soaring into the future

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!"
;-)


Shawn

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^)

Marc

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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