images

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 5:15:09 PM UTC-8, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 20:09 07 March 2016, wrote:
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 7:48:49 PM UTC,
wrote:
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:36:03 AM UTC-8, JS wrote:

It broke the test rig, good stuff!

I'm not sure I'd fullyt trust the engineering of folks who can't
design a
simple whiffle tree.

The wing failed to break at well past its design limits so they
continued
and the rig broke. Its the wing engineering that was being tested
not the
rig.

The MOD, after the Grob 103 was issued to the Air Cadets, put one on
the rig. When they had proved the service life they asked the testers to
break the wings. It is said they gave up after they broke the rig 3
times.
Just one other thought, with a waiting list as long as your arm and a
waiting time of over 12 months for some gliders why would anyone
want to spend time and money on marketing?

How do you think they got into that enviable position to start with?

The lion's share of glider marketing is actually done by their customers. Most pilots I know buy gliders that their friends already own. All of the gliders I bought I had the opportunity to see, sit in and talk to their owners. I have never bought a new glider, but am now in the financial position to do so (after a lifetime of effort!). A huge part of this decision is the earned reputation of the glider manufacturer. And make no mistake, some reputations are better than others. I doubt that I would make such a decision based on photos alone. But, they are STILL nice to look at!
Tom

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 10:29:34 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 5:15:09 PM UTC-8, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 20:09 07 March 2016, wrote:
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 7:48:49 PM UTC,
wrote:
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:36:03 AM UTC-8, JS wrote:

It broke the test rig, good stuff!

I'm not sure I'd fullyt trust the engineering of folks who can't
design a
simple whiffle tree.

The wing failed to break at well past its design limits so they
continued
and the rig broke. Its the wing engineering that was being tested
not the
rig.

The MOD, after the Grob 103 was issued to the Air Cadets, put one on
the rig. When they had proved the service life they asked the testers to
break the wings. It is said they gave up after they broke the rig 3
times.
Just one other thought, with a waiting list as long as your arm and a
waiting time of over 12 months for some gliders why would anyone
want to spend time and money on marketing?

How do you think they got into that enviable position to start with?

The lion's share of glider marketing is actually done by their customers. Most pilots I know buy gliders that their friends already own. All of the gliders I bought I had the opportunity to see, sit in and talk to their owners. I have never bought a new glider, but am now in the financial position to do so (after a lifetime of effort!). A huge part of this decision is the earned reputation of the glider manufacturer. And make no mistake, some reputations are better than others. I doubt that I would make such a decision based on photos alone. But, they are STILL nice to look at!
Tom

Exactly and the time and cost has already been invested by showing up at the event. So why not do it right and present the product in its best light. There was an outline on the floor that was labeled Ventus so I think they had planned for the glider to be there. I do understand why it didn't ship but, the follow up from the booth should have anticipated questions.

Question ... if there was a significant increase in demand would the companies respond and tool up?

Dennis

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 6:58:41 AM UTC-8, HGXC wrote:
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 10:29:34 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 5:15:09 PM UTC-8, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 20:09 07 March 2016, wrote:
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 7:48:49 PM UTC,
wrote:
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:36:03 AM UTC-8, JS wrote:

It broke the test rig, good stuff!

I'm not sure I'd fullyt trust the engineering of folks who can't
design a
simple whiffle tree.

The wing failed to break at well past its design limits so they
continued
and the rig broke. Its the wing engineering that was being tested
not the
rig.

The MOD, after the Grob 103 was issued to the Air Cadets, put one on
the rig. When they had proved the service life they asked the testers to
break the wings. It is said they gave up after they broke the rig 3
times.
Just one other thought, with a waiting list as long as your arm and a
waiting time of over 12 months for some gliders why would anyone
want to spend time and money on marketing?

How do you think they got into that enviable position to start with?

The lion's share of glider marketing is actually done by their customers. Most pilots I know buy gliders that their friends already own. All of the gliders I bought I had the opportunity to see, sit in and talk to their owners. I have never bought a new glider, but am now in the financial position to do so (after a lifetime of effort!). A huge part of this decision is the earned reputation of the glider manufacturer. And make no mistake, some reputations are better than others. I doubt that I would make such a decision based on photos alone. But, they are STILL nice to look at!
Tom

Exactly and the time and cost has already been invested by showing up at the event. So why not do it right and present the product in its best light.. There was an outline on the floor that was labeled Ventus so I think they had planned for the glider to be there. I do understand why it didn't ship but, the follow up from the booth should have anticipated questions.

Question ... if there was a significant increase in demand would the companies respond and tool up?

