LS-4 ? What about 1-26 ?

Paint it in polyurethane and you can probably leave tied out about as
well, too. Brad can tell us how it takes to build one.


Hi Eric,

Building the Apis was actually a lot of fun, with good instructions,
and advice from Robert Mudd I was able to complete the build process
in under 150 hours. The gel-coat (prestec) took considerably longer!

The latest project on my 13m Apis is putting an engine in it.

After building 2 Russias and an Apis I'd like to tackle a design of my
own based on these 2 ships. Any one interested????......)

Cheers,
Brad

"Waduino" wrote in message ...
Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up a
little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
Wad
---
Wad,
A few of us were invited to fly Brad Hill's APIS as part the research
for purchasing our club's next glider. For over two years we had been
looking for a glider that is easy to fly, safe to fly, nice to look at
and has good cross-country performance. We also wanted a glider that
would perform well in the weaker conditions north of Seattle and be
light enough to land out in the small fields near where we fly.

All who flew Brad's Apis remarked at how well it fit all of our
criteria. The triple taper wing of the APIS looks great and the flaps
offer excellent thermalling performance -- with great penetration for
a 300lb glider. All who flew it felt that it was at least as easy to
fly as a 1-26. Our club bought a 13-meter APIS in August and are very
happy with it.

Mark Nyberg
Evergreen Soaring

All who flew it felt that it was at least as easy to
fly as a 1-26. Our club bought a 13-meter APIS in August and are very
happy with it.

Mark Nyberg

They bought the Apis 13 that I built from a kit. Man do I ever miss flying that
glider. Pure fun.

Robert Mudd

Apis 13 kit is 16,100 euros

Looks like the Euro price is going up, which is then compounded by the weak
dollar. Too bad.
Wad.


"Robertmudd1u" wrote in message
...
Heck you can buy an Apis 13 kit for $17.5K USD (OK, it's probably gone up
a
little lately) and get 38:1 in a ship that weighs 302lbs.
Seems pretty tough to beat if you're in a 1-26 frame of mind.
Wad
---

Thanks for the nice comment. Yes, the cost has gone up because of the
weakness
of the dollar. Current price of an Apis 13 kit is 16,100 euros or about
$21,000. More costly than a 1-26 to be sure but also a lot more fun to
fly.

Robert Mudd

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

You cannot reduce certification costs nor development costs but you can
reduce material and labour costs.

What I had in mind when I made my earlier post re mass production was not a
production line that produces a glider a day or anything that optimistic.
However there has got be another smallish step up from what we currently do
that will result in a dramatic reduction in the costs and hence price. The
question is what is the critical mass number that will give us this
production advantage ... I dunno the answer - I doubt anyone does. It is
well known (as one other post states) that Cessna produced airplanes in
approx 300 hours. That is a long way from where we are currently at for
composite gliders ... and that is for a much more complex airplane than any
glider. The question is simply what level of tooling and investment is
required to get to this next level and what gains will that give us in
production cost and hence volume.

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.

The Sparrow Hawk while a commendable design effort will never be a
commercial success (as another poster pointed out). It is too labour
intensive to build, the cost of materials (Toray carbon prepregs I seem to
recall) are too expensive (carbon prepreg tape is 1/4 the price woven cloth
per metre sq for instance) and it is not certificated which significantly
reduces the size of the potential market (and the design is barely legal
under Part 103).

Similarly the discussion on kits gliders is a bad example when compared to
say an LS-4. These are only cheap because the builder has to invest a lot of
labour and because they are not certificated.

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. 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 ?????

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 ?







"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...

"m pautz" wrote in message
news:Ub7ld.499010$mD.298982@attbi_s02...


Ian Cant wrote:

Eric Greenwell maintains, and I am sure he is right,
that increased performance adds cost and smaller size
reduces cost, and that many potential owners would
be 'happy' with LS-4 performance in a smaller and more
modern design.

