LS-4 ? What about 1-26 ?

smjmitchell wrote:

What I think we need is a new way of building gliders.

I suspect we may be going at this backwards, and what we need is a
better way to increase the number of glider pilots. This will increase
the demand for gliders, allowing more manufacturers to produce gliders
in greater volume, and lower costs.

snip


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. Imagine if you could sell a certified APIS for 150% of a
current list price of a competition standard hang glider what that would do
to the volume of glider sales.

There are already gliders available to the hang glider pilots with much
superior performance to a competition hang glider for _same_ price as
competition hang glider. Take a look at the used gliders available: the
Ka-6 and even the 1-26 can meet your target.

There is much more to the issue than cost and performance. The barriers
to entering the sport are not the cost of a new glider, or the hang
glider pilots would be snapping up all these aircraft. Even a PW5 seems
like an exotic starship to a hang glider pilot that gets 15:1, and it is
cheaper to own and fly than a competition hang glider (former hang
glider pilots, now sailplane pilots, tell me this true).

Waiting in a queue for a club glider would be
a thing of the past - you would simply buy your own - the increase in volume
would come from within the existing gliding fraterity, not to mention the
more people the sport would attract and retain through greater
affordability. I don't know exactly how many hang gliders are sold annually
but recent articles I have read indicate that it is thousands a year. Anyone
got any hard data ????? How many gliders do Schempp Hirth, DG, et al sell a
year ... anyone got some data ?????

Without a growing sport, any sales increase we make within the present
community will be short-lived, because after a few years, everyone that
wants a glider will have one, and the volume will drop off. These things
aren't like cars - they last for a long, long time, and have to crashed
badly to remove them from the fleet.

Having lower cost gliders will help the sport, of course, but I think it
the effect is being overestimated. When someone decides to start flying
lessons, it is not because they see a new LS4 can be bought for $30,000
instead of $40,000.

To sustain the large volume of production that we speculate may be
needed to lower costs means we have to have many more people becoming
serious sailplane pilots (serious enough to buy a glider) every year,
year after year, to build the market for all those gliders.

Frankly, we already have cheap gliders via the used market and the
medium performance gliders. What we don't have is cheap, new, high
performance gliders so lusted for by the RAS pilots, but these are not
the gliders that will bring in new pilots.


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 ?

If I am right, that the viability of the sport does not depend on cheap,
new, high performance gliders, perhaps this is a good thing: it might be
more difficult to solve that high-volume production problem than the one
of getting more people into the sport and retaining them by improving
access to the sport by other means.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"smjmitchell" wrote in message
u...
What I think we need is a new way of building gliders.
snip
Assuming a composite glider, what I have in mind is tape laying machines,
filament winding, RTM methods etc. All other areas of the composites
industry are moving this way - I am sure sailplanes will eventually. There
are also other innovative ways to build sailplanes if we are really
willing
to think outside the square. Also CNC machines for all metal parts etc.
Also
the design is important we need more efficient design processes and tools
and more effort needs to be invested to reduce parts count. Perhaps there
is
a better way to build a composite airframe than the standard foam sandwich
approach. We will not know unless we challenge ourselves to do it.

A significant part of Burt Rutan's Boomerang was built using filament
winding process. Pre-preg composites are promising and reduce layup time.
However, there may be real problems repairing damage to such components. So
frontend gains may lead to larger backend costs. I would expect some impact
on insurance rates as a result. It may be possible to make the advantages
outweigh the disadvantages.

Frank Whiteley

Ok, I'm going to weigh in here!

I am a relatively new glider pilot but I have flown power, hang
gliders. I have also been a skydiver. I am now living in Germany and
as I have a glider club 10 minutes from the house, last year I decided
to get my soaring license. I could have used my power ticket o get a
license here in a short time but that (I feel) would have been a
mistake. The differences in the 2 sports go beyond landing,
navigation, and airspace knowledge.

I am also a sailor and have built sailboats commercially. The biggest
gains in efficiency in sailboat production came about from modular
construction. This is being used in the sailplane building process to
some extent.

But!!! The next biggest gain would be in using 2 part molds for the
wings and fuselage. What this means is there is a mold with 2 parts
for the upper wing and 2 parts for the lower wing. This means the wing
skins would have 4 molds (port and starboard). The fuse would have 4
molds (2 port and 2 starboard). This would decrease the amount of
labor involved in each part.

The upper wing mold would include the spar cavity, you would lay the
spar into the inside upper wing mold spar cavity before laying the
wing skin. Using precut/prepreg E glass with Divincell (or other
appropriate) cellular core, you would lay the skin and spray gel coat
on the upper (outer) mold and compress the 2 molds. Using vacuum and
heat to assure proper resin consistency will mitigate voids and
delamination problems.

When the upper wing skin is cured it would be mated with the lower
wing skin (both still in there outer molds) and bonded. The airbrake
module would slide into the laser cut bay in the upper wing with
Kevlar rigging wires (not pushrods). The aileron and the aileron
controls (also Kevlar wire) would be installed.

The fuse would follow the same procedure.

Now, we must build 2-300 of these planes just to break even on the
tooling (not development) so we have to agree on one design,
preferably one already in existence. If we could sell 4-500 units in a
2-3 year time frame then we could (possibly) have a viable business
model.

Sound like an LS4 clone to me!

Bob

(The proceeding is a very opinionated and un-researched scenario)

In article k1qld.501341$mD.200090@attbi_s02,
"Bill Daniels" wrote:

The choice is a shrinking sport, a stagnant one or a growing one. I think
the happiest choice is a growing one. Cheaper gliders are a part of the
solution.