Dennis

Highly unlikely - these are family-run businesses that are more tuned into generational longevity than quarterly results. However, they might slowly ramp up production if demand persists.
Tom

Yes, most glider sales probably don't need more elaborate marketing. We generally knows what we want, often because of seeing the latest examples on the contest grid or club launch line just because we like what we know or hear about a brand or a new model.

But...I've got to believe there are some sales on the margin: a pilot who might be hesitating over whether to go "all in" on a new glider. Or which manufacturer/model. At the cost/margin of today's gliders, it doesn't take many (one?) sales to cover the cost of better, more comprehensive images/descriptions.

There's also the question of which options/features to order. I know of more than one pilot who, after he/she discovered that his/her new glider could have included some obscure option he/she didn't know about or didn't understand, was annoyed. I actually faxed a series of questions to Schleicher when I ordered my ASW 24 many years ago...that were very well answered by Mr. Gerhard Waibel himself. He even sent a drawing of one part so I could evaluate it. I had several options on my glider than most U.S. pilots didn't even know were available.

Marketing isn't a bad word. Today's glider manufacturers all market their products. It's just a question of how. And unless they've somehow colluded to allocate fixed numbers of orders to each manufacturer at fixed prices, it's a question of how effective their marketing is.

Chip Bearden

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 3:15:10 PM UTC-5, Craig Lowrie wrote:
HPH also has some good images on the website of its UK dealer...
see www.HpHUK.co.uk

Craig

I'd say the HPH UK site has the best images. I had seen this site awhile ago but dont remember all these images. May be new.

HPH UK has a lot of info and pics on their FaceBook page as well and just saw that 2 new Shark Jets are being delivered to UK.

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Yes, most glider sales probably don't need more elaborate marketing. We generally knows what we want, often because of seeing the latest examples on the contest grid or club launch line just because we like what we know or hear about a brand or a new model.

But...I've got to believe there are some sales on the margin: a pilot who might be hesitating over whether to go "all in" on a new glider. Or which manufacturer/model. At the cost/margin of today's gliders, it doesn't take many (one?) sales to cover the cost of better, more comprehensive images/descriptions.

There's also the question of which options/features to order. I know of more than one pilot who, after he/she discovered that his/her new glider could have included some obscure option he/she didn't know about or didn't understand, was annoyed. I actually faxed a series of questions to Schleicher when I ordered my ASW 24 many years ago...that were very well answered by Mr. Gerhard Waibel himself. He even sent a drawing of one part so I could evaluate it. I had several options on my glider than most U.S. pilots didn't even know were available.

Marketing isn't a bad word. Today's glider manufacturers all market their products. It's just a question of how. And unless they've somehow colluded to allocate fixed numbers of orders to each manufacturer at fixed prices, it's a question of how effective their marketing is.

Chip Bearden

Maybe we ought to do their marketing for them. What would it take for a knowledgeable pilot with a camcorder and/or Gopro to do a 30-40 minute Youtube video?

Tom

At 03:59 13 March 2016, 2G wrote:
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
Yes, most glider sales probably don't need more elaborate marketing. We
g=
enerally knows what we want, often because of seeing the latest examples
on=
the contest grid or club launch line just because we like what we know
or
=
hear about a brand or a new model.
=20
But...I've got to believe there are some sales on the margin: a pilot
who=
might be hesitating over whether to go "all in" on a new glider. Or
which
=
manufacturer/model. At the cost/margin of today's gliders, it doesn't
take
=
many (one?) sales to cover the cost of better, more comprehensive
images/de=
scriptions.
=20
There's also the question of which options/features to order. I know of
m=
ore than one pilot who, after he/she discovered that his/her new glider
cou=
ld have included some obscure option he/she didn't know about or didn't
und=
erstand, was annoyed. I actually faxed a series of questions to
Schleicher
=
when I ordered my ASW 24 many years ago...that were very well answered
by
M=
r. Gerhard Waibel himself. He even sent a drawing of one part so I could
ev=
aluate it. I had several options on my glider than most U.S. pilots
didn't
=
even know were available.=20
=20
Marketing isn't a bad word. Today's glider manufacturers all market
their=
products. It's just a question of how. And unless they've somehow
colluded=
to allocate fixed numbers of orders to each manufacturer at fixed
prices,
=
it's a question of how effective their marketing is.
=20
Chip Bearden

Maybe we ought to do their marketing for them. What would it take for a
kno=
wledgeable pilot with a camcorder and/or Gopro to do a 30-40 minute
Youtube=
video?

Tom



Hi schemmp have posted more photos on Facebook,the only really significant

thing I can see is they have moved the release up onto the panel which is a

very good thing .