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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
One Design viability?
With winter upon us in the northern hemisphere, the annual PW5 thread had=
reappeared. I started thinking about this ship and one design racing an= d thought I might post this. I started thinking about this topic in the = summer when I saw two full size bus conversion RV's pulling two brand-new= looking glider trailers on what appeared to be a trip to a national cont= est. From my location in Colorado and then license plates on the caravan= , it was at least a 3 day drive. Pilots have every right to spend their= hard earned money in whatever way they see fit, but watching $200K+ roll= ing down the road reminded me of the yacht racing aspect of our sport. With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of tim= e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship be= ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? P= articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design still r= equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. It s= till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. 1-26ers = love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm to= another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship whi= ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =20 And I just don't see how any bird being built currently can price itself = below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up the little PW5, maybe= we need to look harder at the concept of one design racing. I like the = idea but am not sure that in this day and age that is where so much effor= t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought I would write this o= ut. =20 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Good points.
The people who buy PW-5's generally are newer pilots who are buying their first ship. Often, it is while owning the PW-5 that they get interested in XC, and decide that they need a ship with longer legs. Thus, the entire premise of the World Class is questionable. It is designed to be a one-design racing ship, but it is bought by pilots who are at the opposite end of the spectrum from racing pilots. Why don't racing pilots buy it? Well, In essence, we already have several one-design classes -- the Standard, the 15-Meter, and the 18-Meter. In terms of performance, there is no appreciable difference between the various gliders that fly in these classes. Why would a racing pilot sell his "one-design" Standard ship for a one-design World Class glider with lower performance? I suspect any World Class glider would be a flop, even if it was an LS-4. Who would buy a World Class LS-4? The racers won't trade down from their LS-8s. And the current PW-5 owners would view the '4 as too high performance for their skill level. The market likely would be limited to those who presently buy used LS-4s, LS-3, Mosquitoes, etc, but to reach that market the glider fully outfitted would have to sell for $30,000 or less (at $35,000 it would have to compete with used LS-6s and Ventuses). Is that price possible? Even with minimal instruments and a basic trailer, after shipping only about $15,000 would be left for the glider. Stewart Kissel wrote: With winter upon us in the northern hemisphere, the annual PW5 thread had= reappeared. I started thinking about this ship and one design racing an= d thought I might post this. I started thinking about this topic in the = summer when I saw two full size bus conversion RV's pulling two brand-new= looking glider trailers on what appeared to be a trip to a national cont= est. From my location in Colorado and then license plates on the caravan= , it was at least a 3 day drive. Pilots have every right to spend their= hard earned money in whatever way they see fit, but watching $200K+ roll= ing down the road reminded me of the yacht racing aspect of our sport. With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of tim= e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship be= ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? P= articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design still r= equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. It s= till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. 1-26ers = love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm to= another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship whi= ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =20 And I just don't see how any bird being built currently can price itself = below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up the little PW5, maybe= we need to look harder at the concept of one design racing. I like the = idea but am not sure that in this day and age that is where so much effor= t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought I would write this o= ut. =20 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Arnold" wrote in message
news:VzMxb.7716$ZE1.5967@fed1read04... IMHO, you're all a day late and a dollar short. Back in the days when the summers lasted forever and I had a full head of hair, I was minded to take up the sport of gliding. I stumbled along to the Scottish Gliding Union where a crazy old German by the name of Ansgar Samble (Hi, Ansgar. I still remember your full brake approaches, you *******!) proceeded to try to teach me how to fly. Eventually, that task was finished by the tiny but perfectly-formed Alan Middleton from Deeside, and I became a fully-fledged glider pilot, ready to take on the world. What happened next? I'll tell you what, me boyos! I'd spend days, weeks, months, at the club working my ass off and maybe - maybe - as a reward get a fifteen minute flight in a knackered Swallow, which taught me naught but the folly of not owning my own piece of plastic. Sure, I could have beavered away and in 3 or 4 years have accumulated a Silver C or some such nonsense, but I'd also have had to dedicate my life and soul to the club merely to have the opportunity to do so in a club machine. So I buggered off, competed with varying degrees of success in a half-dozen other sports at a quarter of the cost in terms of finance and time, and had a great life. Fast forward thirty years. Youngest son sees glider in air and says, "That looks like fun". "Ah", says I, "It is, but it requires that you commit your entire existence to the sport or that you drain your meagre Trust fund dry. Do either of these options appeal to you?". "Piffle", says youngest son, "Point the car at the SGU and prove your lies!" So I did. He'll find that times have changed, I hear you mutter. And you're correct. They have a nice all-glass fleet, a subsidised youth training scheme, and an ample supply of early solo machines. They even have a big cool-looking ASH-25 thingie that looks just like the sort of thing you could fly for 1000's of k's. HOWEVER, it's still a sport that demands time, time and more time. Time to learn to fly - you can't simply turn up and go, time to rig or drag the beast out of a hanger, time to wait for a launch, time to derig or hanger pack. And all before you ever get to the stage of attempting to fly cross country. What kid has the price of a PW-5, LS-4, or whatever sitting around in his back pocket? Sure, they've enough for two weeks snowboarding in the Alps, or for scuba diving in the Red Sea, but by and large they have neither the cash, nor the desire, to commit a large amount of time or money to one particular activity. In other words, it isn't the *type* of plane you fly that makes the sport accessible or keeps people coming back for more, it's the *structure*. Get that right and you'll be inundated with new pilots, some of who will be wealthy enough to provide a buoyant glider market, others will ensure that clubs will be able to afford a varied and healthy club fleet. Youngest son was impressed by the SGU, as was I, but is too young to start training. So we're back to the usual round of karting (A full race championship winning outfit can be bought for less than £3000. You turn up, practice, race and go home. Over in two hours. The afternoon's still free for swimming.), snowboarding and mountainbiking. I reckon he'll give gliding a try, and I reckon he'll last as long as I did - i.e. long enough to go solo, then walk away. Gliding is an anachronism, a sport left over from a different age. I'll give you guys your due, you haven't simply rolled over and died, but die you must and die you will. And I suspect you'll do it all the quicker if you spend your time obsessing over glider design rather than addressing the cost or time constraints of your sport. Roger. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Kissel wrote:
With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of tim= e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship be= ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? P= articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design still r= equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. It s= till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. 1-26ers = love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm to= another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship whi= ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =20 And I just don't see how any bird being built currently can price itself = below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up the little PW5, maybe= we need to look harder at the concept of one design racing. I like the = idea but am not sure that in this day and age that is where so much effor= t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought I would write this o= ut. =20 [The following opinion is not founded on careful research. I offer it from the viewpoint of someone that was on the SSA Board of Directors when Paul Schweizer first proposed the World Class, and has observed the debate since then] I've wondered about this also. We have, in effect, one-design contests in the STD, 15 M, and 18 M classes, because there is little difference between the top gliders from each manufacturer. It's not a low cost, one-design, situation, of course, but because the gliders offer what most pilots want in a glider, they sell well to pilots that aren't serious competitors. We have low(er) cost racing via the Sport Class (USA) and the Club Class (elsewhere). The Sports Class isn't one-design by any measure, but it's popular anyway. The Club Class isn't one-design, either, but it's method for selecting gliders for the class comes close in matching performances, and when the handicap is used, it's just as effective as a one-design class at equalizing performance. [I'm not a historian of the 1-26, so I hope knowledgeable people will correct the following if it needs it] The 1-26 is a successful one-design class, but it didn't start as a competition class, but was designed to be the single seat follow-on to the 2-22 trainer. The class came later, after there were many (hundreds?) already in existence, and the much smaller number of pilots interested in competition began competing. An important factor in the creation and continuing vigor of the class is it's much lower performance than the other common gliders, making it's own class the only way it can have a good competition. In other words, only a very few pilots bought the 1-26 because it offered one-design competition. The huge majority of owners are attracted to it for other reasons. So, what must a one-design class glider have to be successful in this environment? I think these things: - look good, like a "real" glider - have Std Cirrus or better performance (38:1 or better) - robust and easy to fly for low-time club members - weather-proof finish to allow outdoor parking - cost no higher than similar used German gliders A glider like the above should have enough sales to be profitable to produce, even if it isn't the World Class glider. Making it the World Class glider might add a few sales, but I think these will be so few, that most of the sales must come for other reasons; i.e., because it is a desirable glider. A glider like the above would also fit in the Club Class (and the Sports Class in the USA), giving it another place to compete in addition to it's own class. Since these two Classes have numerous competitions already, I suspect most of the competitions the new World Class gliders would compete in would not be World Class competitions! So, by my analysis, a successful World Class glider must be successful even it it isn't the World Class glider, which makes me wonder what value there would be to having the World Class. Perhaps the effort it takes to develop and maintain the concept would be better spent on other aspects of soaring that would be more likely to increase our numbers. -- ----- Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
All a one design class needs to be successful is a sanctioning
body making it THE choice for contests. Look at the olympics. Solings for gods sake, tornado's and other low performance boats. Very strict rules on planform and construction. IMHO there are much better race boats in the world than what theey use. The key is that they use them, have contests and promote it as a class boat. The PW5 only needs for the sanctioning body of soaring to adopt it and have a world championship at the venue that the other classes are held. There are people who would fly for a world title in the class if it was flown and promoted that way. Scott. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Correa wrote:
All a one design class needs to be successful is a sanctioning body making it THE choice for contests. Look at the olympics. Solings for gods sake, tornado's and other low performance boats. Very strict rules on planform and construction. IMHO there are much better race boats in the world than what theey use. The key is that they use them, have contests and promote it as a class boat. The PW5 only needs for the sanctioning body of soaring to adopt it and have a world championship at the venue that the other classes are held. There are people who would fly for a world title in the class if it was flown and promoted that way. I agree that if you hold a contest, they will come. My observation is that "they" are high level pilots who are already competing, and see the another class as simply another avenue to pursue their interest in competition. I don't think a one-design class has an extra attraction to the new or less serious pilot, as long as they have similar cost competitions available, such as the Sports Class, the Club Class, and regional competitions. -- ----- Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Eric Greenwell wrote: Scott Correa wrote: All a one design class needs to be successful is a sanctioning body making it THE choice for contests. Look at the olympics. Solings for gods sake, tornado's and other low performance boats. Very strict rules on planform and construction. IMHO there are much better race boats in the world than what theey use. The key is that they use them, have contests and promote it as a class boat. The PW5 only needs for the sanctioning body of soaring to adopt it and have a world championship at the venue that the other classes are held. There are people who would fly for a world title in the class if it was flown and promoted that way. I agree that if you hold a contest, they will come. They didn't come to the World Class contests, though. My observation is that "they" are high level pilots who are already competing, and see the another class as simply another avenue to pursue their interest in competition. I don't think a one-design class has an extra attraction to the new or less serious pilot, as long as they have similar cost competitions available, such as the Sports Class, the Club Class, and regional competitions. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"apusapus" wrote in message ...
