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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |