LS-4 ? What about 1-26 ?

In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:

There are already gliders available to the hang glider pilots with much
superior performance to a competition hang glider for _same_ price as
competition hang glider. Take a look at the used gliders available: the
Ka-6 and even the 1-26 can meet your target.

I don't know why people keep saying things like this. You can *not*
significantly grow gliding by people buying Ka-6's or 1-26's. They
aren't *MAKING* them any more, there is a only a very limited number
around, and if you made new ones they'd cost as much or more as a PW-5
(whcih is better than either of them, albiet marginally in the case of
the K6) anyway.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:


There are already gliders available to the hang glider pilots with much
superior performance to a competition hang glider for _same_ price as
competition hang glider. Take a look at the used gliders available: the
Ka-6 and even the 1-26 can meet your target.


I don't know why people keep saying things like this. You can *not*
significantly grow gliding by people buying Ka-6's or 1-26's. They
aren't *MAKING* them any more, there is a only a very limited number
around,

And yet they are very cheap, which is why I suggest there aren't enough
pilots interested in gliding. If hang glider pilots were falling all
over each other to move into low cost gliders with substantially better
performance than their hang gliders, we'd see higher prices. I don't
think it is the glider _supply_ that is lacking, it is the _demand_ for
gliders that is missing.

and if you made new ones they'd cost as much or more as a PW-5
(whcih is better than either of them, albiet marginally in the case of
the K6) anyway.

I agree. But do you think there would be more people starting gliding
lessons if they could buy a new LS4 for $40,000 US instead of $50,000?
Or even it it was only $30,000? I don't think there would be any more
starting pilots, though we would probably keep a few more. It will take
a lot more than that to get the LS4 volume up to where the $30,000 price
is possible.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:

I don't know why people keep saying things like this. You can *not*
significantly grow gliding by people buying Ka-6's or 1-26's. They
aren't *MAKING* them any more, there is a only a very limited number
around,

And yet they are very cheap, which is why I suggest there aren't enough
pilots interested in gliding. If hang glider pilots were falling all
over each other to move into low cost gliders with substantially better
performance than their hang gliders, we'd see higher prices. I don't
think it is the glider _supply_ that is lacking, it is the _demand_ for
gliders that is missing.

Yes, that's a good point.

Perhaps the hang glider pilots simply don't *know* about these cheap
gliders? Or perhaps they value being able to climb an arbitrary peak
and jump off too much? In which case they're not going to be happy with
less than a self-launching glider.


and if you made new ones they'd cost as much or more as a PW-5
(whcih is better than either of them, albiet marginally in the case of
the K6) anyway.

I agree. But do you think there would be more people starting gliding
lessons if they could buy a new LS4 for $40,000 US instead of $50,000?
Or even it it was only $30,000? I don't think there would be any more
starting pilots, though we would probably keep a few more. It will take
a lot more than that to get the LS4 volume up to where the $30,000 price
is possible.

Personally, I think a new PW-5 or similar for $15k is a pretty damn good
thing. It seems that others don't think so. I'm wierd I guess.

I fly a Janus (and have flown DG1000 and Duo) and they're nice, but for
flying cross country I actually *prefer* a PW-5 (and I was flying one
yesterday). Sure, you can't go as far or as fast but you can still
challenge youself and there are plenty of days when the PW-5 can stay up
but the Janus can't (yes I know the reverse is true in some
places/conditions).

OTOH I've never flown a single-seater with more performance than a
Libelle (about 65 hours in Libelles, Std and Club), so I probably don't
have a clue what a *real* glider flies like anyway. Is an LS-4 *that*
much better than a Libelle?

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:03:17 +1300, Bruce Hoult
wrote:

Sure, you can't go as far or as fast but you can still
challenge youself and there are plenty of days when the PW-5 can stay up
but the Janus can't (yes I know the reverse is true in some
places/conditions).

Here in Germany the same story is told about the Ka-6/Ka-8 and glass
gliders - it's the legend of the weather that allows the lighter
gliders with inferior L/D to stay airborne while the "heavy" gliders
with good L/D need to land.

Unfortunately I never had the pleasure to meet anyone who saw this
happen.


Is an LS-4 *that*
much better than a Libelle?

Yes.
"That much" is a question of taste of course. Flying an LS-4 or DG-300
in a team with a Libelle means that you have to pull the flaps after
each 3rd thermal and get rid of 500 ft if you want to stay together
with him. To me this is a vast difference.







Bye
Andreas

Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:


I don't know why people keep saying things like this. You can *not*
significantly grow gliding by people buying Ka-6's or 1-26's. They
aren't *MAKING* them any more, there is a only a very limited number
around,

And yet they are very cheap, which is why I suggest there aren't enough
pilots interested in gliding. If hang glider pilots were falling all
over each other to move into low cost gliders with substantially better
performance than their hang gliders, we'd see higher prices. I don't
think it is the glider _supply_ that is lacking, it is the _demand_ for
gliders that is missing.


Yes, that's a good point.

Perhaps the hang glider pilots simply don't *know* about these cheap
gliders?

I think this is a big part of it. They generally aren't where the
sailplane crowd is, and vice versa.

Or perhaps they value being able to climb an arbitrary peak
and jump off too much?

This is also part of it. The lack of regulation (licenses, biennial
reviews, and so on) is appealing to everyone, but perhaps more so the
younger crowd.

THe former hang glider pilots (and now sailplane pilots) I've talked to
indicated that as they got older, they began to notice the advantages of
sailplanes:

* much less physical effort and pain to fly
* every cross-country flight doesn't end in a retrieve
* the glider doesn't wear out and lose half it's value in a 3-4 years
* you don't beat up your car/truck driving over miles and hours of
crummy logging roads to get to the launch site (the drive to the airport
is easy, comparatively, even if it's farther away)
* said site is often without the right wind or thermals when you get there
* you don't have so many friends that seem to have a death wish
* and the wife is estactic that they leave late in the morning and
actually get home before dinner!

In which case they're not going to be happy with
less than a self-launching glider.

They can be very happy, because of the advantages listed above. All of
these pilots are still working, so weekend flying is fine with them,
andbecause soaring is more likely in a sailplane than a hang glider on a
any given day.

snip

Personally, I think a new PW-5 or similar for $15k is a pretty damn good
thing. It seems that others don't think so. I'm wierd I guess.

Definitely a 3 sigma on RAS!


OTOH I've never flown a single-seater with more performance than a
Libelle (about 65 hours in Libelles, Std and Club), so I probably don't
have a clue what a *real* glider flies like anyway. Is an LS-4 *that*
much better than a Libelle?

I doubt it, based on the gliders I've flown. A nicer glider all around,
but the flights won't be much better.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

As many posts have pointed out the problem of dwindling numbers in soaring
is more complex than simply the cost of gliders ... however the cost of
gliders is a big factor. Lets not confuse current debate by bringing in
other issues. These issues (some of which I list below should be debated
separately).

Other issues a
* Tow costs (this needs to be addressed by lighter smaller gliders than can
be towed by ultralight or smaller more compact winches).
* Access to two seat training and instructors (no point is producing new low
cost sailplanes if there is no affordable two seat trainers).
* Most pilots who enter the sport with a desire to fly competition quickly
realise that this is the domain of the wealthy and quickly decide that they
cannot affort this elitist sport (we need an affordable and active one
design class).
* Lack of young people (aging glider pilot population - currently not the
sort of scene that young people want to hang around - hang gliding and
skydiving are better alternatives for young people. Young people consider
glider clubs to be something akin to a retirement home).
* External financial pressures means that people have less to spend on
gliding (rising cost of housing, social pressures to live a more extravigant
lifestyle).
* The entry cost of our sport is too high (I am continually frustrated by
the comments of the small group of people who fly Discus' and LS-7's etc
that state that the cost is the cost - goddam it - the people we should be
attracting to the sport are the young. The 20-50 year olds. Those with
families and mortgages - how the hell are they supposed to afford a
$100,000+ glider. They will however be those who can affort these gliders in
later years. Gliding is a good family sport but the elitist attitude of a
minority is cutting of the supply of new members at the grass roots level).
* The current club environment is probably no longer a valid model for the
basis of our sport - we are now competing with many other sports that have
developed far more efficient models (in cost and time) and have promoted
themselves in a much more sophisticated manner. Take a close look at the
parachute industry ... they run large skydive centres near major cities,
they have a commercial basis, they attract the young by the hundreds, equal
mix of females and males which is important to the young. You go, you pay,
you do, you socialise a little and then go home. No hassle, a good time had
by all. Gliding has too many hassles.


Minestones in Glider Design:

The point I was trying to make in several earlier posts is that it is time
for a new designer to emerge with ideas that will take gliding in a new
direction. The current gliders designs have matured to an almost uniform
degree of conformity. Think back through history and the names of several
designers loom large that have shaped modern soaring:

Rudolf Kaiser (KA-6/7 and AS-K series)
Karel Dlouhy (Blanik)
Eugen Hanle (Libelle)
Gerhard Waible (AS-W series)
Klaus Holligaus (Cirrus, Nimbus, Janus, Discuss)
and there are others ....