I agree.

And you can't grow the sport by everyone buying used LS4s and Discii.
Only newly-built gliders can do it.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:

There are already gliders available to the hang glider pilots with much
superior performance to a competition hang glider for _same_ price as
competition hang glider. Take a look at the used gliders available: the
Ka-6 and even the 1-26 can meet your target.

I don't know why people keep saying things like this. You can *not*
significantly grow gliding by people buying Ka-6's or 1-26's. They
aren't *MAKING* them any more, there is a only a very limited number
around, and if you made new ones they'd cost as much or more as a PW-5
(whcih is better than either of them, albiet marginally in the case of
the K6) anyway.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:


There are already gliders available to the hang glider pilots with much
superior performance to a competition hang glider for _same_ price as
competition hang glider. Take a look at the used gliders available: the
Ka-6 and even the 1-26 can meet your target.


I don't know why people keep saying things like this. You can *not*
significantly grow gliding by people buying Ka-6's or 1-26's. They
aren't *MAKING* them any more, there is a only a very limited number
around,

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.

and if you made new ones they'd cost as much or more as a PW-5
(whcih is better than either of them, albiet marginally in the case of
the K6) anyway.

I agree. But do you think there would be more people starting gliding
lessons if they could buy a new LS4 for $40,000 US instead of $50,000?
Or even it it was only $30,000? I don't think there would be any more
starting pilots, though we would probably keep a few more. It will take
a lot more than that to get the LS4 volume up to where the $30,000 price
is possible.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:

I don't know why people keep saying things like this. You can *not*
significantly grow gliding by people buying Ka-6's or 1-26's. They
aren't *MAKING* them any more, there is a only a very limited number
around,

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, that's a good point.

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.


and if you made new ones they'd cost as much or more as a PW-5
(whcih is better than either of them, albiet marginally in the case of
the K6) anyway.

I agree. But do you think there would be more people starting gliding
lessons if they could buy a new LS4 for $40,000 US instead of $50,000?
Or even it it was only $30,000? I don't think there would be any more
starting pilots, though we would probably keep a few more. It will take
a lot more than that to get the LS4 volume up to where the $30,000 price
is possible.

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.

I fly a Janus (and have flown DG1000 and Duo) and they're nice, but for
flying cross country I actually *prefer* a PW-5 (and I was flying one
yesterday). Sure, you can't go as far or as fast but you can still
challenge youself and there are plenty of days when the PW-5 can stay up
but the Janus can't (yes I know the reverse is true in some
places/conditions).

OTOH I've never flown a single-seater with more performance than a
Libelle (about 65 hours in Libelles, Std and Club), so I probably don't
have a clue what a *real* glider flies like anyway. Is an LS-4 *that*
much better than a Libelle?

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

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

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:03:17 +1300, Bruce Hoult
wrote:

Sure, you can't go as far or as fast but you can still
challenge youself and there are plenty of days when the PW-5 can stay up
but the Janus can't (yes I know the reverse is true in some
places/conditions).

Here in Germany the same story is told about the Ka-6/Ka-8 and glass
gliders - it's the legend of the weather that allows the lighter
gliders with inferior L/D to stay airborne while the "heavy" gliders
with good L/D need to land.

Unfortunately I never had the pleasure to meet anyone who saw this
happen.


Is an LS-4 *that*
much better than a Libelle?

Yes.
"That much" is a question of taste of course. Flying an LS-4 or DG-300
in a team with a Libelle means that you have to pull the flaps after
each 3rd thermal and get rid of 500 ft if you want to stay together
with him. To me this is a vast difference.







Bye
Andreas

Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:


I don't know why people keep saying things like this. You can *not*
significantly grow gliding by people buying Ka-6's or 1-26's. They
aren't *MAKING* them any more, there is a only a very limited number
around,

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, that's a good point.

Perhaps the hang glider pilots simply don't *know* about these cheap
gliders?

I think this is a big part of it. They generally aren't where the
sailplane crowd is, and vice versa.

Or perhaps they value being able to climb an arbitrary peak
and jump off too much?

This is also part of it. The lack of regulation (licenses, biennial
reviews, and so on) is appealing to everyone, but perhaps more so the
younger crowd.

THe former hang glider pilots (and now sailplane pilots) I've talked to
indicated that as they got older, they began to notice the advantages of
sailplanes:

* much less physical effort and pain to fly
* every cross-country flight doesn't end in a retrieve
* the glider doesn't wear out and lose half it's value in a 3-4 years
* you don't beat up your car/truck driving over miles and hours of
crummy logging roads to get to the launch site (the drive to the airport
is easy, comparatively, even if it's farther away)
* said site is often without the right wind or thermals when you get there
* you don't have so many friends that seem to have a death wish
* and the wife is estactic that they leave late in the morning and
actually get home before dinner!

In which case they're not going to be happy with
less than a self-launching glider.

They can be very happy, because of the advantages listed above. All of
these pilots are still working, so weekend flying is fine with them,
andbecause soaring is more likely in a sailplane than a hang glider on a
any given day.

snip

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.

Definitely a 3 sigma on RAS!


OTOH I've never flown a single-seater with more performance than a
Libelle (about 65 hours in Libelles, Std and Club), so I probably don't
have a clue what a *real* glider flies like anyway. Is an LS-4 *that*
much better than a Libelle?

I doubt it, based on the gliders I've flown. A nicer glider all around,
but the flights won't be much better.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA