I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane, and would like to hear thoughts and opinions about the various options available. I'm seeking a cross country machine with long legs and a highly reliable sustainer. An 18m FES sailplane should fit that requirement nicely.

I'm a somewhat green pilot, but in the year or so before a new glider could be manufactured and delivered, I will have accumulated some more experience in my club's DG-505 and DG-1000. I have eliminated the Ventus 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the following gliders that are available with a FES system:

- Discus 2c
- Lak-17B
- HpH 304S Shark

All three appear to have similar performance, as best I can tell from published data. I don't plan to be racing any time soon, so a difference of a few points in best glide ratio is not significant to me.

According to the flight reports that I've read, all three feature docile handling that should not be a problem for a low-time pilot. The Lak-17B and HpH Shark have flaps. I have thoroughly researched the apparently controversial issue of whether flapped ships are suitable for low-time pilots, and am convinced that they are more of an asset than a liability.

In the interests of staying on topic, let's not make this thread about flaps or the FES. These topics have already been thoroughly discussed on RAS. Please start a new thread or add to an old thread if you wish to discuss further.

I'll list some of the pros and cons of each ship that I can see, but would love to hear if anyone disagrees with them, or has anything to add.

Discus 2c
- Pros: Reputation for excellent handling. Optional GRS. Possibly higher resale value and ease of selling due to its popularity.
- Cons: No flaps.

Lak-17B
- Pros: Lower cost (better value) than the other two. Half the lead time of the other two (6 vs 12 mo).
- Cons: No safety cockpit.

HpH Shark
- Pros: Good looking (purely my opinion).
- Cons: Every flight review I've read says it handles well but... every reviewer had at least one negative thing to say about the handling. Hard to draw conclusions, but some doubt as been cast in my mind.

By now it may be clear which one I'm leaning toward. However, I wouldn't have posted this if my mind wasn't open to others' opinions, so I welcome and appreciate your thoughts. In the end, the decision will come down to what's most important to me: safety and handling. I guess what I'm really seeking is a double-check on my thinking regarding this rather significant purchase.

Cheers,
Ben

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 5:36:06 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane, and would like to hear thoughts and opinions about the various options available. I'm seeking a cross country machine with long legs and a highly reliable sustainer. An 18m FES sailplane should fit that requirement nicely.
>
> I'm a somewhat green pilot, but in the year or so before a new glider could be manufactured and delivered, I will have accumulated some more experience in my club's DG-505 and DG-1000. I have eliminated the Ventus 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the following gliders that are available with a FES system:
>
> - Discus 2c
> - Lak-17B
> - HpH 304S Shark
>
> All three appear to have similar performance, as best I can tell from published data. I don't plan to be racing any time soon, so a difference of a few points in best glide ratio is not significant to me.
>
> According to the flight reports that I've read, all three feature docile handling that should not be a problem for a low-time pilot. The Lak-17B and HpH Shark have flaps. I have thoroughly researched the apparently controversial issue of whether flapped ships are suitable for low-time pilots, and am convinced that they are more of an asset than a liability.
>
> In the interests of staying on topic, let's not make this thread about flaps or the FES. These topics have already been thoroughly discussed on RAS. Please start a new thread or add to an old thread if you wish to discuss further.
>
> I'll list some of the pros and cons of each ship that I can see, but would love to hear if anyone disagrees with them, or has anything to add.
>
> Discus 2c
> - Pros: Reputation for excellent handling. Optional GRS. Possibly higher resale value and ease of selling due to its popularity.
> - Cons: No flaps.
>
> Lak-17B
> - Pros: Lower cost (better value) than the other two. Half the lead time of the other two (6 vs 12 mo).
> - Cons: No safety cockpit.
>
> HpH Shark
> - Pros: Good looking (purely my opinion).
> - Cons: Every flight review I've read says it handles well but... every reviewer had at least one negative thing to say about the handling. Hard to draw conclusions, but some doubt as been cast in my mind.
>
> By now it may be clear which one I'm leaning toward. However, I wouldn't have posted this if my mind wasn't open to others' opinions, so I welcome and appreciate your thoughts. In the end, the decision will come down to what's most important to me: safety and handling. I guess what I'm really seeking is a double-check on my thinking regarding this rather significant purchase.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben

What about Ventus?

I think all the new generation gliders are sweet.

I think LAK and Alisport were the first manufactures to have the FES installed, and of course Alisport is 13.5m.

I believe the 13.5m gliders are getting high L/D and it seems that FES to them is Front Electric Self-Launch vs the 15-18m FES Front Electric Sustainer.

It seems now the German glider manufactures are installing FES and I think the rest of them as well all manufactures will follow.

One glider you did not list is the Albastar 18G. http://www.gliders-albastar.com/projects/glider-as-18-m/

I can understand why one would want a specific glider if one was planning to compete, but with so many more advantages of having a 13.5m, I wonder why more people do not consider them.

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 3:10:25 PM UTC-8, Casey Cox wrote:
> One glider you did not list is the Albastar 18G. http://www.gliders-albastar.com/projects/glider-as-18-m/

Thanks for the link to the Albastar 18 Gen. I hadn't seen that before. However, it looks like it's not close to being available, right?

I have not flown an HpH, but have seen one up close while doing some instrument installations and I was very impressed with the craftsmanship and attention to detail in the Shark. From that perspective it is really worth taking a serious look at the Shark.

I have flown the Discus 2cT and it is an amazing flying machine - you couldn't ask for nicer handling.

>
> Thanks for the link to the Albastar 18 Gen. I hadn't seen that before. However, it looks like it's not close to being available, right?

It was listed on the FES web site. Contact those guys and they should know what manufactures are in the process of installing and getting cert.

http://www.front-electric-sustainer.com/distributors.php

FES is a game changer. Any manufacturer that is not incorporating will be left out in a few years. No more worry with line break, poor judgement, or with the learning curve of guessing where the next best thermal is....just turn a knob and you have power. No substitute for being safe...just a tool that is there in case.

I'm sorry - maybe northeastern Colorado's 60F temperature triggered early
spring fever, but I found the first two posts in a new thread today humorous!

>> I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane,
<Snip...>
>> I have eliminated the Ventus
>> 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being
>> unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the
>> following gliders that are available with a FES system:
>>
>> - Discus 2c - Lak-17B - HpH 304S Shark
<Snip...>
>
> What about Ventus?
>

Bob - I'll be hibernating by the weekend per the forecast - W.

P.S. Have fun deciding! The buying disease can be almost as much fun as the
flying cure.

Ben,
OK..I guess I need to throw in my 2 cents...I currently own a LAK-17B FES. I owned a Discus 2b and I also owned a 304CZ....

First, I do not believe you will go wrong with any of these three excellent ships. My take IMHO:

1. I've owned four ships without flaps and two ships with flaps and to be honest, I will never own another glider without them...With that said I would lean toward the LAK-17B FES and HPH304eS or the new Ventus that will be flapped and have the FES as an option.

2. If delivery lead time is an issue then the LAK-17B FES and HPH 304eS are probably the way to go as the Ventus lead time is quite lengthy.

3. I wrote an article in the March 2013 issue of Soaring on the LAK-17B FES, so you may want to read it for more background info. It's a great ship that I have truly enjoyed for 4 seasons flying in New Mexico.

4. HPH also makes wonderful gliders and I really enjoyed the great quality and handling of my 304CZ. You may want to contact a 304S owner to get their handling impressions.

Again, whichever ship you choose I am sure you will be very pleased...and you will definitely love the FES!

Good luck - Renny




On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 3:36:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane, and would like to hear thoughts and opinions about the various options available. I'm seeking a cross country machine with long legs and a highly reliable sustainer. An 18m FES sailplane should fit that requirement nicely.
>
> I'm a somewhat green pilot, but in the year or so before a new glider could be manufactured and delivered, I will have accumulated some more experience in my club's DG-505 and DG-1000. I have eliminated the Ventus 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the following gliders that are available with a FES system:
>
> - Discus 2c
> - Lak-17B
> - HpH 304S Shark
>
> All three appear to have similar performance, as best I can tell from published data. I don't plan to be racing any time soon, so a difference of a few points in best glide ratio is not significant to me.
>
> According to the flight reports that I've read, all three feature docile handling that should not be a problem for a low-time pilot. The Lak-17B and HpH Shark have flaps. I have thoroughly researched the apparently controversial issue of whether flapped ships are suitable for low-time pilots, and am convinced that they are more of an asset than a liability.
>
> In the interests of staying on topic, let's not make this thread about flaps or the FES. These topics have already been thoroughly discussed on RAS. Please start a new thread or add to an old thread if you wish to discuss further.
>
> I'll list some of the pros and cons of each ship that I can see, but would love to hear if anyone disagrees with them, or has anything to add.
>
> Discus 2c
> - Pros: Reputation for excellent handling. Optional GRS. Possibly higher resale value and ease of selling due to its popularity.
> - Cons: No flaps.
>
> Lak-17B
> - Pros: Lower cost (better value) than the other two. Half the lead time of the other two (6 vs 12 mo).
> - Cons: No safety cockpit.
>
> HpH Shark
> - Pros: Good looking (purely my opinion).
> - Cons: Every flight review I've read says it handles well but... every reviewer had at least one negative thing to say about the handling. Hard to draw conclusions, but some doubt as been cast in my mind.
>
> By now it may be clear which one I'm leaning toward. However, I wouldn't have posted this if my mind wasn't open to others' opinions, so I welcome and appreciate your thoughts. In the end, the decision will come down to what's most important to me: safety and handling. I guess what I'm really seeking is a double-check on my thinking regarding this rather significant purchase.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben

I have many hours in the 15m Discus 2 and the 18m is not much different - rally superb handling and very forgiving.

