soaring into the future

On Dec 27, 7:01*am, Steve Davis
wrote:
At 21:49 26 December 2007, Brad wrote:
Soaring
in America needs
high altitude high capacity winch launch locations,

I've always wondered why no-one in the US has imported a Skylaunch kit
sans engine and fitted it with a locally-sourced engine and
transmission. That would give you a powerful, controllable winch with
a reasonable outlay.

two seat trainers
which are economical to buy and operate

The PW6U and forthcoming Perkow spring to mind. The latter looks
particularly promising with 40:1 XC performance. As both are Polish
they don't come with the Germany premium.

and a single
seat glider with
launch and handling capabilities similar to the trainer
so a student
doesn't need to re-learn to fly so he/she can fly it.

Astir; also the Junior too which is still made and designed for
precisely that role, that it does very well. For a cheap "hot" (well,
OK, mildly warm) ship get a Cirrus.

I think a lot of the solutions now exist, it just needs some motivated
people to make it happen and then tell the world (or at least the rest
of the US) of their success.


Dan

Dan G wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:01 am, Steve Davis
wrote:
At 21:49 26 December 2007, Brad wrote:
Soaring in America needs
high altitude high capacity winch launch locations,

We need enough glider pilots concentrated in specific geographic areas
to justify a high capacity winch launch operations, sort of a chicken
and egg problem.

I've always wondered why no-one in the US has imported a Skylaunch kit
sans engine and fitted it with a locally-sourced engine and
transmission. That would give you a powerful, controllable winch with
a reasonable outlay.

I'm trying to pull together a syndicate to do precisely that. The
economics make it difficult to justify for existing clubs and commercial
operations, which were structured and located based on the (past)
availability of low cost aero tows. Importing a Skylaunch kit and
completing it wth locally sourced engine, transmission, etc., still
costs around US $80K, or roughly 2.5 low time Pawnees (or 1 Pawnee, an
engine, and a good bit of avgas). I suspect you can imagine the way the
discussion goes at most clubs here...

two seat trainers
which are economical to buy and operate

The PW6U and forthcoming Perkow spring to mind. The latter looks
particularly promising with 40:1 XC performance. As both are Polish
they don't come with the Germany premium.

With the exchange rate as it is (and it isn't going to get better any
time soon), a properly equipped PW6 with trailer costs something over US
$90K, the Perkow will cost even more. Once again, those prices are well
beyond what most clubs and commercial operations can readily afford or
justify.

and a single
seat glider with
launch and handling capabilities similar to the trainer
so a student
doesn't need to re-learn to fly so he/she can fly it.

Astir; also the Junior too which is still made and designed for
precisely that role, that it does very well. For a cheap "hot" (well,
OK, mildly warm) ship get a Cirrus.

Many US clubs now have ships like that. The problem now is that the
high prices for new gliders are having a ripple effect, which means
demand now outstrips supply for good mid-range ($25K to $35K) single
seat gliders. There are a lot of gliders around that should have been
refinished 10 years ago (and now can't be economically), but not as many
good low cost gliders to build a club around.

I think a lot of the solutions now exist, it just needs some motivated
people to make it happen and then tell the world (or at least the rest
of the US) of their success.

I wish it was as easy as you think...

Marc

On Dec 27, 8:18*pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:

big snip

I wish it was as easy as you think...

What's interesting to me is that you seem to be looking at the same
prices we are. A PW6U is £45,000 over here; a factory built Skylaunch
is ~£60,000. The former has seen a couple of sales and the latter are
being snapped up all over the place. How can we can afford to buy kit
like this and you guys can't? Most of the clubs I know have bought
this equipment cash.

A club which has bought a Skylaunch recently might have about 100
members paying £300 a year each and about £7 a winch launch, plus
around £25 an hour glider hire. An aerotow, btw, costs about £25 to
2,000'. What are US club membership numbers and costs like?


Dan

Dan G wrote:
On Dec 27, 8:18 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:

big snip

I wish it was as easy as you think...