What about a modern 1-26 ? Could it be made affordable
and attractive enough to sell 800-1000 copies ? Would
the reduction in performance goal from 40:1 to 23:1
really reduce the selling price a lot ? Or are we
at a point in the performance/cost curve where a reduction
in L/D [for any size of glider] does not save a bunch
of cost but an increase [whether by refinement of an
existing design or a clean-sheet new design] costs
a whole bundle ?

I suspect that the economics of sailplane production
are not driven by material costs or design sophistication,
but by issues of labor costs, marketing costs, certification
and insurance - and above all, the achieved market
share. Anyone know some real-world figures to argue
from ?

Ian





Ages ago, a similar question was asked. One of the Schweizer brothers
wrote back and said the problem was that they would have to buy a
liablility policy for the production run. The policy payment came out
to $16,000 for each glider.


People I'm acquainted with that produce sports equipment set up their
production so that all equipment and facility is leased, not owned. The
business is strictly inventory and accounts receivable, every thing else
is
at arm's length, so that if plaintiffs should ever prevail, they are
welcome
to the empty space, desk, and chair. If you have to insure to protect
real
property as part of the means of production, your liability exposure is
extremely high and has to be protected by passing this cost onto the
consumer. Sadly, it's the state of American business. Most small
entrepanuers I know have layered, non-asset, interests these days.

Frank Whiteley

May be way off but I recall Tom knauff talking about Schemp Hirth using
about 400 hours per Discus / Ventus ?

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

You cannot reduce certification costs nor development costs but you can
reduce material and labour costs.

What I had in mind when I made my earlier post re mass production was not a
production line that produces a glider a day or anything that optimistic.
However there has got be another smallish step up from what we currently do
that will result in a dramatic reduction in the costs and hence price. The
question is what is the critical mass number that will give us this
production advantage ... I dunno the answer - I doubt anyone does. It is
well known (as one other post states) that Cessna produced airplanes in
approx 300 hours. That is a long way from where we are currently at for
composite gliders ... and that is for a much more complex airplane than any
glider. The question is simply what level of tooling and investment is
required to get to this next level and what gains will that give us in
production cost and hence volume.

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.

The Sparrow Hawk while a commendable design effort will never be a
commercial success (as another poster pointed out). It is too labour
intensive to build, the cost of materials (Toray carbon prepregs I seem to
recall) are too expensive (carbon prepreg tape is 1/4 the price woven cloth
per metre sq for instance) and it is not certificated which significantly
reduces the size of the potential market (and the design is barely legal
under Part 103).

Similarly the discussion on kits gliders is a bad example when compared to
say an LS-4. These are only cheap because the builder has to invest a lot of
labour and because they are not certificated.

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. 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 ?????

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 ?

I'm so new at soaring that I have only taken one glider ride in my life.
Having established that I'm not an expert on much of anything, here's my 2
cents worth. The VOLUME envisioned to make an affordable plane would
possibly make VFR flight impossible because of the huge number of planes in
the air. So getting a cheap sailplane, might kill the sport that you want
to promote. I can imagine having to apply for an airspace usage permit much
as we have to apply months or years in advance for reservations at some of
the most popular National Parks. On the other hand, I'm one of the people
that will have to join a club to have afford access to a plane.

My two cents
....john__________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________

"smjmitchell" wrote in message
u...
I don't think that performance is a big cost driver.

The major cost drivers a
* development costs
* certification costs
* labour (for production)
* raw material costs

I suspect that all of these drivers will have a similar value irrespective
of whether the glider is a APIS, 1-26 or LS-4. OK ... maybe the material
cost will vary a little but the difference is not going to result in a
glider that is 1/3 or 1/2 cheaper.

The biggest issue with the cost of airplanes is quite simply VOLUME. ...

Welcome to soaring, John.

The 'crowded skies' bogy is largely a fabrication of the evening news
'talking heads' and their editors who want to frighten people into watching
their programs (and their sponsors commercials).

In actuality, on the busiest days, there are only about 5000 aircraft
airborne over the 48 states at any time. Most of these are at altitudes
much higher than gliders usually fly or in the vicinity of major airports.
As avgas prices increase, the private piston fleet flies fewer and fewer
hours so the traffic density below 18,000 feet may actually be decreasing.
Most glider flying is done in remote areas where air traffic is very low.
In summary, there's LOTS of room in the sky to fly gliders. The glider
fleet could increase tenfold or more without problems.

Where a problem might arise is with the 'uphill capacity' of a local soaring
operation to launch a large number of gliders. A solution is 'self-launch'
gliders or my preferred solution - winches.

Unfortunately, it's a fact that the population of glider pilots is shrinking
which translates into fewer businesses and clubs where one can find gliders
to fly or tows to launch privately owned gliders.

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.

Bill Daniels





"JohnWN in Burke, VA" wrote in message
news:Uvpld.1596$iR.1168@lakeread04...
I'm so new at soaring that I have only taken one glider ride in my life.
Having established that I'm not an expert on much of anything, here's my 2
cents worth. The VOLUME envisioned to make an affordable plane would
possibly make VFR flight impossible because of the huge number of planes
in
the air. So getting a cheap sailplane, might kill the sport that you want
to promote. I can imagine having to apply for an airspace usage permit
much
as we have to apply months or years in advance for reservations at some of
the most popular National Parks. On the other hand, I'm one of the people
that will have to join a club to have afford access to a plane.

My two cents

....john__________________________________________ ___________________________
_____________________________________

"smjmitchell" wrote in message
u...
I don't think that performance is a big cost driver.

The major cost drivers a
* development costs
* certification costs
* labour (for production)
* raw material costs

I suspect that all of these drivers will have a similar value
irrespective
of whether the glider is a APIS, 1-26 or LS-4. OK ... maybe the material
cost will vary a little but the difference is not going to result in a
glider that is 1/3 or 1/2 cheaper.

The biggest issue with the cost of airplanes is quite simply VOLUME. ...

I think the whole thing suffers from the "I'd do it for free!" syndrome.
Same thing in flight instructing. Flying is something even the
professionals think is fun. There are so many competitors
who are willing to work for such a low price (because it is fun)
that there is little financial incentive for production.


Mark,

I had a long talk with Bob K the other day and he reminded me that the
population of folks out there that would build a glider from a kit are
extremely short in supply; those that would attempt to design and
build and fly their own design are a speck under a microscope.

I dream about designing and building as a very rewarding challenge,
maybe I'll sit in a fuselage I made from my own design someday, maybe
not.....but it is a labor of love for me.....corny as it sounds, but I
do think a decent performing ship can be built by a guy in his garage
for a reasonable amount of $$$.......a one-off with very little hard
tooling will be my approach.

As I've mentioned in a previous post, the days of paper and pencil are
gone, for me everything is on the PC......after experiencing how the
777 was designed I am a believer of the digital mock-up concept.

Cheers,
Brad

Eric Greenwell wrote:

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.

The problem isn't too few gliders, it's
NOT ENOUGH GLIDER PILOTS!

To get more glider pilots, you need more instructors
(who charge low rates). One source for these instructors is
cross-training the USUA and EAA ultralight instructors, and
cross-training ASEL CFIs (at least to the Sport Pilot level).

The two ways to grow the sport are to get youth, or get
pilots from other airsports.

If I were a glider manufacturer, I'd make LSA gliders
and advertise in the Ultralight, Hang Glider, and
Experimental magazines and conventions.

Have any of you noticed that gliders weren't even mentioned in the
new Sport Pilot and LSA magazine? And there are no glider pictures
in the Sport Pilot branch color brochures and briefings...

I would have expected at least the SZD 50-3 USA distributor to have
noticed this and made some phone calls.

There is a whole group of (sometimes aging) airsport enthusiasts
who are deciding the freezing cold open air in their face
and the lack of protection on landing/crashing/crumpling
in their hang gliders and ultralights is a bad thing.

They want gliders, they just don't know about them...
--

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