LS-4 ? What about 1-26 ?

As many posts have pointed out the problem of dwindling numbers in soaring
is more complex than simply the cost of gliders ... however the cost of
gliders is a big factor. Lets not confuse current debate by bringing in
other issues. These issues (some of which I list below should be debated
separately).

Other issues a
* Tow costs (this needs to be addressed by lighter smaller gliders than can
be towed by ultralight or smaller more compact winches).
* Access to two seat training and instructors (no point is producing new low
cost sailplanes if there is no affordable two seat trainers).
* Most pilots who enter the sport with a desire to fly competition quickly
realise that this is the domain of the wealthy and quickly decide that they
cannot affort this elitist sport (we need an affordable and active one
design class).
* Lack of young people (aging glider pilot population - currently not the
sort of scene that young people want to hang around - hang gliding and
skydiving are better alternatives for young people. Young people consider
glider clubs to be something akin to a retirement home).
* External financial pressures means that people have less to spend on
gliding (rising cost of housing, social pressures to live a more extravigant
lifestyle).
* The entry cost of our sport is too high (I am continually frustrated by
the comments of the small group of people who fly Discus' and LS-7's etc
that state that the cost is the cost - goddam it - the people we should be
attracting to the sport are the young. The 20-50 year olds. Those with
families and mortgages - how the hell are they supposed to afford a
$100,000+ glider. They will however be those who can affort these gliders in
later years. Gliding is a good family sport but the elitist attitude of a
minority is cutting of the supply of new members at the grass roots level).
* The current club environment is probably no longer a valid model for the
basis of our sport - we are now competing with many other sports that have
developed far more efficient models (in cost and time) and have promoted
themselves in a much more sophisticated manner. Take a close look at the
parachute industry ... they run large skydive centres near major cities,
they have a commercial basis, they attract the young by the hundreds, equal
mix of females and males which is important to the young. You go, you pay,
you do, you socialise a little and then go home. No hassle, a good time had
by all. Gliding has too many hassles.


Minestones in Glider Design:

The point I was trying to make in several earlier posts is that it is time
for a new designer to emerge with ideas that will take gliding in a new
direction. The current gliders designs have matured to an almost uniform
degree of conformity. Think back through history and the names of several
designers loom large that have shaped modern soaring:

Rudolf Kaiser (KA-6/7 and AS-K series)
Karel Dlouhy (Blanik)
Eugen Hanle (Libelle)
Gerhard Waible (AS-W series)
Klaus Holligaus (Cirrus, Nimbus, Janus, Discuss)
and there are others ....

Think how the creations of each of these designers changed the course of
gliding. Most of these designers created gliders that set new levels in
glider performance. We have reached a point now where we can no longer
afford more performance. We need creative ideas to reduce cost. We need a
new bunch of designers to tackle this issue. This problem is not unique to
gliders ... take jet fighters for instance. Exactly the same issue exists.
There comes a point where you have to balance cost and performance.


Costs of Labour:

Hang gliders and Paragliders are increasingly being made in China. To keep
the cost of labour down. There was a recent article in the 'Oz Report' (the
daily HG email newletter) that stated that there is one factory in China
that makes 7000 sails a year. It has to happen ... how long before we will
have a Chinese Discus or Apis. The cost of labour is the biggest hurdle that
manufacturers have to deal with (say 400 hrs x $50 = $20000). Either reduce
the number of hours by automation or reduce the labour rate. Glider
manufacturers need to be looking to China or Mexico etc. Of course this is
only a temporary fix to the problem. As living standards rise in these
courties so will the cost of labour. So ultimately out challenge is to
automate production for the long term.


Old Cheap Gliders:

This is not going to fix the problem.
* The supply is limited.
* Styling out of date (you may laugh but styling is important - perhaps why
the PW-5 was not as big a hit as it should have been).
* They require a lot more maintenance because of the age and construction
techniques.
* The are heavier to tow and rig than a AC-4 or Apis.
* If people are spending 15K+ then they want something new.
* They simply don't have the performance of an Apis or AC-4.


Performance:

I think arguements such as this are always hijacked by those who fly
competitively in high performance gliders. They could not see themselves in
a PW-5 or AC-4. This is one of our fundamental problems - no one is speaking
for the members we are yet to attract . For most beginner to intermediate
pilots the AC-4 or PW-5 are great little gliders that they can do a lot
with, learn heaps in and probably the only glider that they will really ever
need - especially if there was sufficient volume of these gliders to have an
active competition scene.


