LS-4 ? What about 1-26 ?

Frank

Doesn't have to be the LS-4b either. The 304 is another very worthy
candidate. Continuing the PW-5 as a sub-class might also have some benefit.


New =
LS-4b @ 39,000 Euro
304 @ 40,000 Euro
Smyk @ 17,000 Euro

Why jump up the price of a "one class" ship?

All other thinks being equal, features seem to drive up cost.
Retractable gear, water ballast, weights for the tail (like DG-1000),
automatic control hookups, a second occupant, a distinct control system
with flaps...

The most interesting thing about the sparrowhawk is the high price
considering the lack of these features and the one time mold.
I've watched the price increase 40% in the years, and in this case
it seems to be attributed to materials cost.

So the Sparrowhawk seems VERY different from its competitors because
its goal was extremely light weight, not low cost. The PW-5 and Russia
came from low cost, and resulted in less span, the Sparrowhawk was driven
simply by weight.

A comparison of APIS to LS-4 is a little funny, as the features of ballast
and retract are compared to the feature of integrated flaps.
The APIS simply has an all flight speed range that's wider than the
LS-4. But at the top end on strong days? A fully ballasted LS-4
should run away with this.

The idea of integrated flaps which reduce stall speed is good,
and I suspect with such a low bottom end, there is some safety enhancement.
I must wonder, however, what the aileron spin characteristics are with
full flaps. Until there are a goodly number of years (and possible
accident reports) it may be difficult to determine.

The SZD 50-3 looked to me to be a neat glider on paper, but the
abrupt stall/spin characteristics and accident record seem to betray it.



In article ,
smjmitchell wrote:
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. They
are generally built by hand using relatively crude production techniques and
basic tooling. A modern small automobile is arguably far more complex than
any glider but is costs a LOT less because of the level of automation in the
mass production process and the large number of units sold. If we want
cheaper gliders then we need to find a way to increase the volume of sales.
Certification and design costs would be amortised over more units and
production costs would dramatically reduce (bigger buying power for raw
materials and better tooling / automated production will reduce labour
cost). This is a chicken and egg thing ... you are not going to increase
volume until the price is reduced and you cannot reduce price (which
requires a new business model and significant investment) without the
evidence of the larger sales potential. In essence we are stuck with
expensive gliders unless we can attract some very wealthy individuals to the
sport who share the vision of cheap gliders and are willing to gamble some
of their money, against conventional business wisdom, simply to see if this
vision can be realised without any guarantee of a return.


"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




--

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

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.

Look at the APIS, Sparrowhawk, PW-5, Russia, Silent. Have the makers,
I mean the actual workers on these gliders, made anything close to the
amount of money they would if they were employed in a regular
job? $80k/year for 4 years for Greg Cole's skills pretty much wipes out
any possible profit on a Sparrowhawk with a production run of 20 at $30k.

So there's a bunch of folks innovating and making gliders for charity.
If you approached them with the same profit prospects and told them
they'd be manufacturing innovative urinals, they'd run, not walk, away from
the project.

So what do we see? A lot of innovations and great ideas. The downside
is so many competitors chipping away at the fairly small market that
there is little chance for a Henry Ford type operation to succeed.

Are we going to see one patentable "killer" glider? Maybe. A
turbine self-launch Sparrowhawk would be very hard to compete with
based on weight and the non-recurring engineering costs.

But will we see a "killer" design for a larger market? I suspect not.
I think gliding will continue to see a lot of low production run
charitable innovators, each chipping away at buyers. Well, at least this
is the case in the USA, where "experimental" gliders are allowed...




In article ,
smjmitchell wrote:

Which means, more than anything else, that one has to concentrate on one
model and only one, because there is no room for high volume production
of several models. As a consequence, any discussion wether 13m gliders
are better than 15m gliders, wether DG gliders are better than the LS4,
or any such futility may have only one consequence, distract people from
the aim.


Obsolutely ... in essence what you are saying is the same as Henry Ford 100
years ago when he said 'you can have any colour so long as it is black'.

If the price was a lot lower and there was only one choice I don't think
people would have anything to debate. They would just buy the thing.








--

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

Waduino wrote:
I guess this just brings us back to the World Class idea which was a great
idea but a botched implementation, based on the response of the soaring
community.

Too bad. It would really be fun to have a one-design that people really
bought into.

Isn't the competition for the next World Class glider coming up soon?
I don't see anything "Too bad" about that. With over a decade of
reflection, one would expect the implementation could be improved...

We keep talking about these sub-13meter gliders. I suspect
we will see them as entries...
--

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

"Charles Yeates" wrote in message
...
Frank

Doesn't have to be the LS-4b either. The 304 is another very worthy
candidate. Continuing the PW-5 as a sub-class might also have some
benefit.


New =
LS-4b @ 39,000 Euro
304 @ 40,000 Euro
Smyk @ 17,000 Euro

Why jump up the price of a "one class" ship?

Price, though a factor, is really moot as it can be ameliorated by
partnerships or club ownership. My club is shopping. Smyk is not on the
list. The primary reason is the lousy polar. I've watched PW-5 owners
struggle out here and it just does not cut it where winds in the lift band
are often 20kts or more on good days. East of the Mississippi river and
conditions for the Smyk would be much more favorable. A 40/1 world class
glider has additional appeal. It can also be flown competitively in other
classes in local and regional contests.

We looked very hard at it when they were 'giving' them away with the PW-6
for $11K, but it still wasn't appealing enough to tip the deal. However,
had we seen the PW-6 a few weeks earlier, we might gone for the pair.

Frank Whiteley

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.

Waduino wrote:
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
---


Build? Fagettaboutit.

Mark

A good perspective --

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.

Look at the APIS, Sparrowhawk, PW-5, Russia, Silent. Have the makers,
I mean the actual workers on these gliders, made anything close to the
amount of money they would if they were employed in a regular
job? $80k/year for 4 years for Greg Cole's skills pretty much wipes out
any possible profit on a Sparrowhawk with a production run of 20 at $30k.

So there's a bunch of folks innovating and making gliders for charity.
If you approached them with the same profit prospects and told them
they'd be manufacturing innovative urinals, they'd run, not walk, away from
the project.

So what do we see? A lot of innovations and great ideas. The downside
is so many competitors chipping away at the fairly small market that
there is little chance for a Henry Ford type operation to succeed.

Are we going to see one patentable "killer" glider? Maybe. A
turbine self-launch Sparrowhawk would be very hard to compete with
based on weight and the non-recurring engineering costs.

But will we see a "killer" design for a larger market? I suspect not.
I think gliding will continue to see a lot of low production run
charitable innovators, each chipping away at buyers. Well, at least this
is the case in the USA, where "experimental" gliders are allowed...




In article ,
smjmitchell wrote:

Which means, more than anything else, that one has to concentrate on one
model and only one, because there is no room for high volume production
of several models. As a consequence, any discussion wether 13m gliders
are better than 15m gliders, wether DG gliders are better than the LS4,
or any such futility may have only one consequence, distract people from
the aim.


Obsolutely ... in essence what you are saying is the same as Henry Ford 100
years ago when he said 'you can have any colour so long as it is black'.

If the price was a lot lower and there was only one choice I don't think
people would have anything to debate. They would just buy the thing.









--

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

Mark

Isn't the competition for the next World Class glider coming up soon?

Maybe in 2009.

"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