Grow soaring thru entertainment

Robert Ehrlich wrote:
they participation is probably not their own decsision (or not completely)
but rather the decision of their parents. As this is a sponsorized activity,
the youngs and parents interested are probably among those who would
never have the money for a continued practice of the sport. Although

Isn't it that the most obvious evidence that something is badly rotten
in the domain of soaring? You are here considering as a plain fact that
most of the population cannot practice soaring because it is too expensive
(which is in fact the case). My prediction is that soaring will die soon
is nothing is done so that "the masses" can afford practising it.
Because rich people are frequently old, and old people are not the best ones
to practice such a dangerous sport. They are not the best ones either to
enroll young people in the clubs. And most of the rich people are much
too busy running their businesses to afford spending days and days
at the airport, except retirees. There is a number one requirement to
halt the decline of soaring, drastically reduce costs, and in particular
drastically reduce price of gliders, which is the major factor in the
equation. It is not in the interest of glider factories, and it is not in the
interest of the second hand market. But there is not a single concurrential
industry that has not cut costs drastically in the last ten years. Only
glider factories allow themselves to regularly augment their prices
each year. This gives buyers the illusion that they fly cheap, since
they can resell their machines "the same price they bought it or more".
But the real price at the end is the decline of soaring.

some of the kids were really interested, the lack of interest of some
others was clearly demonstrated by the fact that on of them fell asleep
during a long flight.

You cannot expect to have 100% success in any activity. But 100%
of currently practising pilots began once.


However, as opposite to John's proposal, I think that a sufficiently
long flight is essential to the promotion of our sport, i.e. a flight
with a duration that clearly shows the ability of saiplanes to
stay in the air by they own means (or rather the combination of
the energy present in the air and the skills of the pilot).

I agree with you. You cannot expect to obtain a non vanishing percentage
of hooked young people without showing them the real beauties of soaring.
It is here that i disagree with Lennie. Having a good performing glider
40:1 allows to easily show what is really the beauty of gliding, in
particular going XC. With less performing gliders, only excellent pilots
can do the same. Hence, contrary to what he states and thinks, the real
elitism is in his position, thinking that one can have a lot of fun
with 30:1 gliders. Except excellent pilots, most of those who use such
gliders spend their time circling around the airport, and, as Lennie
has observed himself, this doesn't remain fun for very long. So, in my
opinion, the true problem is to build a good performing glider,
allowing to safely do XC, but not necessarily a top performer, at
very cheap prices, by whatever means necessary to achieve this aim
("outsourcing" comes to mind).


--

Michel TALON

The "Gliders have to be cheaper for soaring to grow" argument was raging 45
years ago when I first started soaring. It led to the Standard Class which
sought to simplify and standardize gliders so that they could be built in
greater numbers at lower costs. The problem is that the economies of scale
that would result in lower unit costs kick in at far larger production runs
that any design has ever achieved. No manufacturer is willing to bet the
farm by investing huge sums in production tooling until the demand is
established. Demand has to come first, THEN we might get cheaper gliders.

If we can't expect new cheaper gliders to stimulate demand, how do we attack
the remaining costs?

Looking hard at the yearly costs of participation, air tow looms large. The
50-75 flights required to attain a glider certificate will likely cost
something like $3000. Glider rental cost won't come down until the prices
do and I wouldn't ask the instructors to reduce their fees since we need
them badly. If 50 of the 75 flights were by winch instead of airtow, the
$3000 drops to $300. That's a pretty significant drop in up front cost for
a student pilot.

Another cost built into everything related to soaring is insurance.
Premiums are based on losses expected and losses are very large in the
landing phase. (I just completed Bob Wander's CFI-G Renewal course)

Why are losses very high in the landing phase? I think it may be that we
just don't do many landings so our landing skills get rusty. The average
glider pilot does maybe 10 to 20 landing a year? The average power pilot
does 100 to 200 landings a year - and if the power pilot screws up an
approach, he can go around.

With winch launch costs so low, it's likely that many pilots would fly winch
launches just for the landing practice with the result that skills would
stay sharp and losses would go down.

Would expanded winch launch operations solve everything wrong with soaring?
Of course not, but it might address a few of them.

Bill Daniels

"Michel Talon" wrote in message
...
Robert Ehrlich wrote:
they participation is probably not their own decsision (or not
completely)
but rather the decision of their parents. As this is a sponsorized
activity,
the youngs and parents interested are probably among those who would
never have the money for a continued practice of the sport. Although

Isn't it that the most obvious evidence that something is badly rotten
in the domain of soaring? You are here considering as a plain fact that
most of the population cannot practice soaring because it is too expensive
(which is in fact the case). My prediction is that soaring will die soon
is nothing is done so that "the masses" can afford practising it.
Because rich people are frequently old, and old people are not the best
ones
to practice such a dangerous sport. They are not the best ones either to
enroll young people in the clubs. And most of the rich people are much
too busy running their businesses to afford spending days and days
at the airport, except retirees. There is a number one requirement to
halt the decline of soaring, drastically reduce costs, and in particular
drastically reduce price of gliders, which is the major factor in the
equation. It is not in the interest of glider factories, and it is not in
the
interest of the second hand market. But there is not a single
concurrential
industry that has not cut costs drastically in the last ten years. Only
glider factories allow themselves to regularly augment their prices
each year. This gives buyers the illusion that they fly cheap, since
they can resell their machines "the same price they bought it or more".
But the real price at the end is the decline of soaring.

some of the kids were really interested, the lack of interest of some
others was clearly demonstrated by the fact that on of them fell asleep
during a long flight.