What's interesting to me is that you seem to be looking at the same
prices we are. A PW6U is £45,000 over here; a factory built Skylaunch
is ~£60,000. The former has seen a couple of sales and the latter are
being snapped up all over the place. How can we can afford to buy kit
like this and you guys can't? Most of the clubs I know have bought
this equipment cash.

A club which has bought a Skylaunch recently might have about 100
members paying £300 a year each and about £7 a winch launch, plus
around £25 an hour glider hire. An aerotow, btw, costs about £25 to
2,000'. What are US club membership numbers and costs like?

Our fees are similar ($600/year, $30/2000' tow, $20/flight), we have
fewer members (around 60, I believe), but the economics are quite
different. We operate from a public airport, and have to rent a hangar
for the tow plane, along with space for glider tie downs and a club
house. I don't know the exact figure, but I suspect airport rent alone
is as much as $1500/month. We have enough money in the bank to stave
off disaster if the tow plane has a major maintenance issue, but that's
about it. We recently bought a newer glider (Grob Twin III), which
required substantial loans from members to cover it until we manage to
sell off one of our older Twin IIs. Some members would like to get a
DG-1000 or similar, but the club simply can't afford it at the moment.

The tow plane and airport fees eat the majority of the fees collected.
A winch would be a great revenue generator and cut or even eliminate the
need for the tow plane. However, it would require a big pile of money
(for us) up front, intensive training of instructors and members, cause
grumbling from the tow pilot members and those who like to tow miles in
search of better conditions, and we'd be likely be forced to move to a
location farther out from the population centers, resulting in a loss of
membership. While a winch may be a "win-win-win-win" scenario, as a
practical matter it is difficult to implement at many sites in the US.

Marc

The problem with winch launching in the US is the inherent fear of change in
the average person. Most pilots in the US have never experienced a winch
launch, so they only look at the downsides. The potential launch cost
savings aren't significant enough to interest the guys who already own
private ships and have decent incomes. The same guys don't realize how much
fun winching can be, as they've never tried it.

In order to be a safe and successful with winch launching, you need to make
a 100% commitment. You can't run winches and tows in parallel, if people
are going to get and stay proficient in winch launching. In addition, the
only way winches are economically justifiable is if you totally eliminate
the overhead, operating, and maintenance costs associated with a tow plane.

The other problem in the US, is that most glider operations take place at
public airports. The coexistence of winches with power traffic can lead to
real, as well as imaginary issues. With the cost of farmland going thru the
roof, thanks to ethanol and urban sprawl, the feasibility of buying or
leasing land for a winch only strip reasonably close to major metropolitan
areas, where the pilots live, is quite problematic.

To overcome this hurdle, it's going to take a very imaginative marketing
effort, the most important element of which has to be touring the country
giving winch demos to clubs, so people start looking at how much FUN winch
launches are, instead of focusing on the cost savings.

Mike Schumann

P.S. I'm firmly convinced that the most promising market for winch
launching is with commercial operators, who are heavily focused on selling
rides. Not only would their margins increase dramatically, but so would the
ride experience and the marketability of their product.

"Dan G" wrote in message
...
On Dec 27, 8:18 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:

big snip

I wish it was as easy as you think...

What's interesting to me is that you seem to be looking at the same
prices we are. A PW6U is £45,000 over here; a factory built Skylaunch
is ~£60,000. The former has seen a couple of sales and the latter are
being snapped up all over the place. How can we can afford to buy kit
like this and you guys can't? Most of the clubs I know have bought
this equipment cash.

A club which has bought a Skylaunch recently might have about 100
members paying £300 a year each and about £7 a winch launch, plus
around £25 an hour glider hire. An aerotow, btw, costs about £25 to
2,000'. What are US club membership numbers and costs like?


Dan



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hi Mat,
I'm in favor of a Marske or Genesis spar and frame
with
a PETG skin. PETG is the clear plastic that everything
comes packaged in. I can't bend it, scratch it and
can
barely cut it with scissors. The stuff is everywhere,
it
can be recycled, surely it can also fly? It can snap
together AND be ultrasonic welded. Graphlite spars,
PETG bulkheads, ribs and stringers and the strong
shape of the Genesis. It could be done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYDdEjloYJ0

At 00:01 27 December 2007, wrote:
Why did the 1-26 do so well and is STILL doing well.
For crying out
loud, they still have their own contest a billion years
after it was
introduced! I don't understand it but we ought to
really take a hard
look at it.

I'm not saying that we want brand new 1-26s. I sure
don't. Brand new
Cherokee IIs either. Tony and I have more fun per
dollar in our
little wood ships than most out there but we wouldn't
mind a little
more performance, modern materials and safety features,
easier
rigging... But paying $25000 for it? Are you kidding?!

The PW-5 is a fun glider but it costs a fortune to
most people and
looks wrong to most of the rest. I don't think performance
is the
reason it didn't 'take off'

The new people we need in soaring are only going to
desire 40 or 50 to
1 if we teach them that's what they need to have fun,
earn badges,
have great flights, keep up with their friends.

Why cant we design a higher performance homebuilt quick
kit that has
basic components built by existing manufacturing processes
then
quality checked and assembled by individuals,clubs,
or commercial
operations? A modular homebuilt (that satisfies the
51% rule) that
handles well, gets better than 35/1, climbs like a
woodstock, lands
like a PW, and runs like a Discus and costs $10k as
a kit and $15k
finished.

Look at all the creativity and innovation that led
to the Cherokee,
the BG-12, the Duster, Scanlon, Tern, Javalin, Bowlus,
Carbon Dragon,
Woodstock, Monerai, the HPs... Sure most of those
had 'issues' some
were real dogs, some were great. But, they all showed
a creativity
that seems lacking today. Imagine combining the best
aspects of these
classic American homebuilts and applying modern materials,
engineering, and manufacturing to the result.

Somebody is going to do it. Some young genius glider
kid in Aero E at
university with no money thinking outside the box.
This isn't rocket
science. It's evolution. You can either be part of
the new wave or a
dinosaur.

MM

Well Steve, you need to come to the convention and meet with Brad, me,
and some other like minded folks. I completely agree with your first
post about the geezers with money, (sorry guys).

BTW are you THE Steve Davis, Genesis guy from CO?

MM

On Dec 27, 1:56*am, Steve Davis
wrote:
Hi Mat,
I'm in favor of a Marske or Genesis spar and frame
with
a PETG skin. *PETG is the clear plastic that everything
comes packaged in. *I can't bend it, scratch it and
can
barely cut it with scissors. *The stuff is everywhere,
it
can be recycled, surely it can also fly? *It can snap
together AND be ultrasonic welded. *Graphlite spars,
PETG bulkheads, ribs and stringers and the strong
shape of the Genesis. It could be done.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYDdEjloYJ0

At 00:01 27 December 2007, wrote:



Why did the *1-26 do so well and is STILL doing well.
For crying out
loud, they still have their own contest a billion years
after it was
introduced! * I don't understand it but we ought to
really take a hard
look at it.

I'm not saying that we want brand new 1-26s. *I sure
don't. *Brand new
Cherokee IIs either. *Tony and I have more fun per
dollar in our
little wood ships than most out there but we wouldn't
mind a little
more performance, modern materials and safety features,
easier
rigging... *But paying $25000 for it? *Are you kidding?!

The PW-5 is a fun glider but it costs a fortune to
most people and
looks wrong to most of the rest. *I don't think performance
is the
reason it didn't 'take off'

The new people we need in soaring are only going to
desire 40 or 50 to
1 if we teach them that's what they need to have fun,
earn badges,
have great flights, keep up with their friends.

Why cant we design a higher performance homebuilt quick
kit that has
basic components built by existing manufacturing processes
then
quality checked and assembled by individuals,clubs,
or commercial
operations? *A modular homebuilt (that satisfies the
51% rule) that
handles well, gets better than 35/1, climbs like a
woodstock, lands
like a PW, and runs like a Discus and costs $10k as
a kit *and $15k
finished.

Look at all the creativity and innovation that led
to the Cherokee,
the BG-12, the Duster, Scanlon, Tern, Javalin, Bowlus,
Carbon Dragon,
Woodstock, Monerai, the HPs... *Sure most of those
had 'issues' some



were real dogs, some were great. *But, they all showed
a creativity
that seems lacking today. *Imagine combining the best
aspects of these
classic American homebuilts and applying modern materials,
engineering, and manufacturing to the result.

Somebody is going to do it. *Some young genius glider
kid in Aero E at
university with no money thinking outside the box.
This isn't rocket
science. *It's evolution. *You can either be part of
the new wave or a
dinosaur.

MM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Those with long memories, and who followed the 'World
Class' saga from the beginning will recall that an
initial part of the specification included a low production
price. The objective was for an International affordable
class.

IGC delegates who neither supported nor opposed the
concept didn't worry because any competent engineer
knew that you couldn't manufacture a new glider for
the target price, so the concept was a non-starter
anyway.

When that became obvious at a late stage, the price
requirement was quietly dropped and the World Class
had too much momentum to stop; meanwhile the very successful
Club Class had already filled the objectives and we
have a (albeit fun to fly) white elephant.

All somewhat reminiscent of the confusion which resulted
in 2 15 meter classes, and which took nearly 20 years
to get to the 18 meter class we could have had in the
70s.

At 08:48 27 December 2007, Cats wrote:
On Dec 26, 10:54=A0pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
wrote:
Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to
meet the
requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That
concept called for
glider =A0with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't
the glider as much as
the pilots who failed by demanding more performance
and not
understanding the concept. The 'One Design' class
will fail again in
the future regardless of what kind of glider is used
for that specific
purpose. And that is sad.

I agree, and that is why I say that some of us in
the soaring community
need to rethink what we are doing (those of you with
an Antares on
order, carry on 8^).

Most of us can't afford an Antares, but many second-hand
good-
condition, well-equipped 40:1 ships are affordable,
so why spend a lot
more money on a 30:1 ship than on a 40:1 ship?

Maybe the failure was the initial performance specification
from the
FAI. I can't remember if the Junior was a contender
or not, but it
fits a lot of the criteria - L/D, suitable for early
solo, fixed gear
and so on - and having just started flying a 40:1 ship
instead there's
no way I'd consider spending my hard-earned cash on
a new PW5 instead
of a second-hand 40:1 Club Class ship.

Is it a failure of mine to want to be able to progress
into wind? Or
to want a glider where serious XC (not that I'm capable
of that yet!)
can be done in a wider range of conditions, not just
on the 'day of
the year' which just about *always* is a working day?

At 13:06 27 December 2007, Dan G wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:01=A0am, Steve Davis
wrote:
At 21:49 26 December 2007, Brad wrote:
Soaring
in America needs
high altitude high capacity winch launch locations,

I've always wondered why no-one in the US has imported
a Skylaunch kit
sans engine and fitted it with a locally-sourced engine
and
transmission. That would give you a powerful, controllable
winch with
a reasonable outlay.

Dan


It has always puzzled me why someone in the US hasn't
already approached Mike Grove at Skylaunch with a view
to building Skylaunches under licence instead of trying
to re-invent the winches that Skylaunch has eclipsed.
That way you would have a thoroughly proven system,
be able to source GM marine V8s and transmission units
locally, and not have to transport heavy mechanical
assemblies across the Atlantic at all.

John Galloway

"John Galloway" wrote in message
...
At 13:06 27 December 2007, Dan G wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:01=A0am, Steve Davis
wrote:
At 21:49 26 December 2007, Brad wrote:
Soaring
in America needs
high altitude high capacity winch launch locations,

I've always wondered why no-one in the US has imported
a Skylaunch kit
sans engine and fitted it with a locally-sourced engine
and
transmission. That would give you a powerful, controllable
winch with
a reasonable outlay.

Dan


It has always puzzled me why someone in the US hasn't
already approached Mike Grove at Skylaunch with a view
to building Skylaunches under licence instead of trying
to re-invent the winches that Skylaunch has eclipsed.
That way you would have a thoroughly proven system,
be able to source GM marine V8s and transmission units
locally, and not have to transport heavy mechanical
assemblies across the Atlantic at all.

John Galloway



Let me predict that in the near future, one and perhaps two US based
manufacturers will be offering a FAR better winch design than the Skylaunch
at a similar price. Hang tight.

Bill Daniels