Short Wings Gliders

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.