A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

soaring into the future



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 26th 07, 08:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default soaring into the future

There are many existing and potential soaring pilots who consider
$25000 a HUGE amount of money. Until people start talking about a
rugged 2 seat primary and XC trainer for under $15k with a
complimentary single seat XC capable machine for under $10k brand new,
this is just an academic exercise. Of course anything new would have
to be crashworthy, BRS, auto hookups, tough enough to land off field,
aerodynamic trailer and maybe even self launch too.

I may be crazy but you just wait and see. Until the above comes along
it's going to be business as usual.

I hate the 2-33 as much as the next guy but man those Schweizers
really had some things figured out. Without them I bet soaring would
have died in the US. Now we need the next generation of practical
innovations and solid leadership.

The Sparrow Hawk is awesome but it costs too freeking much! The Hart
Aero Turkey Vulture trainer is affordable but what a turkey! I don't
have the answers but I believe we have the materials and tools and
knowlede to synthesize some answers that are better than another
$25000 piece of glass. Come on! Think outside the freeking box! And
NO I don't want to see any stupid flying wing canard ultralight dacron
honeycomb cheese sandwich vacuum ziploc bagged ASW point zero two five
thousand glass cockpit modern marvel. Give me a simple solid safe
metal, wood or glass glider that doesn't cost a fortune.

MM
  #22  
Old December 26th 07, 09:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bill Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default soaring into the future


"Shawn" wrote in message
. ..
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling for
$25,000 - quite a few I expect.


Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing using
traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in materials and
labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...


IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.


Shawn


It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of hand
lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.

The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's economic.
Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll get cheap (or
at least cheaper) gliders.

To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
Everything follows from those numbers.

Bill Daniels


  #23  
Old December 26th 07, 09:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Marc Ramsey[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 211
Default soaring into the future

Bill Daniels wrote:
"Shawn" wrote in message
. ..
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling for
$25,000 - quite a few I expect.
Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing using
traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in materials and
labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...

IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.


Shawn


It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of hand
lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.

The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's economic.
Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll get cheap (or
at least cheaper) gliders.

To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
Everything follows from those numbers.


How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking
market that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design? The
glider manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral
of building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population
that can afford them.

Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the
community starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think
Tony's adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I
doubt the traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider
addressing such a market...

Marc
  #24  
Old December 26th 07, 10:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bill Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default soaring into the future


"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. net...
Bill Daniels wrote:
"Shawn" wrote in message
. ..
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling
for $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing
using traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in
materials and labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...
IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.


Shawn


It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of
hand lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.

The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's
economic. Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll
get cheap (or at least cheaper) gliders.

To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
Everything follows from those numbers.


How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking market
that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design? The glider
manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral of
building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population that
can afford them.

Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the community
starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think Tony's
adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I doubt the
traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider addressing such a
market...

Marc


I love Tony's Cherokee adventures. However, the sad truth is that if the
Cherokee was to be put into commercial production today, it would cost even
more than the LS-4. When you take the route of a deliberately designing a
low performance glider, you set a trap for yourself by building a glider few
will buy. PW-5 is example "A".

With the exception of the large number of hours spent polishing the final
finish, there is really little inherent connection between performance and
cost in modern composite gliders.
A low performance glider, when you take everything like instruments into
account, has essentially the same parts count, empty weight and labor hours
as a high performance glider. The shapes are nearly the same and the
structures must meet the same safety margins. You might as well go for
relatively high performance to insure there will be buyers.

Maybe there is a niche for some "sweat equity". Deliver the glider as
airworthy but without the super finish. Then, provide the materials and
instructions for the new owner to do the finishing task himself.

More likely is the scheme of a 5% handicap advantage for an existing design.
With the price guaranteed, the manufacturer can wait for several hundred
secure escrow deposits before committing to anvanced production methods.
I'd bet there are 1000 people worldwide who would order a $25,000 40:1
glider that came with that built-in 5% advantage.

The win-win is that you would have a very successful "one-design" contest
class AND a very popular, cheap glider.

Bill Daniels


  #25  
Old December 26th 07, 10:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Brad[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 722
Default soaring into the future

I don't think the big manufacturers really care about the average joe
with a "medium class" wage. If you need to ask the price of these new
ships then you can't afford one. Not all of us are successful stock
market investors, bankers, real estate sharks, own companies,
etc................I would be willing to speculate that very few
people take out a loan for a $100k sailplane. I don't mean to offend
anyone here, so please don't take it that way.

I just feel, as a wage monkey, that there needs to be an advocate for
the little guy who want's to play, and not have to settle for someone
else's last-years-toy.

I bet a slick looking machine can be built for quite a bit under 40K,
especially if is built here in the US, and the workers enjoy what they
do. This will certainly spin off another discussion on
wages.................but didn't Tor use "cheap" labor to make the
Spirit?

Marc.............care to chime in what the design looks like?

Cheers,
Brad

On Dec 26, 12:05*pm, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
"Shawn" wrote in message

. ..

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling for
$25,000 - quite a few I expect.


Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing using
traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in materials and
labor. *I don't think it can be done anymore...


IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.


Shawn


It won't take any convincing. *The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
really bright guys. *I can assure they know all about the problems of hand
lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.

The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's economic.
Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll get cheap (or
at least cheaper) gliders.

To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
Everything follows from those numbers.

Bill Daniels


  #26  
Old December 26th 07, 10:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Shawn[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default soaring into the future

Bill Daniels wrote:
"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. net...
Bill Daniels wrote:
"Shawn" wrote in message
. ..
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling
for $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing
using traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in
materials and labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...
IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the traditional
fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business model.


Shawn
It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of
hand lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.

The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's
economic. Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll
get cheap (or at least cheaper) gliders.

To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
Everything follows from those numbers.

How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking market
that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design? The glider
manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral of
building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population that
can afford them.

Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the community
starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think Tony's
adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I doubt the
traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider addressing such a
market...

Marc


I love Tony's Cherokee adventures. However, the sad truth is that if the
Cherokee was to be put into commercial production today, it would cost even
more than the LS-4. When you take the route of a deliberately designing a
low performance glider, you set a trap for yourself by building a glider few
will buy. PW-5 is example "A".

With the exception of the large number of hours spent polishing the final
finish, there is really little inherent connection between performance and
cost in modern composite gliders.
A low performance glider, when you take everything like instruments into
account, has essentially the same parts count, empty weight and labor hours
as a high performance glider. The shapes are nearly the same and the
structures must meet the same safety margins. You might as well go for
relatively high performance to insure there will be buyers.

Maybe there is a niche for some "sweat equity". Deliver the glider as
airworthy but without the super finish. Then, provide the materials and
instructions for the new owner to do the finishing task himself.

More likely is the scheme of a 5% handicap advantage for an existing design.
With the price guaranteed, the manufacturer can wait for several hundred
secure escrow deposits before committing to anvanced production methods.
I'd bet there are 1000 people worldwide who would order a $25,000 40:1
glider that came with that built-in 5% advantage.


Build it in the US and Europe could buy it for $20K. Build it in the
third world and watch the glider community doubt its quality into
oblivion ;-)


Shawn
  #27  
Old December 26th 07, 10:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bill Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default soaring into the future


"Shawn" wrote in message
...
Bill Daniels wrote:
"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. net...
Bill Daniels wrote:
"Shawn" wrote in message
. ..
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
For example, how many buyers are there for a brand new LS-4 selling
for $25,000 - quite a few I expect.
Yes, you could sell one to me at that price, the trick is producing
using traditional fabrication techniques for less than $25,000 in
materials and labor. I don't think it can be done anymore...
IMHO the trick is convincing the manufacturers to ditch the
traditional fabrication techniques, materials, labor, and business
model.


Shawn
It won't take any convincing. The glider manufacturers are a bunch of
really bright guys. I can assure they know all about the problems of
hand lay up and the benefits of modern production methods.

The problem isn't technical, we have LOTS of great designs, it's
economic. Assure the manufacturer of a 1000+ production run and you'll
get cheap (or at least cheaper) gliders.

To repeat, it's the production run numbers and almost nothing else.
Everything follows from those numbers.
How can anyone be assured of a 1000+ production run in a shrinking
market that has never seen 1000+ unit production of any design? The
glider manufacturers are smart, but I think they are in a death spiral
of building ever more sophisticated designs for a shrinking population
that can afford them.

Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the
community starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think
Tony's adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I
doubt the traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider
addressing such a market...

Marc


I love Tony's Cherokee adventures. However, the sad truth is that if the
Cherokee was to be put into commercial production today, it would cost
even more than the LS-4. When you take the route of a deliberately
designing a low performance glider, you set a trap for yourself by
building a glider few will buy. PW-5 is example "A".