Certification and Light Plane Category:

We need a worldwide uniform standard for the new crop of gliders. JAR-22 was
previously almost universal but times have changed. The future will be in
the light sport / ultralight area. The current crop of ultralight sailplanes
are for the most part on shakey ground certification wise. Most of them are
somehow made legal in the ultralight categories of various countries. This
needs to be fixed and fixed urgently so that those making these machines
have some increased certainty. Light Sport aircraft are the future in the US
but there is no design standard. We need an ASTM subcommittee to start
looking at an ASTM glider standard - we already have standards for Light
Sport Aircraft (Powered) and Powered Parachutes etc. We also need handbooks
and guidance material on how to certificate gliders in a cost efficient
manner ... probably a task for OSTIV ????

In article , "smjmitchell"
writes:

There is ample evidence in the hang glider world and indeed in other leisure
sport products that the volume would increase dramatically if the price
could be reduced.

I haven't been active in hang gliding in several years so I must have missed
the dramatic increase in activity after the price reduction. All I've heard
about is the reduction in hang gliding worldwide. That even counting
paragliding as part on hang gliding.
The Apis (kit) is 166% the cost of an Atos VX (rigid wind hang glider). $12K vs
$20K.
I don't think it's the rise in cost, it's the change in society.

Steve

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:06:04 +1100, "smjmitchell"
wrote:

As many posts have pointed out the problem of dwindling numbers in soaring
is more complex than simply the cost of gliders ... however the cost of
gliders is a big factor. Lets not confuse current debate by bringing in
other issues. These issues (some of which I list below should be debated
separately).

There are many reasons that new gliders will NOT be made in the US,
and most of them are out of the control of the people that would like
to see them.

First, cost. Can it be made cheaply with a high profit? No.

Can it be made to a low quality standard and still be serviceable?
Again, no.

Any company head that has been "trained" in the last thirty years is
going to have foremost on his mind, "can we outsource." This is going
to have a chilling effect on those that can afford it, but are
dependent on maintaining a means of support when it comes time to open
the wallet.

It requires a reasonable sustained effort to learn, "reasonable
sustained effort" is now something that our "institutions of higher
learning" teach is to be avoided. Fast and cheap is the only way now.

IOW, there has been a basic change of attitudes in the US, from "Can
do", to "It's impossible." From, "It's old, but it was well built,
let's rebuild it" to "It's cheap, throw it away and buy a new one."
And the downhill spiral begins as one manufacturer after another tries
to "outcheap" the next, to maintain, "market share."

It used to be that someone entering the workforce had a reasonable
expectation of having a job, a means of income for the rest of his/her
working life. The only question today is how many jobs you will have
in your lifetime, there is no such thing as a job you can depend on,
thing of the past. Restore some stability in peoples daily lives, and
you might find a market, and a few more that will attempt flying, but
until there's stability again, it won't happen. As with one person I
know, lost the job with a major communications company, said screw it,
retired. Enough money to live on, but don't look there for one to
start flying.

And yes, the Chinese can probably make things cheaper, due to the lack
of good paying jobs there. The problem is that when they've cut YOUR
income, through competition, to THEIR level, a used and abused 1-26 is
still going to be out of your reach.

It isn't just a soaring problem, it's a global problem. That nobody
seems to want to look at. I don't see it improving during my
lifetime.

Brad,
It's starting to sound a bit like an HP-24, only smaller.
Cheers!


"Brad" wrote in message
om...
Finally you don't need to point out that the above is somewhat
idealistic. I
am very aware of this but unless we look to the future, challenge
ourselves
to do better and make significant progress in the direction of costs
and
affordability we will not have a viable sport. Someone has to start to
do
the dreaming if we are going to have any hope of solving the problem.
Anyone
share that vision ?

Well, since I seem to dwell a lot in the idealistic sense when it
comes to glider design/building I'll chime in.

My vision of my idealistic glider would be a self-launcher. It would
be something between a TST-10 and an Apis 15m.

The engine installation would be an engine on a stick, I would look
into using the extension/retraction system the Russia AC-5M uses,
electric start would be good.......since this engine already exists
with the MZ-35, I would probably choose this engine.....although it
seems 2-stroke technology is booming these days....just look at the
power plants being developed for the powered parachutes........the
Cors-Air Black devil would even work for what I have in mind. Probably
there are even more out there that I am unaware of, and I have done
lot's of homework on this subject.

The mission statement for this sailplane would not be for racing, it
would be tailored towards recreational flying.

It would look sexy; D2 type planform with a modified D2/V2 type
fuselage shape.....because I think these are archetypes of modern
sailplane design......here is where I end my similarities.........I do
not need a racer, or a heavy ship, or a ship with all the modern
accoutrements......these are the refinements that make a glider so
expensive. I believe the R & D that goes into these ships is cutting
edge: airfoils, boundry layer devices, tooling......this all adds up,
as it should, and pilots who buy and fly these masterpieces have every
right to be proud and have high expectations for performance and
quality.