You cannot expect to have 100% success in any activity. But 100%
of currently practising pilots began once.


However, as opposite to John's proposal, I think that a sufficiently
long flight is essential to the promotion of our sport, i.e. a flight
with a duration that clearly shows the ability of saiplanes to
stay in the air by they own means (or rather the combination of
the energy present in the air and the skills of the pilot).

I agree with you. You cannot expect to obtain a non vanishing percentage
of hooked young people without showing them the real beauties of soaring.
It is here that i disagree with Lennie. Having a good performing glider
40:1 allows to easily show what is really the beauty of gliding, in
particular going XC. With less performing gliders, only excellent pilots
can do the same. Hence, contrary to what he states and thinks, the real
elitism is in his position, thinking that one can have a lot of fun
with 30:1 gliders. Except excellent pilots, most of those who use such
gliders spend their time circling around the airport, and, as Lennie
has observed himself, this doesn't remain fun for very long. So, in my
opinion, the true problem is to build a good performing glider,
allowing to safely do XC, but not necessarily a top performer, at
very cheap prices, by whatever means necessary to achieve this aim
("outsourcing" comes to mind).


--

Michel TALON

Bill Daniels wrote:

Looking hard at the yearly costs of participation, air tow looms large. The
50-75 flights required to attain a glider certificate will likely cost
something like $3000. Glider rental cost won't come down until the prices
do and I wouldn't ask the instructors to reduce their fees since we need
them badly. If 50 of the 75 flights were by winch instead of airtow, the
$3000 drops to $300. That's a pretty significant drop in up front cost for
a student pilot.


From what i can see here, winch launches don't make a big difference in the
total cost. Maybe you can hope a 20% gain in the total cost, which is good
but not sufficient. Fortunately in our country instructors instruct
for free ... Airports are more or less subsidized, hence don't cost much.
The real burden is the cost of new gliders if you want to maintain your fleet
current. You all assume that it is impossible to cut on glider prices. In
my opinion it is false. Let me just mention the Pegase which has been built
in France approximately at the same time as the German LS4 and with basically
the same performances. The Pegase was 1/3 cheaper, and you can be sure that
the factory was extremely far from efficient. Now where Lennie is perfectly
right, the snobism and elitism occurring in the soaring community was such
that the Pegase has always been badmouthed compared to the LS4, while
they are both excellent gliders. The clubs which have bought a large
quantity of Pegase have been able to offer modern gliders to their members
(Buno-Bonnevaux is an example) at reasonable price, and the result has
been excellent soaring performance for these clubs. Now wonder the price at
which a glider could be built in India, for example!


--

Michel TALON

Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:

I'd say anyone can afford the above prices.


I agree, these prices are very correct. Now my point is that, even in the
cheapest clubs in France, even when absolutely everyone works for free,
prices are closer to the double of what you mention. So i would like to
understand ... I would like also to understand why a lot of people from Nordic
countries, Germany and England come flying in France or in Spain when they can
fly for half the price staying at home (and as far as i know prices in Spain
and Italy are *not* cheaper than in France). When a convincing explanation is
given for these discrepancies, then perhaps i can agree that the prices of
gliders are not killing the sport. At present i still consider that a glider
which is sold the price of a house is purely and simply a scandal, and a
complete waste of money except for the very rich ones.



-A

--

Michel TALON

(Michel Talon) wrote in message ...

It is here that i disagree with Lennie. Having a good performing glider
40:1 allows to easily show what is really the beauty of gliding, in
particular going XC.

Tsk,Tsk. Michel, the last part of that statement is not a universal
truth, only your personal opinion


Hence, contrary to what he states and thinks, the real
elitism is in his position, thinking that one can have a lot of fun
with 30:1 gliders.

Here is what we call, in metalworking, "blaming the machine."
Meaning, blame the machine for the shortcomings of the man. If you
cannot find a way to have fun in any glider, it's a tunnel vision of
what you personally perceive as "fun". To suggest that because you
can't, nobody else can, is only an attempt to hide the fact that you
have only a single interest.

Except excellent pilots, most of those who use such
gliders spend their time circling around the airport, and, as Lennie
has observed himself, this doesn't remain fun for very long.

MIchel, nothing will make me angry any faster than someone twisting my
words to mean something I did not say. I plainly stated from the
beginning, that flying local in a 1-26 was the total extent of what I
intended to do. That NEVER changed. There was a short time that I
considered using the glider to save myself a little footwork, but a
few minutes with the "State sized maps" showed me that it would have
been foolhardy on most days, even though possible. I do not like
people that manipulate my words to seemingly support a position that,
in this case, I do not agree with.

Higher performance and lower cost do not go together, one forbids the
other unless you want to sacrifice something like structural integrity
to reach it. In which case, you shouldn't be building airplanes,
maybe lawn chairs.

(Michel Talon) wrote in message ...
gliders are not killing the sport. At present i still consider that a glider
which is sold the price of a house is purely and simply a scandal, and a
complete waste of money except for the very rich ones.


I don't know much about real estate in France, but here in California
the price of a brand new Stemme S10 wouldn't buy you a 1 bedroom condo
in a bad neighborhood.

(Michel Talon) wrote in message ...
Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:

I'd say anyone can afford the above prices.


I agree, these prices are very correct. Now my point is that, even in the
cheapest clubs in France, even when absolutely everyone works for free,
prices are closer to the double of what you mention. So i would like to
understand ... I would like also to understand why a lot of people from Nordic
countries, Germany and England come flying in France or in Spain when they can
fly for half the price staying at home (and as far as i know prices in Spain
and Italy are *not* cheaper than in France). When a convincing explanation is
given for these discrepancies, then perhaps i can agree that the prices of
gliders are not killing the sport. At present i still consider that a glider
which is sold the price of a house is purely and simply a scandal

Yes, yes a scandal it is and all those glider company CEO's are
getting filthy rich. Makes you wonder why glider manufacturers are
not popping up all over.

complete waste of money except for the very rich ones.

If it's a waste, it's a waste. It does not matter how much money
you have. If soaring were free it still would not take over the
world. ITS TO HARD!! The average Joe will not put out the effort
it takes to learn. That's why you don't see many dropout's at
the airfield. The soaring community's job is just to make it
available to those who are willing to pay the price. Money, time,
and effort. I've decided to accept that soaring does not have the
great appeal to most that it has for me. And that is OK. Soaring
is not going to die because there are plenty of people like me who
are going to soar period.
So just keep being friendly at the airfield and do what you can
do to promote the sport and leave the results to the individual.

Craig-



-A

California can't be worth all that; sell your house,
buy a Stemme with a tank full of gas, and LEAVE!

At 02:30 20 April 2004, Liam Finley wrote:
(Michel Talon) wrote in message
news:...
gliders are not killing the sport. At present i still
consider that a glider
which is sold the price of a house is purely and simply
a scandal, and a
complete waste of money except for the very rich ones.


I don't know much about real estate in France, but
here in California
the price of a brand new Stemme S10 wouldn't buy you
a 1 bedroom condo
in a bad neighborhood.

We ( I'm in England ) come and fly in France (and Spain) because the
conditions are so much better!

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

We put up with you making us take new medicals,
We put up with you making us have secondary CofA approvals
We put up with having to have a check ride every time we want to fly
We put up with having to talk in French when everyone else in the world of
aviation talks English
And still we come to fly!

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

( PS: It might also have something to do with beautiful mountains, wide open
spaces, cheap petrol, good food, passable wine, reasonably priced
accomodation, lots more sunshine and really nice people )

Ian



"Michel Talon" wrote in message
...
Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:

I'd say anyone can afford the above prices.


I agree, these prices are very correct. Now my point is that, even in the
cheapest clubs in France, even when absolutely everyone works for free,
prices are closer to the double of what you mention. So i would like to
understand ... I would like also to understand why a lot of people from
Nordic
countries, Germany and England come flying in France or in Spain when they
can
fly for half the price staying at home (and as far as i know prices in
Spain
and Italy are *not* cheaper than in France). When a convincing explanation
is
given for these discrepancies, then perhaps i can agree that the prices
of
gliders are not killing the sport. At present i still consider that a
glider
which is sold the price of a house is purely and simply a scandal, and a
complete waste of money except for the very rich ones.



-A

--

Michel TALON

wrote in message ...
Have to ask yourself if this really is the kind of people you want to
involve in soaring... Fair-goers awaiting some new source of entertainment-

Admittedly, I want people interested in the sport that are willing to work
toward a goal, not be given something that is easily
obtained and cheaply advertised.

It's a great sport, an amazing gift-
I don't want it taken for granted by those seeking entertainment, I want it
enjoyed by those seeking joy-


Of course we don't really want that kind of people. But don't worry -
they won't stay. And don't forget that not all fair-goers are soaring
pilots but some might be if you give them the opportunity.
I think the idea was to get lots more people to know about our sport
and have a little taste of it. As John said: throw enough people into
the air, and some of them might stay up.
As a side effect we get positive publicity which is another thing the
sport needs desperately.

Not exactly the same audience but with a higher success rate:
At our club we offer an introduction to soaring for about 80US$ three
to five times a year, depending on demand. It includes an evening of
theory and a day of gliding. One aerotow and one or two winch launches
per person. Depends on weather and on how long the flights turn out to
be. We take 6 to 10 people a time and require a minimum age of 14 so
if they like it they can start next year. We get about 1 or 2 new
members each time.

Marcel

Why walk when you can soar?