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 |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
At 12:30 02 February 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
One of the reasons the PW5 never caught on in the UK, apart from its appearance, is that you could buy a secondhand Standard Cirrus, Libelle, Pegasus, ASW19, or any any other first/second generation glass Std Class 15 metre span glider, more cheaply and with much better performance. These gliders compete in our 'Club Class' competitions, which are normally oversubscribed. There is not enough interest in the 'World Class' to make it worthwhile to organize a National Comp. So how *do* we explain the continuing (I hope) popularity of the Schweizer 1-26 in America? I mean, the performance really is pretty low in modern terms. Proponents like to say that one advantage of the 1-26 is that the retrieves are always shorter. But then somebody like Ron Schwartz demonstrates that it ain't necessarily so. Flying cross country in a 1-26 does tend to separate the men from the dilettantes, I suppose. And you can find some sort of one-class 1-26 competition on both sides of the Mississippi every year. I've been to two 1-26 Championships so far, and I've gotta admit that the 1-26 crew knows how to have a good time. What is it about the ship that attracts such a wacky crowd? Of course, the glider *is* dirt cheap, and you can have unending amounts of fun painting it any color scheme you want, and still leave it outside. It is possible that Blairstown now has the highest number of 1-26s of various models based at one field (I think we've got at least 12 now). And what attracted the last one or two was the chance to fly with (and against) other 1-26s on a regular basis. It will be interesting to see how this develops this year. And I expect the club will encourage our newer pilots to take the club 1-26s out and run with the rest of the pack. Such fun, and so cheap. Jim Beckman (234, 664, 363 and a few others) |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
On Feb 2, 9:15*am, Jim Beckman wrote:
So how *do* we explain the continuing (I hope) popularity of the Schweizer 1-26 in America? * Of course, the glider *is* dirt cheap There you go, that's all that there is to it. If the the PW-5 would have sold for less than $10,000 including basic instruments and trailer, it would have been popular, no matter how ugly. Todd 3S |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
On Feb 2, 10:06*am, toad wrote:
On Feb 2, 9:15*am, Jim Beckman wrote: So how *do* we explain the continuing (I hope) popularity of the Schweizer 1-26 in America? * Of course, the glider *is* dirt cheap There you go, that's all that there is to it. * If the the PW-5 would have sold for less than $10,000 including basic instruments and trailer, it would have been popular, no matter how ugly. Todd 3S In many speed sports, we orient tyros w.r.t. equipment purchase decisions thus: "Good, fast, cheap: pick two". Popular ships, new or used, fit this rule of sorts. -T8 |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders
On Feb 2, 7:00*am, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 15:27 01 February 2009, Papa3 wrote: So, I do believe a lot of it comes back to land. * Specifically, the fact that land use policy (or lack thereof) in the US means that a flat piece of land within say 90 minutes drive of most major metropolitan areas is going to run into the several $milions. * *For instance, a 30 acre property in a place equidistant from say NYC and Philadelphia would set you back about $1M minimum... Do you happen to know how taxes affect US clubs that own their own fields? *I suppose it varies from state to state, but some of these clubs have pretty valuable pieces of land. *Being set up as a non-profit organization might help some, but I don't know if it would exempt the group from taxes. On the other hand, the way to save money is to be a church. *Any club that could set itself up as a religion would have it made. *Maybe the Reverend Charlie Spratt (or should I say Father Charlie?) would be interested in consecrating a few bishops around the country to establish branches of the Church of the Rising Air. *Yeah, that's the way to go. *It worked great for L. Ron Hubbard. Jim Beckman (Rev.-to-be) 18-20 US SSA chapters are 501c(3) charitable, tax exempt, non-profit organizations and I believe one large club is currently in the process of seeking the determination. There are additional foundations acting as pass through agents and a couple that own the gliderports and lease to clubs. At least on other medium sized club is exploring the topic. In an overview of a couple that own their gliderports, they are about $30,000/year better off as a result through real and sales tax exemptions and charitable donations. You are correct that not all localities or states allow full real property tax exemptions, but many have non-profit rate schedules. The topic requires some education. The SSA Clubs and Chapters Committee is willing to offer insight, guidance, and possibly assistance, but the effort and benefit belong to the club and hopefully to the growth of soaring. Frank Whiteley |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders SW HIGH FUN LOW STRESS CLASS
On 30 Jan 2009 22:45:02 GMT, Brian Bange wrote:
Most all were a product of the FAI's initiative to find a World Class ship. I believe one requirement was that they were designed to be easy to fly. In my experience with the Russia, PW5 and L-33, they are. I believe all the FAI is trying to do is include these ships into the World Class and handicap it, so as to grow the class. If something new and more competitive comes along, it will have to live under it's handicap, so where is the advantage to making something that is hard to handle? Well... as there are practiucally no World Class gliders flying in Europe (read: World Class is being ignored by 80 percent of the world's gliding pilots), you'd better name it "US class"... or "dwarf class"... Bye Andreas |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders SW HIGH FUN LOW STRESS CLASS
On Feb 2, 12:03*pm, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On 30 Jan 2009 22:45:02 GMT, Brian Bange wrote: Most all were a product of the FAI's initiative to find a World Class ship. I believe one requirement was that they were designed to be easy to fly. In my experience with the Russia, PW5 and L-33, they are. I believe all the FAI is trying to do is include these ships into the World Class and handicap it, so as to grow the class. If something new and more competitive comes along, it will have to live under it's handicap, so where is the advantage to making something that is hard to handle? Well... as there are practiucally no World Class gliders flying in Europe (read: World Class is being ignored by 80 percent of the world's gliding pilots), you'd better name it "US class"... or "dwarf class"... Bye Andreas Hey, don't blame it on the US, we are ignoring it too. Todd |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
On Feb 2, 10:06*am, toad wrote:
On Feb 2, 9:15*am, Jim Beckman wrote: So how *do* we explain the continuing (I hope) popularity of the Schweizer 1-26 in America? * Of course, the glider *is* dirt cheap There you go, that's all that there is to it. * If the the PW-5 would have sold for less than $10,000 including basic instruments and trailer, it would have been popular, no matter how ugly. Todd 3S And rugged. And easy to get fixed at any local repair shop. And REALLY cheap. P3 |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
At 14:15 02 February 2009, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 12:30 02 February 2009, Derek Copeland wrote: One of the reasons the PW5 never caught on in the UK, apart from its appearance, is that you could buy a secondhand Standard Cirrus, Libelle, Pegasus, ASW19, or any any other first/second generation glass Std Class 15 metre span glider, more cheaply and with much better performance. These gliders compete in our 'Club Class' competitions, which are normally oversubscribed. There is not enough interest in the 'World Class' to make it worthwhile to organize a National Comp. So how *do* we explain the continuing (I hope) popularity of the Schweizer 1-26 in America? Masochism perhaps? Or maybe you can get away with low performance gliders in the booming soaring conditions and high cloudbases you allegedly get in the States. In the cloudy little UK, you need all the performance you can get, to glide through the *difficult* patches of weather. Derek Copeland |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
On Feb 1, 4:00*am, Dan Silent wrote:
At 03:09 28 January 2009, RRK wrote: How many gliders with a wing span of 13.5 or less do you know? 1 * * * Apis-13 * * * * * * * * 13.3 2 * * * BG135 * 3 * * * Carbon Dragon * 13.4 4 * * * Cessna CG-2 * * * * * * 11.0 5 * * * Cherokee II * * * * * * 12.2 6 * * * Duster 13.1 m * * * * * 13.1 7 * * * H101 Salto * * * 8 * * * L0 100 * 9 * * * Monarch * * * * * * * * 12.8 10 * * *Monerai S * * * * * * * * * * * 11.0 11 * * *MU xyz * 12 * * *Pioneer II * * * * * * * * * * *13.0 13 * * *PW-5 * * * * * * * * * *13.4 14 * * *Russia * 15 * * *Schweizer 1-26 *12.2 16 * * *Silent 2 * * * * * * * * * * * *13.0 17 * * *Silent 2 Targa * * * * *13.3 18 * * *Silent Club * * * * * * 12.0 19 * * *Slingaby Swallow * * * * 20 * * *Sparrowhawk * * * * * * 11.0 21 * * *SW-1 Swift * * * 22 * * *SZD-59 Acro * * * * * * 13.2 23 * * *WindRose * * * * * * * * * * * *12.7 24 * * *Woodstock * * * 25 * *Ka6 * * * * * * * * * * * * *14.1 Don't forget the Irv Culver "Screamin' Weiner" 10.97m span a.k.a. Li'l Dogie (Wally Wiberg) and the Culver "Rigid Midget" 11.58m . These designs placed 2nd in 1946 and 1947 U.S. Nationals. Flown by Ray Parker and Paul MacCready. Had a world out and return record in the 1940s also. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
On Feb 2, 2:14*am, (Michel Talon) wrote:
...The glider factories seem to think that glider buyers are like Ferrari buyers, who will accept to pay any price for their toys... Michel, I think that you have hit the nail on the head. The glider makers are acting just as you say. And the reason they are doing so seems to be that they are correct in their assessment; that there continues to be folks who will pay top dollar for high-performance sailplanes. What I don't understand is why you seem to take issue with it. Do you think that it is unjust or unfair for them to want to make a profit? In order to make at least enough money to stay in business, the established glider manufacturers have focused their development and production on gliders for which they can command the highest prices and so make the most profit: high-performance racing machines with cutting-edge aerodynamics and many pilot-friendly amenities. And who can blame them? That is what businesses do. The business of business is definitely business. Expecting any business to do otherwise means that you consider it a charity and begs the question, how much time or money have you donated lately? Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that the established glider manufacturers are making excessive profits as we have seen among greedy Wall Street bankers. We don't see their CEOs flying around in business jets, and their top managers and engineers don't get huge bonuses and live in mansions. In fact, when I met the man who is arguable the best and most prolific sailplane designer ever, he was wearing a grubby T-shirt and sweeping out a hangar with a borrowed broom. To my way of thinking, just about the only folks who make gliders for free are those who expect to hold posession of said glider when they're done. That certainly describes the sailplane homebuilders with whom I hold the honor and privilege of working. But it doesn't and needn't describe businesses that are in the business of making gliders. Thanks, and best regards Bob K. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
X-Wings and Canard Rotor Wings. | Charles Gray | Rotorcraft | 1 | March 22nd 05 12:26 AM |