LS10 info

wrote:
And now (at the competitive level) you need at least one IGC-approved
flight recorder (read: low volume, high price).

No, you do not need an IGC-approved flight recorder to compete in most
countries. In the US, you only need one if you want US Team points, a
$100 Garmin handheld is fine, otherwise.

3. Joint ownership: at least in the U.S., I believe there is far more
reluctance to own a competition glider with one or more partners. The
first Libelle 301 I ever saw was owned by three pilots in the midwest
(including one Wil Schuemann). Many guys had partners, the lucky ones
having found someone with absolutely no interest in contest flying. The
easiest way to cut the cost of a glider in half then and now is sharing
the cost. But it seems that a lot more of us (myself included, I'll
admit) are so stressed for time and uncertain about our schedules that
we choose to go it alone (because of my work, I typically "lock in" on
a contest for sure the week before, including the nationals).

Having jointly owned a number of gliders, I have to say that the savings
are not quite as much as they might seem. The single biggest
non-capital cost for most of us is insurance, and insuring a glider for
two costs 1.6 to 1.7 times insuring it for one. Maintenance costs are
also higher, since it gets flown more. The primary advantage, to me, of
joint ownership is the reduction in the amount of hard cash I have
invested in a toy.

I'm also curious as to the relative price of used gliders vs. personal
income. My family was always able to sell one glider for more than we
paid to help finance the next one, whether we were selling a glider we
bought new or used. Unlike what is still true for real estate, that
seems extremely unlikely to happen this time (if I am ever able to
afford/justify a new glider). Much of it is due to currency swings, I
think. But has anyone done any calculations to see how the prices of,
say, five- or ten- or twenty-year-old gliders have behaved vis-a-vis
inflation and/or personal income?

Any such calculation has too many fluctuating variables to be useful. I
suspect that as long as one has a perceived completive German made
glider in hand, it is possible to flip it for the latest and greatest
every five years or so at a relatively small (10%?) incremental cost.
If you have anything else, you are subject to the whims of the
marketplace...

Marc

In fact, if you take a look at the inflation, gliders have become
cheaper, or equally priced compared to 1980.

You must be kidding, i think. I remember a time when a glider was
worth one third or one fourth the price of a house, now it is close
to the price of a house.....

Not where I live (Boston Massachusetts area). The "fixer-upper" 4 houses
from me sold for US$370K 6 months ago. The house I bought for US60K in
'79 has been appraised at approx $450K. My salary in that same time
frame has increased by a factor of 8 (same industry). From where I
stand, J.N. has it about right.

Tony V.
hppt://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

In article .com,
wrote:

Bob,

Interesting comparison, but you will have a real hard time convincing
me my nice old LS6 is a "kit" just because I rig it every time I fly
it. Using that definition, everything that has any maintenance done on
it is a "kit". From my perspective, I see a lot of difference between
rigging my wings and building them!

But an "A" for originality and effort, nevertheless!

And I know there are a lot of people out there who will jump in and
build a kit - especially one that sounds as complete and well
engineered as the hp-24. But those people also take a lot of pride in
building something with their own hands. And I have no problem with
kit furniture. But no way can I see myself building a kit glider. As
another poster has beautifully pointed out - I just don't have the time
anymore - too many other things to do when I'm not flying!

Cheers,

Kirk


Every d**ned airplane I've ever owned has been a "kit" (even if if was
factory built and represented as "ready to fly").

No, you do not need an IGC-approved flight recorder to compete in most
countries. In the US, you only need one if you want US Team points, a
$100 Garmin handheld is fine, otherwise.

True. You don't "need" a flight computer either, but it helps.
Practically speaking, it's also helpful to have a device that records
pressure altitude in a form acceptable to the rules. In the U.S., that
usually means an IGC-approved flight recorder. I used a Garmin handheld
as a backup this year and it downloads traces that overlay those from
my Cambridge GPS-NAV almost perfectly. But the altitudes recorded are
often enough different that I'd have occasionally busted the start
cylinder ceiling if flying the altimeter or given up several hundred
feet at the start if flying the Garmin. We can argue all day/all
night/all day/all night about whether we should switch over to GPS
altitude but until the rules makers agree, GPS receivers that have
pressure sensors (that don't recalibrate themselves automatically based
on GPS altitude) are highly useful. And they are an expense that
compares unfavorably to the Kodak Instamatic cameras I used for a long
time.

Having jointly owned a number of gliders, I have to say that the savings
are not quite as much as they might seem. The single biggest
non-capital cost for most of us is insurance, and insuring a glider for
two costs 1.6 to 1.7 times insuring it for one. Maintenance costs are
also higher, since it gets flown more. The primary advantage, to me, of
joint ownership is the reduction in the amount of hard cash I have
invested in a toy.

I agree, based on my own experiences with joint ownership, although
until the premium for insuring two named pilots passes 100%, it's still
cheaper to share the cost. Hangar/tiedown/storage costs, annuals,
registration fees, etc., get split 50:50. I personally haven't noticed
that my maintenance costs vary much with hours flown, but I supposed
there are some items, such as trailer tires, for which it could be
true. Even for tires, batteries, and the big one--gel coat--though, age
seems a more typical criterion than hours flown.

Regardless, operating costs are probably not what prevents people from
buying a glider. It's ponying up $70,000 to $100,000, as you say,
that's the biggest hurdle. And joint ownership is a very effective way
of chopping that down to a smaller size.

But has anyone done any calculations to see how the prices of,
say, five- or ten- or twenty-year-old gliders have behaved vis-a-vis
inflation and/or personal income?

Any such calculation has too many fluctuating variables to be useful. I
suspect that as long as one has a perceived completive German made
glider in hand, it is possible to flip it for the latest and greatest
every five years or so at a relatively small (10%?) incremental cost.
If you have anything else, you are subject to the whims of the
marketplace...

Actually, I see very few pilots, even at the top, "flipping" gliders
every five years. The switching costs alone are pretty imposing
(freight, duty, insurance, and the time/expense to install new
instruments). And I think someone with an analytical bent could draw
some interesting conclusions from a study of used glider prices over
the years, perhaps comparing prices of previous generation sailplanes
of a certain age against new prices of the succeeding generation.
Multiple regression analysis has the ability to prove almost anything
if you add enough factors to a few data points but those with more
brainpower and time than I possess could doubtless tell us whether or
not gliders are still the great investment that my dad convinced my
mother they were back in the 1960s.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

Michel Talon wrote:

J. N. wrote:
I don`t think you`re right.

In fact, if you take a look at the inflation, gliders have become
cheaper, or equally priced compared to 1980.


You must be kidding, i think. I remember a time when a glider was
worth one third or one fourth the price of a house, now it is close
to the price of a house, hence a very unreasonable buy. You are saying
there are less buyers, there is a very good explanation to that.


Funny, I recall the first time I flew a Kestrel 19 (around 1973 or '74), the
thought went through my mind that you could buy a house (albeit a
back-to-back terrace in an unfashionable part of Northern England) for what
the club paid for it. (Incidentally I now own one outright. Value is less
than a new family car).

The same house now (admittedly modernised a bit) will cost around 60% more
than the price of a new ASH-25, but in relation to salaries in the UK the
price of a new glider, from a Skylark 4 in 1962 through to a Ventus 2 today
hasn't changed that much.

This discussion comes up here from time to time, and is always confused
because it's international, and everyone's economy and currency develops at
different rates. Those who insist the game is getting more expensive
always quote two reasons:

1. Lower "real" incomes

2. Higher labour costs.

Think about it.



--
Real name is richard

Richard Brisbourne wrote:
Those who insist the game is getting more expensive
always quote two reasons:

1. Lower "real" incomes

2. Higher labour costs.

Think about it.


Very insightful. I would add the fact that "real" incomes for some categories
has declined - for example professors, engineers (*) etc. namely the one most
susceptible to practice this sport, while the manual labor cost has augmented
dramatically, and especially in Germany. So i don't see a contradiction in
your argument, only the fact it is not the income and the costs of the same
persons.

(*) i remember when i was a student, IBM offered positions with far higher
salaries they offer now, without taking into account inflation! Secondary
school teachers who were then part of the "good society" in small towns are
now fully proletarized. Even brilliant students who envisioned careers in
research now fly away. In the same time plumbers carpenters and the like will
charge you a month of your salary for a day of their work and will ensure you
wait their appearance at least two or three months.




--

Michel TALON