Think how the creations of each of these designers changed the course of
gliding. Most of these designers created gliders that set new levels in
glider performance. We have reached a point now where we can no longer
afford more performance. We need creative ideas to reduce cost. We need a
new bunch of designers to tackle this issue. This problem is not unique to
gliders ... take jet fighters for instance. Exactly the same issue exists.
There comes a point where you have to balance cost and performance.


Costs of Labour:

Hang gliders and Paragliders are increasingly being made in China. To keep
the cost of labour down. There was a recent article in the 'Oz Report' (the
daily HG email newletter) that stated that there is one factory in China
that makes 7000 sails a year. It has to happen ... how long before we will
have a Chinese Discus or Apis. The cost of labour is the biggest hurdle that
manufacturers have to deal with (say 400 hrs x $50 = $20000). Either reduce
the number of hours by automation or reduce the labour rate. Glider
manufacturers need to be looking to China or Mexico etc. Of course this is
only a temporary fix to the problem. As living standards rise in these
courties so will the cost of labour. So ultimately out challenge is to
automate production for the long term.


Old Cheap Gliders:

This is not going to fix the problem.
* The supply is limited.
* Styling out of date (you may laugh but styling is important - perhaps why
the PW-5 was not as big a hit as it should have been).
* They require a lot more maintenance because of the age and construction
techniques.
* The are heavier to tow and rig than a AC-4 or Apis.
* If people are spending 15K+ then they want something new.
* They simply don't have the performance of an Apis or AC-4.


Performance:

I think arguements such as this are always hijacked by those who fly
competitively in high performance gliders. They could not see themselves in
a PW-5 or AC-4. This is one of our fundamental problems - no one is speaking
for the members we are yet to attract . For most beginner to intermediate
pilots the AC-4 or PW-5 are great little gliders that they can do a lot
with, learn heaps in and probably the only glider that they will really ever
need - especially if there was sufficient volume of these gliders to have an
active competition scene.


Certification and Light Plane Category:

We need a worldwide uniform standard for the new crop of gliders. JAR-22 was
previously almost universal but times have changed. The future will be in
the light sport / ultralight area. The current crop of ultralight sailplanes
are for the most part on shakey ground certification wise. Most of them are
somehow made legal in the ultralight categories of various countries. This
needs to be fixed and fixed urgently so that those making these machines
have some increased certainty. Light Sport aircraft are the future in the US
but there is no design standard. We need an ASTM subcommittee to start
looking at an ASTM glider standard - we already have standards for Light
Sport Aircraft (Powered) and Powered Parachutes etc. We also need handbooks
and guidance material on how to certificate gliders in a cost efficient
manner ... probably a task for OSTIV ????

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:06:04 +1100, "smjmitchell"
wrote:

As many posts have pointed out the problem of dwindling numbers in soaring
is more complex than simply the cost of gliders ... however the cost of
gliders is a big factor. Lets not confuse current debate by bringing in
other issues. These issues (some of which I list below should be debated
separately).

There are many reasons that new gliders will NOT be made in the US,
and most of them are out of the control of the people that would like
to see them.

First, cost. Can it be made cheaply with a high profit? No.

Can it be made to a low quality standard and still be serviceable?
Again, no.

Any company head that has been "trained" in the last thirty years is
going to have foremost on his mind, "can we outsource." This is going
to have a chilling effect on those that can afford it, but are
dependent on maintaining a means of support when it comes time to open
the wallet.

It requires a reasonable sustained effort to learn, "reasonable
sustained effort" is now something that our "institutions of higher
learning" teach is to be avoided. Fast and cheap is the only way now.

IOW, there has been a basic change of attitudes in the US, from "Can
do", to "It's impossible." From, "It's old, but it was well built,
let's rebuild it" to "It's cheap, throw it away and buy a new one."
And the downhill spiral begins as one manufacturer after another tries
to "outcheap" the next, to maintain, "market share."

It used to be that someone entering the workforce had a reasonable
expectation of having a job, a means of income for the rest of his/her
working life. The only question today is how many jobs you will have
in your lifetime, there is no such thing as a job you can depend on,
thing of the past. Restore some stability in peoples daily lives, and
you might find a market, and a few more that will attempt flying, but
until there's stability again, it won't happen. As with one person I
know, lost the job with a major communications company, said screw it,
retired. Enough money to live on, but don't look there for one to
start flying.

