 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / General / Soaring / July 2010Phoebus C - why so cheap?
A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. How does the value of a 17 meter, 42:1 glider NOT exceed that of a 1-26? I already have a glider I love, but I still like to look at OTHER gliders (don't tell UF). Jim > A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on > Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jim The Phoebus probably has a poor finish and combined with no trailer it is probably a fair deal if you do not mind doing some work. The Phoebus C is a very nice 39:1 sailplane with good glide up to around 80 knots. I owned one and found it to be very docile and fun to fly, even with the dreaded full flying stab and off center cg towhook. I ended up spending more time fixing up the trailer than flying it though. Mike mike;735376 Wrote: > On Jul 21, 12:00*pm, jim wynhoff plodder...@gmail.com > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Scott W -- shkdriver > A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on > Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jim i've heard there can be issues with the balsa core that may be difficult or impossible to inspect. they're basically first generation glass. don't forget that there were 700 1-26's built, there is tons of expertise, spare parts, a strong type organization, and they are robust as hell. I do find a nice webpage from Bruno Vassel that he had about his Phoebus and also a Yahoo Group, but have a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association. Resale value involves a lot more than performance. > > A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on > > Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association. > Resale value involves a lot more than performance. Hi Tony, If having an association makes one glider more valuable than another, the 1-26 is surely the most valuable glider in the world! Concerning balsa core issue hearsay; Before I bought my Phoebus C, I researched the balsa core issue, and really could not find any issues that would justify the claim. Apart from a problem with mold on a ASW-15 shear web, that was found during an inspection, resulting in the issuance of an AD, I do not know of another balsa related problem. I also know of no problems resulting in crashes caused by using balsa as a core material. Concerning first generation glass....these sailplanes were built very well and sometimes over designed to take into consideration any unknowns concerning the new materials being used. This resulted, for example, in the Phoebus having a 12 G spar. This also applies, to a degree to the Libelle 301. After its certification in Germany, some of the wings were sold for use in the Diamant where another 100 pounds or so were added to the "wings load" with no modifications to the spar or wings construction. And then there is the abuse endured by some of the modified 301's which are still around.... Mike > Hi Tony, > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Mike mike, i certainly think that the support network is part of the reason for the relatively high resale value for 1-26's. if resale was based on pure performance my cherokees would be worth more than a 1-26. as it is i could maybe sell both of the Cherokees for the value of a good 1-26 with trailer. I'll believe you on the balsa. I have heard stories of some neglected gliders having problems with the cores getting wet and rotting. Perhaps they are just stories or perhaps they were discovered before causing problems in flight. I hear you on first generation glass being robust, for sure. i was just saying that its an old glider and that could be adversely affecting the value. I've noticed after reading through the Soaring Magazine archive that most gliders seem to be immune to inflation. >> A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on >> Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > a feeling that doesn't really compare with the 1-26 association. > Resale value involves a lot more than performance. In case there may be some slight relevance, it's observed that the first generation of glass sailboats were helluva stout - but where wood was imbedded as stringers etc., they can be expected to have rotted out... Brian W >>> A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on >>> Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Brian W Another data point -- some incredibly expensive boats are built with balsa coring below the waterline. See, for example, Baltic Yachts, which has an excellent reputation for high quality. http://www.balticyachts.fi/ > >>> A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on > >>> Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Also insulation/flotation in LPG tankers, floors in airliners (alum/ balsa sandwich). After the Logan contest is over I'm going to ping Bruno about his experience with the Phoebus. > > >>> A year or two ago, there was a Phoebus that sold for under $7k on > > >>> Wings and Wheels. Now there's another (without a trailer) for $7k. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I helped John Campbell work on his Phoebus C way back in 1987 or 1988. At that time, it was a 25 year old glider. I don't recall any major issues or quirks, other than some slight problems with some wooden covers (non-structural). These were related more to poor maintenance than any design issues. The glider flew wonderfully, though it looked kinda funky at higher speed with wing tips that drooped due to the washout. It's like any of the older ships. The ratio of flying to maintenance will be worse. But if you have some time and talent, it's probably a great deal. P3 You know, I knew there was something familiar about the tail number on that Phoebus that is on Wings and Wheels. I couldn't place it though. N121TT. Hmmmm Well I am watching the Sunship Games tonight and there it is! N121TT pulling into Marfa for the 1969 Nationals! I knew I'd seen it somewhere! > You know, I knew there was something familiar about the tail number on > that Phoebus that is on Wings and Wheels. I couldn't place it though. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pulling into Marfa for the 1969 Nationals! I knew I'd seen it > somewhere! Soaring Junkie! > > You know, I knew there was something familiar about the tail number on > > that Phoebus that is on Wings and Wheels. I couldn't place it though. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Soaring Junkie! NOT! A soaring junkie would have told us who was flying it, how they placed, and perhaps posted the daily results. > NOT! A soaring junkie would have told us who was flying it, how they > placed, and perhaps posted the daily results. well the daily results are in the SSA Soaring Magazine archive, September 1969 edition Page 22 and 23 in the actual magazine (20 and 21 in the archive). 4 Phoebus's (or is that Phoebii?) were entered and not noted as Standard Class gliders. One of the 4 was designated a Phoebus C while the rest were just plain Phoebus. the Phoebus C placed 21st, pilots last name was Ryan. > > NOT! A soaring junkie would have told us who was flying it, how they > > placed, and perhaps posted the daily results. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a Phoebus C while the rest were just plain Phoebus. the Phoebus C > placed 21st, pilots last name was Ryan. Soaring Junkie! > > > NOT! A soaring junkie would have told us who was flying it, how they > > > placed, and perhaps posted the daily results. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Soaring Junkie! John Ryan, the guy who was being interviewed before the last task, saying any of 10 or was it 20 people could win. He was the USA distributor for the Phoebus at the time. The first was Art Zimmermann, who later designed and built the Concept 70. ... Uh oh I'm a soaring junkie. > > > > NOT! A soaring junkie would have told us who was flying it, how they > > > > placed, and perhaps posted the daily results. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Zimmermann, who later designed and built the Concept 70. ... Uh oh > I'm a soaring junkie. ah, its not so much a distance task as a survival task. was he the guy who compared it to an 8hr full dress ball? that line always cracks me up > ah, its not so much a distance task as a survival task. > > was he the guy who compared it to an 8hr full dress ball? that line > always cracks me up Different guys, but the 8r ball guy also cracks me up. Anyone know who that is BTW? -Paul > > > > > NOT! A soaring junkie would have told us who was flying it, how they > > > > > placed, and perhaps posted the daily results. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > was he the guy who compared it to an 8hr full dress ball? that line > always cracks me up I think that was Rudy Alleman. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.