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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
soaring into the future
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
soaring into the future
wrote:
Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for glider with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific purpose. And that is sad. I kind of agree with Jacek. The PW-5 did what it was supposed to do; instead, I suggest it was the World Class idea that failed. I believe the promoters of the World Class one-design concept badly misjudged the interest in a one-design class, and what most pilots wanted out it, and hoped for, was a new glider for half the going price. The price turned out not as cheap as the promoters thought it would be, but worse, it had to compete with plentiful gliders in the used market. I don't think the results would have been much different if the Russia had been selected. I suspect even fewer World Class gliders would have been sold had the requirements called for something with the performance and looks of, say, a Std Cirrus, because the higher price of the glider would have made the cost difference with used gliders even greater. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4 * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
soaring into the future
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Shawn wrote: wrote: On Dec 26, 1:31 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote: snip 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. Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for glider with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific purpose. And that is sad. The consumer failed by not buying what they didn't want? Supply side at its worst, sheesh! "Them pilots shoulda' knowed what's good for 'em and buyed it, dad gummit!" It's called "marketing", that's why I got so much crap in my house I don't need. But, it works both ways, it also sells $100,000 Standard Class gliders 8^) I was thinking of "want" the way the Madison Ave. types define it. What the consumer wants after the product is purchased is irrelevant. ;-) People didn't want the PW-5 (i.e. it wasn't marketed well) enough to buy it. Shawn P.S. Seen many $100K Standard class ships at the field lately? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
soaring into the future
At 21:49 26 December 2007, Brad wrote:
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 Any glider which has the 'look' that a bunch of old geezer sailplane pilots want is doomed to fail. Soaring has to evolve into a fun sport which is affordable to people in their early working years and what a bunch of old men want won't qualify. Soaring in America needs high altitude high capacity winch launch locations, two seat trainers which are economical to buy and operate and a single seat glider with launch and handling capabilities similar to the trainer so a student doesn't need to re-learn to fly so he/she can fly it. The K21 has already proven to be a great training aircraft and at US$64,000. might be economical to buy and operate. At over $100K it can't earn enough to pay for itself + instructor + insurance etc... That design could be brought to the US, made in larger volume, simplified, rougher surface, and no one learning to fly would care one iota about its performance. Ditto for a single seat glider which could handle a large number of winch launches and still have a return on investment. In a club or rental operation people would want to go flying, to hell with performance if it adds significantly to cost. And they won't care about class because they won't be flying in competitions. That's what old geezers with plenty of free time do. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
soaring into the future
Hi Mat,
I'm in favor of a Marske or Genesis spar and frame with a PETG skin. PETG is the clear plastic that everything comes packaged in. I can't bend it, scratch it and can barely cut it with scissors. The stuff is everywhere, it can be recycled, surely it can also fly? It can snap together AND be ultrasonic welded. Graphlite spars, PETG bulkheads, ribs and stringers and the strong shape of the Genesis. It could be done. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYDdEjloYJ0 At 00:01 27 December 2007, wrote: Why did the 1-26 do so well and is STILL doing well. For crying out loud, they still have their own contest a billion years after it was introduced! I don't understand it but we ought to really take a hard look at it. I'm not saying that we want brand new 1-26s. I sure don't. Brand new Cherokee IIs either. Tony and I have more fun per dollar in our little wood ships than most out there but we wouldn't mind a little more performance, modern materials and safety features, easier rigging... But paying $25000 for it? Are you kidding?! The PW-5 is a fun glider but it costs a fortune to most people and looks wrong to most of the rest. I don't think performance is the reason it didn't 'take off' The new people we need in soaring are only going to desire 40 or 50 to 1 if we teach them that's what they need to have fun, earn badges, have great flights, keep up with their friends. Why cant we design a higher performance homebuilt quick kit that has basic components built by existing manufacturing processes then quality checked and assembled by individuals,clubs, or commercial operations? A modular homebuilt (that satisfies the 51% rule) that handles well, gets better than 35/1, climbs like a woodstock, lands like a PW, and runs like a Discus and costs $10k as a kit and $15k finished. Look at all the creativity and innovation that led to the Cherokee, the BG-12, the Duster, Scanlon, Tern, Javalin, Bowlus, Carbon Dragon, Woodstock, Monerai, the HPs... Sure most of those had 'issues' some were real dogs, some were great. But, they all showed a creativity that seems lacking today. Imagine combining the best aspects of these classic American homebuilts and applying modern materials, engineering, and manufacturing to the result. Somebody is going to do it. Some young genius glider kid in Aero E at university with no money thinking outside the box. This isn't rocket science. It's evolution. You can either be part of the new wave or a dinosaur. MM |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
soaring into the future
On Dec 26, 9:22*pm, Shawn wrote:
snip 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 ;-) *if* such a thing ever comes along, I suspect it will be built in Poland, Slovakia or some other east Europe country. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
soaring into the future
On Dec 26, 10:54*pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
wrote: Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for glider *with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific purpose. And that is sad. I agree, and that is why I say that some of us in the soaring community need to rethink what we are doing (those of you with an Antares on order, carry on 8^). Most of us can't afford an Antares, but many second-hand good- condition, well-equipped 40:1 ships are affordable, so why spend a lot more money on a 30:1 ship than on a 40:1 ship? Maybe the failure was the initial performance specification from the FAI. I can't remember if the Junior was a contender or not, but it fits a lot of the criteria - L/D, suitable for early solo, fixed gear and so on - and having just started flying a 40:1 ship instead there's no way I'd consider spending my hard-earned cash on a new PW5 instead of a second-hand 40:1 Club Class ship. Is it a failure of mine to want to be able to progress into wind? Or to want a glider where serious XC (not that I'm capable of that yet!) can be done in a wider range of conditions, not just on the 'day of the year' which just about *always* is a working day? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
soaring into the future
Those with long memories, and who followed the 'World
Class' saga from the beginning will recall that an initial part of the specification included a low production price. The objective was for an International affordable class. IGC delegates who neither supported nor opposed the concept didn't worry because any competent engineer knew that you couldn't manufacture a new glider for the target price, so the concept was a non-starter anyway. When that became obvious at a late stage, the price requirement was quietly dropped and the World Class had too much momentum to stop; meanwhile the very successful Club Class had already filled the objectives and we have a (albeit fun to fly) white elephant. All somewhat reminiscent of the confusion which resulted in 2 15 meter classes, and which took nearly 20 years to get to the 18 meter class we could have had in the 70s. At 08:48 27 December 2007, Cats wrote: On Dec 26, 10:54=A0pm, Marc Ramsey wrote: wrote: Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for glider =A0with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not understanding the concept. The 'One Design' class will fail again in the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific purpose. And that is sad. I agree, and that is why I say that some of us in the soaring community need to rethink what we are doing (those of you with an Antares on order, carry on 8^). Most of us can't afford an Antares, but many second-hand good- condition, well-equipped 40:1 ships are affordable, so why spend a lot more money on a 30:1 ship than on a 40:1 ship? Maybe the failure was the initial performance specification from the FAI. I can't remember if the Junior was a contender or not, but it fits a lot of the criteria - L/D, suitable for early solo, fixed gear and so on - and having just started flying a 40:1 ship instead there's no way I'd consider spending my hard-earned cash on a new PW5 instead of a second-hand 40:1 Club Class ship. Is it a failure of mine to want to be able to progress into wind? Or to want a glider where serious XC (not that I'm capable of that yet!) can be done in a wider range of conditions, not just on the 'day of the year' which just about *always* is a working day? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
soaring into the future
On Dec 27, 7:01*am, Steve Davis
wrote: At 21:49 26 December 2007, Brad wrote: Soaring in America needs high altitude high capacity winch launch locations, I've always wondered why no-one in the US has imported a Skylaunch kit sans engine and fitted it with a locally-sourced engine and transmission. That would give you a powerful, controllable winch with a reasonable outlay. two seat trainers which are economical to buy and operate The PW6U and forthcoming Perkow spring to mind. The latter looks particularly promising with 40:1 XC performance. As both are Polish they don't come with the Germany premium. and a single seat glider with launch and handling capabilities similar to the trainer so a student doesn't need to re-learn to fly so he/she can fly it. Astir; also the Junior too which is still made and designed for precisely that role, that it does very well. For a cheap "hot" (well, OK, mildly warm) ship get a Cirrus. I think a lot of the solutions now exist, it just needs some motivated people to make it happen and then tell the world (or at least the rest of the US) of their success. Dan |
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 04:52 PM |
The Soaring Server is dead; long live the Soaring Servers | John Leibacher | Soaring | 3 | November 1st 04 10:57 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 |