Now.....back to my dream machine. This ship would be built using wet
layup technolgy, it would use a lot of carbon, the wings would be
sandwich construction and the fuselage would be carbon with ring
bulkheads and stringers. It is somewhat true that the cockpits of
these "lightweights" are sparse, but I believe with proper use of
Kevlar and a combination of integral seat and cockpit longerons a safe
and lightweight fuselage could be made.

I would strive to make the parts count as small as possible to
minimize the cost in time and $$. A set of molds could be made if
there was interest in such an idea, to facilitate making multiple
bits, but there are other tried and true manufacturing methods a guy
could use to make it a one-off and not incur the expense of hard
tooling......the trade off is hours of labor to fair the outer
surfaces to your level of quality.

I really believe that an elegant, nice performing ship is possible to
manufacture and with diligence could be done and sold for a price a
lot of us would find appealing.

Well, that's my dream of a west-side sailplane.

Cheers,
Brad
199Ak

smjmitchell wrote:

snip


Think how the creations of each of these designers changed the course of
gliding. Most of these designers created gliders that set new levels in
glider performance. We have reached a point now where we can no longer
afford more performance. We need creative ideas to reduce cost. We need a
new bunch of designers to tackle this issue. snip

Mitchell makes some good points, and I agree with them in general, but I
think the focus for cheaper gliders should be on the gliders clubs and
commercial operations will buy. If cheap, good gliders are going to
increase the number of pilots, we need these gliders where these new
pilots will see them and use them.

For example, if a brand new PW5 or similar was only $10,000, that would
make it almost irresistible to a lot of clubs. The members would have a
good transition to cross-country flying from the two seat trainers;
bigger clubs could afford more than one; and many new pilots would
become private owners of this glider.

Eventually, as the number of pilots increased, so would the demand for
higher performance to where a high volume, lower cost LS4 equivalent
could be practical to manufacture. My belief is we have to ensure the
demand first, then build that cheap LS4.

I realize a $10,000 PW5 equivalent is a dream, when even the low tech
trailer for it will cost $5000, but I hope you see the point that lower
cost high performance gliders at the high end won't do as much for
soaring as a low cost medium performance glider. The high end glider
only appeals to those already committed to the sport.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
smjmitchell wrote:

snip


Think how the creations of each of these designers changed the course of
gliding. Most of these designers created gliders that set new levels in
glider performance. We have reached a point now where we can no longer
afford more performance. We need creative ideas to reduce cost. We need
a
new bunch of designers to tackle this issue. snip

Mitchell makes some good points, and I agree with them in general, but I
think the focus for cheaper gliders should be on the gliders clubs and
commercial operations will buy. If cheap, good gliders are going to
increase the number of pilots, we need these gliders where these new
pilots will see them and use them.

For example, if a brand new PW5 or similar was only $10,000, that would
make it almost irresistible to a lot of clubs. The members would have a
good transition to cross-country flying from the two seat trainers;
bigger clubs could afford more than one; and many new pilots would
become private owners of this glider.

Eventually, as the number of pilots increased, so would the demand for
higher performance to where a high volume, lower cost LS4 equivalent
could be practical to manufacture. My belief is we have to ensure the
demand first, then build that cheap LS4.

I realize a $10,000 PW5 equivalent is a dream, when even the low tech
trailer for it will cost $5000, but I hope you see the point that lower
cost high performance gliders at the high end won't do as much for
soaring as a low cost medium performance glider. The high end glider
only appeals to those already committed to the sport.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA


Finding a way to produce a 'cheap' LS4 isn't going to be the result of
re-shuffling the compromises that produced the LS4 in the first place.
Composite gliders are made the way they are because hand labor can produce a
high performance product in low quantities. There's not a lot a room for
improvement in that process. (Finding cheap labor will be a short term
solution since once they can produce a quality product, they won't be cheap
anymore.)

What's needed is a breakthrough in materials and processes. I don't know
what that is or if it's even possible but if we are to succeed, it will
require thinking WAY "outside the box".

A modern glider is a very large assembly of light, strong, highly accurate
parts. How do we do that cheaply? Solve that riddle and you will be a
legend.

Bill Daniels

Eric Greenwell wrote:

And yet they are very cheap, which is why I suggest there aren't enough
pilots interested in gliding. If hang glider pilots were falling all
over each other to move into low cost gliders with substantially better
performance than their hang gliders, we'd see higher prices. I don't
think it is the glider _supply_ that is lacking, it is the _demand_ for
gliders that is missing.

YES YES YES! How about a picture of Mike Melville next to space ship
one on the cover of Soaring? Then how about somebody giving him a
brand new glider in exchange for a few publicity photos?

Maybe a self-launcher

Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Bill Daniels wrote:
"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...

smjmitchell wrote:

snip


Think how the creations of each of these designers changed the course of
gliding. Most of these designers created gliders that set new levels in
glider performance. We have reached a point now where we can no longer
afford more performance. We need creative ideas to reduce cost. We need

a

new bunch of designers to tackle this issue. snip

Mitchell makes some good points, and I agree with them in general, but I
think the focus for cheaper gliders should be on the gliders clubs and
commercial operations will buy. If cheap, good gliders are going to
increase the number of pilots, we need these gliders where these new
pilots will see them and use them.

For example, if a brand new PW5 or similar was only $10,000, that would
make it almost irresistible to a lot of clubs. The members would have a
good transition to cross-country flying from the two seat trainers;
bigger clubs could afford more than one; and many new pilots would
become private owners of this glider.

Eventually, as the number of pilots increased, so would the demand for
higher performance to where a high volume, lower cost LS4 equivalent
could be practical to manufacture. My belief is we have to ensure the
demand first, then build that cheap LS4.

I realize a $10,000 PW5 equivalent is a dream, when even the low tech
trailer for it will cost $5000, but I hope you see the point that lower
cost high performance gliders at the high end won't do as much for
soaring as a low cost medium performance glider. The high end glider
only appeals to those already committed to the sport.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA



Finding a way to produce a 'cheap' LS4 isn't going to be the result of
re-shuffling the compromises that produced the LS4 in the first place.
Composite gliders are made the way they are because hand labor can produce a
high performance product in low quantities. There's not a lot a room for
improvement in that process. (Finding cheap labor will be a short term
solution since once they can produce a quality product, they won't be cheap
anymore.)

What's needed is a breakthrough in materials and processes. I don't know
what that is or if it's even possible but if we are to succeed, it will
require thinking WAY "outside the box".

A modern glider is a very large assembly of light, strong, highly accurate
parts. How do we do that cheaply? Solve that riddle and you will be a
legend.

Bill Daniels


Injection molding the surface. Build a light strong substructure, place
it in the mold, squirt in the surface material. The structural parts
would have to have some way for the surface to bond to it. Various
possibilities exist. Wait for the epoxy to cure, pop it in an oven for
a while-whatever. Remove nearly finished product.
The surface would have to be fairly thin to avoid weighing a ton, but
their are lots of very strong, light plastics and moldable composites
out there.
A big advantage I can see is that the structure doesn't have to have the
ultra-smooth surface required for laminar flow. The aerodynamic surface
isn't load bearing. Both can be optimized for their purpose.
Surface repairs wouldn't be structural. Perhaps you could ship a wing
back to the factory and have a new surface reapplied. Who knows.
The surface material could be optimized to avoid cracks and
deterioration due to UV, thus eliminating the need for complete
refinishing. Colors anyone? :-)
The surface material would have to have similar expansion and
contraction properties to the structure.
The surface could be heavy. On the other side the structure could
probably be made ridiculously light. Don't really know though
Just a thought.
Flame away!

Shawn

Bruce Hoult wrote:

Perhaps the hang glider pilots simply don't *know* about these cheap
gliders? Or perhaps they value being able to climb an arbitrary peak
and jump off too much? In which case they're not going to be happy with
less than a self-launching glider.

I think they *know* about these cheap gliders. They also *know* about the
FAA, and $4k cost of training, sales tax, and paying taxes on the thing
every year, and stupid TSA crap that can then possibly rob them of it all.

I'd bet the FAA really isn't interested at all in gliders either,
and we'd have a BGA type setup if we used mostly winches instead of
commonly aerotowing with FAA Numbered aircraft, in the USA.



Personally, I think a new PW-5 or similar for $15k is a pretty damn good
thing. It seems that others don't think so. I'm wierd I guess.

How about that "$11k when bought with a PW-6 deal?" My God, if
anyone wanted to sell me their $11k brand new PW-5 that just "came along"
with the PW-6, I'd pinch myself...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Earlier, "Pete Reinhart" wrote:

Brad,
It's starting to sound a bit like an HP-24, only smaller.

Funny about that...

Seriously, I do have a 13m ship on the drawing board, and I'm holding
a project number for it. It will use a lot of the shapes and internal
parts I've already developed for the HP-24. But it'll stay a paper
airplane until either a) I get at least one or two -24s in the air or
b) the prospective 13m market shows signs of heating up.

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com