With the exception of the large number of hours spent polishing the final
finish, there is really little inherent connection between performance
and cost in modern composite gliders.
A low performance glider, when you take everything like instruments into
account, has essentially the same parts count, empty weight and labor
hours as a high performance glider. The shapes are nearly the same and
the structures must meet the same safety margins. You might as well go
for relatively high performance to insure there will be buyers.

Maybe there is a niche for some "sweat equity". Deliver the glider as
airworthy but without the super finish. Then, provide the materials and
instructions for the new owner to do the finishing task himself.

More likely is the scheme of a 5% handicap advantage for an existing
design. With the price guaranteed, the manufacturer can wait for several
hundred secure escrow deposits before committing to anvanced production
methods. I'd bet there are 1000 people worldwide who would order a
$25,000 40:1 glider that came with that built-in 5% advantage.


Build it in the US and Europe could buy it for $20K. Build it in the
third world and watch the glider community doubt its quality into oblivion
;-)


Shawn


Lotta truth in that. Even Airbus is talking about shifting production to
the US.

Bill Daniels


  #28  
Old December 26th 07, 10:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Marc Ramsey[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 211
Default soaring into the future

Bill Daniels wrote:
"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
Affordable glider will only come if a significant portion of the community
starts rethinking what they want out of the sport (I think Tony's
adventures in his Cherokee may be the wave of the future 8^). I doubt the
traditional glider manufacturers would ever consider addressing such a
market...

Marc


I love Tony's Cherokee adventures. However, the sad truth is that if the
Cherokee was to be put into commercial production today, it would cost even
more than the LS-4. When you take the route of a deliberately designing a
low performance glider, you set a trap for yourself by building a glider few
will buy. PW-5 is example "A".


You're misreading what I'm saying. It makes no sense to commercially
produce a Cherokee using present day technology. But, I think the
soaring community has worked itself into a corner where little
compromise is possible.

Perhaps the PW-5 failed because it's performance just wasn't high
enough, but that suggests one either needs to find a way to drastically
reduce (50 to 75%) the production cost of a typical standard class
glider, or convince a sizable portion of the community that there is
more to soaring than glider performance. Somehow, the latter seems more
practical to me.

Marc
  #29  
Old December 26th 07, 10:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Brad[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 722
Default soaring into the future

Remember when the Sparrowhawk first came out. It had a price of under
25K. I am pretty sure that the cost of manufacturing the airframe has
not doubled in price, but the price of the sailplane has.

Sailplanes that go fast and are designed for racing have way more
parts than a glider designed for lower speed and sports flying.

Safety would not be compromised in this design, but at lower wing
loadings, lighter GW and lower speeds the need for elaborate "crash-
worthiness" structure could be reduced. Even then, I recall the ASW-24
won the OSTIV prize for cockpit safety, and yet one spun in from less
than 400ft and the pilot was killed. My friend was killed in his Atlas
in the same manner. I am sure if I did the same in my Apis the result
would be the same.............the moral of the story.....DON'T CRASH.

Brad

  #30  
Old December 26th 07, 10:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Brad[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 722
Default soaring into the future

I think that the success of the Russia proved that there was and maybe
still is a market for these lighter sports ships. I also sorta think
that they saturated the market, and I also think that if the Russia
had the "look" that we sailplane pilots have come to expect, that they
would still be in business. That is, if their price stayed somewhat
the same. If the Apis was around at the same time as the Russia, I
wonder how many Russia's would have been sold? Given that the price
point was very close and the appearance of the Apis is so close to
what we "expect" I think the Silent may have been around, but don't
think there was a US distributor at the time.

Brad
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Colorado Soaring Pilots/SSA Governor 2007 Seminar and 2006 Soaring Awards Banquet Frank Whiteley Soaring 0 February 15th 07 05:52 PM
The Soaring Server is dead; long live the Soaring Servers John Leibacher Soaring 3 November 1st 04 11:57 PM
Possible future legal problems with "SOARING" Bob Thompson Soaring 3 September 26th 04 11:48 AM
Soaring Server/Worldwide Soaring Turnpoint Exchange back online John Leibacher Soaring 0 June 21st 04 05:25 PM
Soaring Server - Worldwide Soaring Turnpoint Exchange John Leibacher Soaring 0 June 19th 04 04:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.