And yes, the Chinese can probably make things cheaper, due to the lack
of good paying jobs there. The problem is that when they've cut YOUR
income, through competition, to THEIR level, a used and abused 1-26 is
still going to be out of your reach.

It isn't just a soaring problem, it's a global problem. That nobody
seems to want to look at. I don't see it improving during my
lifetime.

smjmitchell wrote:

snip


Think how the creations of each of these designers changed the course of
gliding. Most of these designers created gliders that set new levels in
glider performance. We have reached a point now where we can no longer
afford more performance. We need creative ideas to reduce cost. We need a
new bunch of designers to tackle this issue. snip

Mitchell makes some good points, and I agree with them in general, but I
think the focus for cheaper gliders should be on the gliders clubs and
commercial operations will buy. If cheap, good gliders are going to
increase the number of pilots, we need these gliders where these new
pilots will see them and use them.

For example, if a brand new PW5 or similar was only $10,000, that would
make it almost irresistible to a lot of clubs. The members would have a
good transition to cross-country flying from the two seat trainers;
bigger clubs could afford more than one; and many new pilots would
become private owners of this glider.

Eventually, as the number of pilots increased, so would the demand for
higher performance to where a high volume, lower cost LS4 equivalent
could be practical to manufacture. My belief is we have to ensure the
demand first, then build that cheap LS4.

I realize a $10,000 PW5 equivalent is a dream, when even the low tech
trailer for it will cost $5000, but I hope you see the point that lower
cost high performance gliders at the high end won't do as much for
soaring as a low cost medium performance glider. The high end glider
only appeals to those already committed to the sport.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
smjmitchell wrote:

snip


Think how the creations of each of these designers changed the course of
gliding. Most of these designers created gliders that set new levels in
glider performance. We have reached a point now where we can no longer
afford more performance. We need creative ideas to reduce cost. We need
a
new bunch of designers to tackle this issue. snip

Mitchell makes some good points, and I agree with them in general, but I
think the focus for cheaper gliders should be on the gliders clubs and
commercial operations will buy. If cheap, good gliders are going to
increase the number of pilots, we need these gliders where these new
pilots will see them and use them.

For example, if a brand new PW5 or similar was only $10,000, that would
make it almost irresistible to a lot of clubs. The members would have a
good transition to cross-country flying from the two seat trainers;
bigger clubs could afford more than one; and many new pilots would
become private owners of this glider.

Eventually, as the number of pilots increased, so would the demand for
higher performance to where a high volume, lower cost LS4 equivalent
could be practical to manufacture. My belief is we have to ensure the
demand first, then build that cheap LS4.

I realize a $10,000 PW5 equivalent is a dream, when even the low tech
trailer for it will cost $5000, but I hope you see the point that lower
cost high performance gliders at the high end won't do as much for
soaring as a low cost medium performance glider. The high end glider
only appeals to those already committed to the sport.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA


Finding a way to produce a 'cheap' LS4 isn't going to be the result of
re-shuffling the compromises that produced the LS4 in the first place.
Composite gliders are made the way they are because hand labor can produce a
high performance product in low quantities. There's not a lot a room for
improvement in that process. (Finding cheap labor will be a short term
solution since once they can produce a quality product, they won't be cheap
anymore.)

What's needed is a breakthrough in materials and processes. I don't know
what that is or if it's even possible but if we are to succeed, it will
require thinking WAY "outside the box".

A modern glider is a very large assembly of light, strong, highly accurate
parts. How do we do that cheaply? Solve that riddle and you will be a
legend.

Bill Daniels

U¿ytkownik "smjmitchell" napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci u...
Minestones in Glider Design:

The point I was trying to make in several earlier posts is that it is time
for a new designer to emerge with ideas that will take gliding in a new
direction. The current gliders designs have matured to an almost uniform
degree of conformity. Think back through history and the names of several
designers loom large that have shaped modern soaring:

Rudolf Kaiser (KA-6/7 and AS-K series)
Karel Dlouhy (Blanik)
Eugen Hanle (Libelle)
Gerhard Waible (AS-W series)
Klaus Holligaus (Cirrus, Nimbus, Janus, Discuss)
and there are others ....

just like Okarmus & Mynarski (Foka 4/5 + Cobra 15/17)
http://www.piotrp.de/SZYBOWCE/pszd24.htm

and Edward Marganski (Swift S-1 & Fox)
http://www.piotrp.de/SZYBOWCE/pszd24.htm

http://www.piotrp.de/SZYBOWCE/ps1.htm

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl