"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