"Greg Arnold" wrote in message news:VzMxb.7716$ZE1.5967@fed1read04... IMHO, you're all a day late and a dollar short. Back in the days when the summers lasted forever and I had a full head of hair, I was minded to take up the sport of gliding. I Trolling the aviation groups with your BS about flying. What is next? You have a hundred thousand hours and have test flown 5000 types, flew relief missions to Africa and are the world's greatest physican? Replace the ZZZ with RRR Yes people here comes the next one... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew Mazerowski wrote: "apusapus" wrote in message ... "Greg Arnold" wrote in message news:VzMxb.7716$ZE1.5967@fed1read04... IMHO, you're all a day late and a dollar short. Back in the days when the summers lasted forever and I had a full head of hair, I was minded to take up the sport of gliding. I Trolling the aviation groups with your BS about flying. What is next? You have a hundred thousand hours and have test flown 5000 types, flew relief missions to Africa and are the world's greatest physican? Replace the ZZZ with RRR Yes people here comes the next one... Actually, I'm afraid his story is true. We've heard it before from other people. If it's true, it'd be better to remain silent than offer this response; if false, no need to reply at all. -- ----- Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart,
I came to the conclusion many years ago that sailplane racing is expensive, no two ways around it. You can reduce the cost by racing older gliders in the sports class at local venues, but if you want to improve, you'll have to bite the bullet. A national contest costs about $4K to attend and takes two weeks of precious vacation. To get good, really good, you'll need to fly at least one national contest and two to three regional contests (typically about $2K) attended by a significant number of Category One pilots. There's four to five weeks of vacation. Then you'll want to spend every available weekend racing with your Category Two and One friends. To do this effectively, you'll need a glider within 5 percent of theirs. That's the level of commitment you are competing against. Many of the pilots you'll compete against at a National contenst have more than 50 nationals under their belts. So when you get right down to it, owning a glider under 40:1 won't allow an inexperienced pilot to grow fast enough to keep his interest. There are some notable exceptions, but they are, after all, exceptions. I've noted in our club that it's only when pilots get into better gliders (LS-6, ASW-20, Ventus, and up) that their cross-country skills really take off since they can now stay in contact longer with more skillfull pilots -- that is, they are afforded the opportunity to learn. The PeeWee just isn't suited to learning racing skills. BTW, others point to sailing as an example of the viability of a one type class. The World Class was built on this concept; however, there are so few glider pilots that we cannot hope to replicate the support infrastructure that leads young sailors into these classes, and defines a path to grow out of them into other classes. I've seen over a hundred little sailboats at a time tearing around a variety of harbors, piloted by kids from 10 to 50, with almost as many support and spectator boats. We just don't live in that world. Stewart Kissel wrote in message ... With winter upon us in the northern hemisphere, the annual PW5 thread had= reappeared. I started thinking about this ship and one design racing an= d thought I might post this. I started thinking about this topic in the = summer when I saw two full size bus conversion RV's pulling two brand-new= looking glider trailers on what appeared to be a trip to a national cont= est. From my location in Colorado and then license plates on the caravan= , it was at least a 3 day drive. Pilots have every right to spend their= hard earned money in whatever way they see fit, but watching $200K+ roll= ing down the road reminded me of the yacht racing aspect of our sport. With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of tim= e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship be= ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? P= articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design still r= equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. It s= till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. 1-26ers = love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm to= another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship whi= ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =20 And I just don't see how any bird being built currently can price itself = below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up the little PW5, maybe= we need to look harder at the concept of one design racing. I like the = idea but am not sure that in this day and age that is where so much effor= t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought I would write this o= ut. =20 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking for a two-seater design | Shin Gou | Home Built | 13 | December 21st 04 06:44 AM |
Aircraft Design 1942 flying boats FA | Sally | Home Built | 0 | August 19th 04 06:49 PM |
Aircraft Design 1942 flying boats etc FA | Sally | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 17th 04 12:40 AM |
amateur design consultant? | Shin Gou | Home Built | 14 | June 30th 04 01:34 AM |
How 'bout a thread on the F-22 with no mud slinging, no axe grinding, no emotional diatribes, and just some clear, objective discussion? | Scott Ferrin | Military Aviation | 23 | January 8th 04 12:39 AM |