I have a few hours in an early HpH 304 and while it flew and handled well, I did not like the parallelogram stick. I found it did not harmonize well with the aileron control. The Discus 2 is to me a much better sorted ship.

I have quite a bit of time in the Ventus 2bx, also not too different from the 2cx. It's basically a flapped Discus!

Can't comment on the Lak.

It's all a matter of personal taste.

Mike

On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 01:10:25 UTC+2, Casey Cox wrote:
> I can understand why one would want a specific glider if one was planning to compete, but with so many more advantages of having a 13.5m, I wonder why more people do not consider them.

The performance of 13.5m gliders is a lot lower than even previous generation glass/carbon gliders. Most of the 13.5m gliders have max L/D's in the high 30's or low 40's and their performance drops drastically when some speed is added (typically 2m/s sink rate at around the 170km/h mark). Their lower wing loading limitations doesn't lend them for the booming weather found in Africa/Australia/Western USA.
Most of them also have much lower Vne's (around the 220 to 230km/h mark) and this becomes an issue at higher altitudes where one becomes Vne limited.

The only benefit that I can see in owning a 13.5m glider is easier rigging and derigging due to lower weight components but I'm not age limited yet.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Lots of food for thought. It's a tough decision, but a fun one to make!

Now that I think about it, it's the original Ventus that has a reputation for tricky handling, not the Ventus 2, right? Perhaps I've misunderstood something. Would the Ventus 2cx be a suitable glider for a low-time pilot?

keskiviikko 9. joulukuuta 2015 7.58.42 UTC+2 kirjoitti:
> Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Lots of food for thought. It's a tough decision, but a fun one to make!
>
> Now that I think about it, it's the original Ventus that has a reputation for tricky handling, not the Ventus 2, right? Perhaps I've misunderstood something. Would the Ventus 2cx be a suitable glider for a low-time pilot?

V2 is NOT trickier than any other modern glider, they all behave well. FES is available only Ventus is 2cxa. The a-letter means that you have to try it before ordering as the cockpit is made for pygmy people.

With the Ventus 3 on the way it would be daft to order a new Ventus 2 now - with or without FES - unless it was agreed that it would be a V3 when it arrived.

The V2cx is not a flapped Discus 2c. They have completely different wings. The D2c (I bought the first production one new) is a superb handling 15/18m glider that is very suitable for a low time pilot.

Purchasing rules for gliders are quite simple...

If you want flaps buy Schleicher
If you don't want flaps buy Schempp

(Schleicher don't do FES, (Yet))

PF

At 09:30 09 December 2015, wrote:
>With the Ventus 3 on the way it would be daft to order a new Ventus 2 now
-
>with or without FES - unless it was agreed that it would be a V3 when it
>arrived.
>
>The V2cx is not a flapped Discus 2c. They have completely different
wings.
> The D2c (I bought the first production one new) is a superb handling
>15/18m glider that is very suitable for a low time pilot.
>
>
>
>

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:38:14 AM UTC-5, Surge wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 01:10:25 UTC+2, Casey Cox wrote:
> > I can understand why one would want a specific glider if one was planning to compete, but with so many more advantages of having a 13.5m, I wonder why more people do not consider them.
>
> The performance of 13.5m gliders is a lot lower than even previous generation glass/carbon gliders. Most of the 13.5m gliders have max L/D's in the high 30's or low 40's and their performance drops drastically when some speed is added (typically 2m/s sink rate at around the 170km/h mark). Their lower wing loading limitations doesn't lend them for the booming weather found in Africa/Australia/Western USA.
> Most of them also have much lower Vne's (around the 220 to 230km/h mark) and this becomes an issue at higher altitudes where one becomes Vne limited..
>
> The only benefit that I can see in owning a 13.5m glider is easier rigging and derigging due to lower weight components but I'm not age limited yet.

I figured that but seeing someone else actually state it helps. The other advantage you missed is Self Launch. I did not realize that Vne limitation became a problem. (Haven't got there yet).

It just seems more manufactures are building 13.5m (LAK just introduced the Mini Lak at the 1st International 13.5m), and I wonder what sales are of 13.5m compared to 15m and 18m.

I'm hoping in 4-5 yrs I can be in a position to upgrade to an FES.

I have ordered a GP12 E FLEX. The -2ms speed is 185kph at max allowed
wingloading (45kg/m2). The VELO will be better than that. It is self
launching of course, and the electric motor is not FES but on a pylon. This
is preferable to FES because with a folding prop there is very little drag
with the pylon out, and it is much more efficient aerodynamically, no FES
drag (1% or so), and less battery drain! Retract takes only 5 secs anyway.
Obviously an ultralight cannot compete with a fully ballasted 18m racer,
but then look at the price difference, 50% including a trailer! QED


At 13:46 09 December 2015, Casey Cox wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:38:14 AM UTC-5, Surge wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 01:10:25 UTC+2, Casey Cox wrote:
>> > I can understand why one would want a specific glider if one was
>planni=
>ng to compete, but with so many more advantages of having a 13.5m, I
>wonder=
> why more people do not consider them.
>>=20
>> The performance of 13.5m gliders is a lot lower than even previous
>genera=
>tion glass/carbon gliders. Most of the 13.5m gliders have max L/D's in
the
>=
>high 30's or low 40's and their performance drops drastically when some
>spe=
>ed is added (typically 2m/s sink rate at around the 170km/h mark). Their
>lo=
>wer wing loading limitations doesn't lend them for the booming weather
>foun=
>d in Africa/Australia/Western USA.
>> Most of them also have much lower Vne's (around the 220 to 230km/h
mark)
>=
>and this becomes an issue at higher altitudes where one becomes Vne
>limited=
>..
>>=20
>> The only benefit that I can see in owning a 13.5m glider is easier
>riggin=
>g and derigging due to lower weight components but I'm not age limited
yet.
>
>I figured that but seeing someone else actually state it helps. The
other
>=
>advantage you missed is Self Launch. I did not realize that Vne
>limitation=
> became a problem. (Haven't got there yet).
>
>It just seems more manufactures are building 13.5m (LAK just introduced
>the=
> Mini Lak at the 1st International 13.5m), and I wonder what sales are of
>1=
>3.5m compared to 15m and 18m.
>
>I'm hoping in 4-5 yrs I can be in a position to upgrade to an FES.
>

I've been told that there's a three year wait list for the Ventus 3! Wow.

The GP-14 Velo looks great, but a 13.5m sailplane does not suit my needs. I live in California where we have strong enough conditions that I will want to blast around at high speed on the good days, and an ultralight glider is not good for that.

Touch call. The easy part of your question is...why buy a standard class glider, ever? ;-). I certainly wouldn't. Less high speed performance, less climb, higher landing speeds and not really any easier to rig or less expensive.

Moving on...the HpH, from what I have seen is among the highest finish quality. Many recent buyers have been blown away. That's how you should feel, blown away! I think HpH will be increasing in popularity and is quietly selling a good deal of sailplanes. They are not aimed at hard core competitors for sure, but if your putting FES on a sailplane, that doesn't really matter much.

The Lak17b FES is also excellent. I have owned a Lak17a and found it highly under-rated by certain camps. The 17"b" suffers from the same. The '17a' was designed as a 15m glider and the 18m tips were an afterthought (although is was remarkably competitive in 18). It also had a fairly low max wingloading (for 18m) of around 10.5 lb/sq.ft with a 15m based max gross weight of 1103 lbs (a ASG29 goes to nearly 12 lb/sq.ft and 1330 lbs in 18).

The '17b' FES fixes all of those limitations and then some. It has completely redesigned wing focused on 18m class but also at home in 15 & 21m. The horizontal stab, elevator, fin and rudder are all slightly larger to accommodate for 18m and 21m. The cockpit and many other features have also been improved over the years. Also, Lak has been building FES gliders for years now. There installation is very clean and extremely well thought out. There is no more reliable sustainer on earth than FES. Smart move to consider it.

Here are some pictures of a new Lak17b from the Ontario Provincial Championships held over Labor Day weekend this September. It was beautiful and the trailer arrangement (all three tips ready to go!) was genius.

https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0VGQOeMmGCEx8j

Tough call. The easy part of your question is...why buy a new standard class glider, ever? ;-). I certainly wouldn't. Less high speed performance, less climb, higher landing speeds and not really any easier to rig or less expensive.

Moving on...the HpH, from what I have seen and heard, has among the best finish quality in the business. Many recent buyers have been impressed. I think HpH will be increasing in popularity and is quietly selling a good deal of sailplanes. They are not necessarily aimed at hard core competitors, but if your putting FES on your sailplane, absolute top possible performance doesn't matter as much.

The Lak17b FES is also very strong. I have owned a Lak17a and found it highly under-rated by certain camps. The 17"b" suffers from the same. The 17"a" was designed as a 15m glider and the 18m tips were an afterthought (although it was still quite competitive in 18). It also had the limitation of a fairly low max wingloading (for 18m) of around 10.5 lb/sq.ft with a 15m based max gross weight of 1103 lbs (a ASG29 goes to nearly 12 lb/sq.ft and 1330 lbs in 18).

The '17b' FES fixes all of those limitations and then some. It has completely redesigned wing focused on 18m class but also at home in 15 & 21m. The horizontal stab, elevator, fin and rudder are all slightly larger to accommodate for 18m and 21m. The cockpit and many other features have also been improved over the years. Also, Lak has been building FES gliders for years now. The installation is very clean and extremely well thought out. There is no more reliable sustainer on earth than FES. Smart move to consider it.

Here are some pictures of a new Lak17b from the Ontario Provincial Championships held over Labor Day weekend this September. It was beautiful and the trailer arrangement (all three tips ready to go!) was genius.

If I had to choose it would be very close between the two. Safety cockpit is a plus. Laks experience with FES installations is important. I've heard great things about both gliders but I have not flown either. Getting the Lak in time to fly next season would be nice too. Might be worth a trip to Europe to see the factories and get more info...

Good luck in your decision. Honestly I don't think you can make a bad one.

https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0VGQOeMmGCEx8j

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 8:25:10 PM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Tough call. The easy part of your question is...why buy a new standard class glider, ever? ;-). I certainly wouldn't. Less high speed performance, less climb, higher landing speeds and not really any easier to rig or less expensive.

I agree, but I'm not considering a standard class. Maybe you thought the Discus 2c is 15m? It's 18m, although 15m tips are available.

I wish I could take these sailplanes for a test flight, but I'm just not quite ready to fly a machine of this class. I'm sure I will be in a year, but then that would make it 1.5 to 2 years before I could take delivery of one.. It would be tough to wait that long. Maybe I should wait until I'm qualified to take a test flight, then see if I can find a used one. If I can't find a used one with a FES, I could possibly buy a used one in Europe and have the FES installed before it's shipped to the US. That would be a logistical challenge, I'm sure.

How much experience would a manufacturer, or a manufacturer's representative, require before they would let me test fly their aircraft? Is that something that buyers normally get to do?

On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 15:46:55 UTC+2, Casey Cox wrote:
> I figured that but seeing someone else actually state it helps. The other advantage you missed is Self Launch. I did not realize that Vne limitation became a problem. (Haven't got there yet).

I didn't miss the self launch option as one can already purchase self launch gliders new or second hand so there is no particular advantage to a 13.5m self launcher.
If I'm not mistaken there is a self-launch option for the LAK 17B FES so FES self-launch is possible on longer wingspan gliders too even if it's not that popular yet.

It comes down to cost vs performance and if I had the choice I'd rather spend the money on a second hand, 18m, petrol powered self launcher than on a new 13.5m FES glider simply due to bang-for-buck. But then again I'm one of those types who doesn't replace my vehicle every three years and couldn't care about driving the latest and greatest. I'm sure the 13.5m gliders are plenty of fun to fly.

Yes 13.5 gliders are great fun, especially for the recreational pilot.
But the problems with longer span gliders here in Europe are the
restrictions
imposed by EASA on certified aircraft. With UL, flying costs are lower too
- no aerotows, self maintenance, smaller batteries for electric power etc.
etc.
Used new-design 18m self-launchers are still way more expensive than
13.5m gliders.
If cost is not an issue then just wait 3 years for the latest super-yacht!

At 05:40 10 December 2015, Surge wrote:
>On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 15:46:55 UTC+2, Casey Cox wrote:
>> I figured that but seeing someone else actually state it helps. The
>othe=
>r advantage you missed is Self Launch. I did not realize that Vne
>limitati=
>on became a problem. (Haven't got there yet).
>
>I didn't miss the self launch option as one can already purchase self
>launc=
>h gliders new or second hand so there is no particular advantage to a
>13.5m=
> self launcher.
>If I'm not mistaken there is a self-launch option for the LAK 17B FES so
>FE=
>S self-launch is possible on longer wingspan gliders too even if it's not
>t=
>hat popular yet.
>
>It comes down to cost vs performance and if I had the choice I'd rather
>spe=
>nd the money on a second hand, 18m, petrol powered self launcher than on
a
>=
>new 13.5m FES glider simply due to bang-for-buck. But then again I'm one
>of=
> those types who doesn't replace my vehicle every three years and
couldn't
>=
>care about driving the latest and greatest. I'm sure the 13.5m gliders
are
>=
>plenty of fun to fly.
>

Hi Ben,

I have had a look at some FES (flapped) gliders myself. I tried to consider any reliable non internal combustion engine. Especially FES system is IMO a big step up in safety for flying gliders. The FES system is really well thought out.


Below wall of text is highly subjective.

For the FES: Ventus 2cxa FES seems like a really nice plane. Not too sure if I like the narrow fuse design. Has had a bit of comp. success (FES version)with Luca and Tilo flying it. I believe you might be able to get a Ventus 2cxa FES within half a year or so but better contact Biggo Berger or your local importer. I would not buy a Ventus 2cxa myself since the "new Ventus" has been announced which would not be a good thing for resale value V2cxa FES.

Brings me to the "New Ventus"FES. Looks sexy should perform good. Bad thing is 2.5-3 years wait before delivery. Obviously not proven yet. Is likely to be another 10k in euro's more expense as well.

LAK 17b looks like a great ship. Great to have the 21m option as well available. Should be the cheapest option by far. Delivery should be quick. Last few months I have seen 2 Lak17b FES for sale on segelflug.de classifieds. Think asking price was in region of 135k euro for 21m and 120k euro for a new a factory 18m Lak 17b FES. Reason for me for not ordering one is the old fuselage/canopy design and just my inexperience with the plane. 21m option seems nice, but IMO looks wrong on plane with extremely bendy wing. Factory did change hands a few years ago as well. Some people who visited the factory recently were not quite so impressed. Not too sure about resale value of the Lak 17b FES.

HPH Shark looks like a really nice plane as well. I did not read any negative stories about this plane expect for the trimmer too quickly unintentionally moved which they fixed. FES seems to really work on this fuselage as the fuse was already slightly longer. So rudder pedals can still be adjusted as far as on non-FES plane (I believe some FES planes have slightly shorter pedal adjustment). Fuselage is for sure the most roomy of the planes available. Quality of HPH is really good (if not the best). Hph has just opened a new factory where the planes are being build. Price wise the Shark is slightly cheaper than the Ventus 2cxa but not much. Delivery times at the moment are Autumn 2016. Very easy to fly. Future might come out with 20m wing tips (moulds have been made).
Bad things about the plane are the competition results. I did not find many Sharks winning international competitions.

Silent 2 seems quite nice as well. Great bonus to have the self launcher. Obviously bad thing is the performance of the 13.5 vs 18m. The reason I won't buy one is the price. For less than 10k Euro more you can buy a Ventus 2cxa FES or Shark FES. Another bad thing is license requirements at the moment as it is a ultra light plane. This would be resolved in most of Europe with EASE license.

Another thing to budget for with FES is the battery replacement. 7k euro + VAT in europe. Batteries could last longer than 10 years. But this depends on the treatment of battery by the user. If you don't use batteries for med long term best to keep at storage voltage and charge in 2 hrs when flying.



GP14SE (non-FES) looks like a great plane as well. People who have visited reported very high quality work. If performance is as they put in their specs. 1:45 it could be a game changer. At the moment no track record yet of their elec. self launch system. Price is 25k in euro cheaper than 18m Ventus 2cxa FES and Shark FES.

Second hand Antares 20E would as well be a great short term option as the second hand price of a 20E is similar to a new 18m FES plane. 20E has higher performance and is very reliable as well. Batteries if treated well should last 20+ years. Price for new batteries in the region of 24k euro + vat in Europe.









On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 10:36:06 PM UTC, wrote:
> I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane, and would like to hear thoughts and opinions about the various options available. I'm seeking a cross country machine with long legs and a highly reliable sustainer. An 18m FES sailplane should fit that requirement nicely.
>
> I'm a somewhat green pilot, but in the year or so before a new glider could be manufactured and delivered, I will have accumulated some more experience in my club's DG-505 and DG-1000. I have eliminated the Ventus 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the following gliders that are available with a FES system:
>
> - Discus 2c
> - Lak-17B
> - HpH 304S Shark
>
> All three appear to have similar performance, as best I can tell from published data. I don't plan to be racing any time soon, so a difference of a few points in best glide ratio is not significant to me.
>
> According to the flight reports that I've read, all three feature docile handling that should not be a problem for a low-time pilot. The Lak-17B and HpH Shark have flaps. I have thoroughly researched the apparently controversial issue of whether flapped ships are suitable for low-time pilots, and am convinced that they are more of an asset than a liability.
>
> In the interests of staying on topic, let's not make this thread about flaps or the FES. These topics have already been thoroughly discussed on RAS. Please start a new thread or add to an old thread if you wish to discuss further.
>
> I'll list some of the pros and cons of each ship that I can see, but would love to hear if anyone disagrees with them, or has anything to add.
>
> Discus 2c
> - Pros: Reputation for excellent handling. Optional GRS. Possibly higher resale value and ease of selling due to its popularity.
> - Cons: No flaps.
>
> Lak-17B
> - Pros: Lower cost (better value) than the other two. Half the lead time of the other two (6 vs 12 mo).
> - Cons: No safety cockpit.
>
> HpH Shark
> - Pros: Good looking (purely my opinion).
> - Cons: Every flight review I've read says it handles well but... every reviewer had at least one negative thing to say about the handling. Hard to draw conclusions, but some doubt as been cast in my mind.
>
> By now it may be clear which one I'm leaning toward. However, I wouldn't have posted this if my mind wasn't open to others' opinions, so I welcome and appreciate your thoughts. In the end, the decision will come down to what's most important to me: safety and handling. I guess what I'm really seeking is a double-check on my thinking regarding this rather significant purchase.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben

On Thursday, 10 December 2015 16:31:35 UTC+2, wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> I have had a look at some FES (flapped) gliders myself. I tried to consider any reliable non internal combustion engine. Especially FES system is IMO a big step up in safety for flying gliders. The FES system is really well thought out.
>
>
> Below wall of text is highly subjective.

Excellent wall of text. Lak has announced 13.5m Lak Mini, which comes with FES (self-launching, 60k eur) or Solo 2350 (electric starter, self-launching).

Problem with 13.5m gliders is the performance. You are looking at little bit better than index 100 club class (Silent et. al) to maybe LS4 (mini-LAK) to theoretically LS8 (GP14 with comp. fuselage) performance at roughly 100k eur. That puts them competing market filled with used ASH26E, DG-800 etc. with better performance. Used LAK-17A or LAK-19 with retrofitted FES would probably give best price-to-fun-of-flying ratio, if FES is must.

Recently Lange&Schleicher introduced electric starter to their Solo sustainers, and now Lak appears to be doing same for LAK-17BT, which is logical as they got to have starter for self-launching Lak Mini. These make Solo systems more safe and easy to use, no need for dive-of-death at low altitude. Food for thought.

Retro fit a used glider would be a great option. Difference between the amount of fun had from a used ASW-20 and a JS-1 21 m (as example) is not that much.
This retro fit option is only available in the US under the experimental reg. Price is about 25k euro. Bad news is one year waiting list. It would take about 3 months for installation. I don't know if there are other than LZ that retro fit FES to gliders.

Nice development of the starter engine on the ASG 29Es and others. Only problem is they made the (compared to FES) engine even more complicated. Having said that there are many many people around who have had a reliable solo engine for many years. On the long run much cheaper as well as there is no battery to be replaced.

Would be great if Schleicher and Jonkers would offer the option of FES for their planes.







On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 10:36:06 PM UTC, wrote:
> I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane, and would like to hear thoughts and opinions about the various options available. I'm seeking a cross country machine with long legs and a highly reliable sustainer. An 18m FES sailplane should fit that requirement nicely.
>
> I'm a somewhat green pilot, but in the year or so before a new glider could be manufactured and delivered, I will have accumulated some more experience in my club's DG-505 and DG-1000. I have eliminated the Ventus 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the following gliders that are available with a FES system:
>
> - Discus 2c
> - Lak-17B
> - HpH 304S Shark
>
> All three appear to have similar performance, as best I can tell from published data. I don't plan to be racing any time soon, so a difference of a few points in best glide ratio is not significant to me.
>
> According to the flight reports that I've read, all three feature docile handling that should not be a problem for a low-time pilot. The Lak-17B and HpH Shark have flaps. I have thoroughly researched the apparently controversial issue of whether flapped ships are suitable for low-time pilots, and am convinced that they are more of an asset than a liability.
>
> In the interests of staying on topic, let's not make this thread about flaps or the FES. These topics have already been thoroughly discussed on RAS. Please start a new thread or add to an old thread if you wish to discuss further.
>
> I'll list some of the pros and cons of each ship that I can see, but would love to hear if anyone disagrees with them, or has anything to add.
>
> Discus 2c
> - Pros: Reputation for excellent handling. Optional GRS. Possibly higher resale value and ease of selling due to its popularity.
> - Cons: No flaps.
>
> Lak-17B
> - Pros: Lower cost (better value) than the other two. Half the lead time of the other two (6 vs 12 mo).
> - Cons: No safety cockpit.
>
> HpH Shark
> - Pros: Good looking (purely my opinion).
> - Cons: Every flight review I've read says it handles well but... every reviewer had at least one negative thing to say about the handling. Hard to draw conclusions, but some doubt as been cast in my mind.
>
> By now it may be clear which one I'm leaning toward. However, I wouldn't have posted this if my mind wasn't open to others' opinions, so I welcome and appreciate your thoughts. In the end, the decision will come down to what's most important to me: safety and handling. I guess what I'm really seeking is a double-check on my thinking regarding this rather significant purchase.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben

I think they could help arrange meetings and perhaps test flights with current owners. I would certainly want to fly them first. 10x more critical than a car test drive yet few test fly potential glider purchases! At minimum sit in them for an hour or so and get comfortable.

That's a good point. Dave Nadlers Anteres 20e is for sale and is ready to go. Probably not much more than a new FES -8 meter glider (maybe less). Self launch, etc. Might be worth a peek!

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:14:37 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> That's a good point. Dave Nadlers Anteres 20e is for sale and is ready to go. Probably not much more than a new FES -8 meter glider (maybe less). Self launch, etc. Might be worth a peek!

I wonder why the other manufactures have not noted the Antares electric motor and moved to have that as an option. Are there downsides? I thought the Antares showed a lot of original thought. I did not buy one for other reasons though.

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 10:27:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>
> I wonder why the other manufactures have not noted the Antares electric motor and moved to have that as an option. Are there downsides? I thought the Antares showed a lot of original thought. I did not buy one for other reasons though.

Arcus E uses electric for self launch. From the SH website, "...produced in cooperation with the company Lange Aviation..."

Only slightly off topic:

How is the cockpit ventilation in an FES equipped glider? The big electric motor just behind the vent in the nose must interfere with the airflow. In the D2c, does the swiveling ball vent on the rightside of the cockpit get much airflow? And when the motor is running, how hot does it get in the cockpit when you are getting air that just cooled the motor?

Big cooling fans running at high speed.

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:14:37 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> That's a good point. Dave Nadlers Anteres 20e is for sale and is ready to go. Probably not much more than a new FES -8 meter glider (maybe less). Self launch, etc. Might be worth a peek!

I certainly considered it. The Antares 20E is my dream machine. Dave was of the opinion that it's not suitable for a low-time pilot, I guess because of the need to handle the possibility of the motor not starting and the motor pylon failing to retract. Also, because of the increased complexity of a self launcher in general. I have reservations about Lange as a company, too.. There are rumors of lawsuits against them and their US distributor just quit. It's a pity because the Antares 20E is an amazing machine. I hope another manufacturer steps up and builds a new electric 18m self launcher. Electric power just makes so much sense for sailplanes.

While some FES equipped true gliders can self launch given a
long enough runway (and ignoring various legal factors) this
leaves the batteries depleted so there is no real retrieve
capacity remaining.
The only realistic self launch/FES mix is the Silent Electro at
13.5m so it isn't the answer to the original question.
My understanding is that Lange Aviation (Antares 20/23E)
don't see an electric (turbo) option (FES or otherwise) as a
realistic product. Their Solo engined Antares 18T should allow
pilots to retrieve from the wrong end of a failed 750K + flight.
To achieve electric long range retrieve needs very large
batteries; back to Antares 20E size, weight and cost.

Not sure I agree with their view; I think FES is a good product;
future sales will tell the story

Self launchers are another matter and perhaps best not mixed
with a FES discussion?

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:42:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:14:37 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> ...Dave Nadler's Antares 20e is for sale and is ready to go...
>
> I certainly considered it. The Antares 20E is my dream machine.
> Dave was of the opinion that it's not suitable for a low-time pilot,
> I guess because of the need to handle the possibility of the motor
> not starting and the motor pylon failing to retract. Also, because
> of the increased complexity of a self launcher in general.

To repeat what I said to Ben:

The Antares is a VERY easy machine to fly, with failure modes
(especially sink with pylon out and motor stopped) more benign
than anything except FES (but Antares has fewer controls!).

Ben informed me he has 50 hours experience, with
no experience in high performance or with flaps.
Please no offense, but you're discussing the merits of various
models, with a guy just received driver's permit,
in the Ferrari showroom.

50 hours is IMHO no where near enough to be considering motorized
gliders and certainly not self-launchers. FIRST get a 100 or 200
hours of experience in high-performance, including XC and a few
out-landings, THEN get the self-launch training and endorsement.

A seriously motivated person can do this quickly by booking continuous
training courses at any number of advanced operations (available
certainly in Europe, Oz, not in USA this time of year). Certainly
I know folks that have gone from zero to complex gliders including
self-launch quickly and safely this way. Flying with most clubs
it will be VERY hard to quickly get up to the level of experience
needed to be safe in advanced machines (even in the few USA clubs
with the appropriate equipment and instructors). No disrespect
to Ben's club either, and I'd love to see it work, but truly...

Hope this helps clear some of the fog,
and Ben hope you have a blast learning,
Best Regards, Dave

Dave is spot on....My LAK-17B FES did self-launch at the factory (near sea level on a cool day), but the FES on the LAK-17B is meant to be ONLY used as a sustainer. In the Flight Manual they are very specific on several pages by saying:

"LAK-17B FES is a self-sustaining powered sailplane and is prohibited from taking off solely by means of it's own power."

Also, to back-up Dave's comment, I always joke with folks that even if I could self-launch, I would not because I do want to save every "volt" in case I need to self-retrieve.

On another question by another individual on cockpit cooling, the nose vent in the LAK works perfectly fine just like any other nose vent. When the motor is running it also allows the airflow to help cool the motor (along with the electric cooling fans).

Finally, to answer the question on how warm it gets in the cockpit when running....In New Mexico, on a 92 deg day summer at 7,000 msl with the motor running, it can get warm. With all of the air vents open and the motor running at cruise speed it is very manageable, but I do shut it down once I contact a thermal, or once I have an airport within gliding distance.

Thanks - Renny




On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 12:30:07 PM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
> While some FES equipped true gliders can self launch given a
> long enough runway (and ignoring various legal factors) this
> leaves the batteries depleted so there is no real retrieve
> capacity remaining.
> The only realistic self launch/FES mix is the Silent Electro at
> 13.5m so it isn't the answer to the original question.
> My understanding is that Lange Aviation (Antares 20/23E)
> don't see an electric (turbo) option (FES or otherwise) as a
> realistic product. Their Solo engined Antares 18T should allow
> pilots to retrieve from the wrong end of a failed 750K + flight.
> To achieve electric long range retrieve needs very large
> batteries; back to Antares 20E size, weight and cost.
>
> Not sure I agree with their view; I think FES is a good product;
> future sales will tell the story
>
> Self launchers are another matter and perhaps best not mixed
> with a FES discussion?

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 11:24:13 AM UTC-8, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:42:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:14:37 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > ...Dave Nadler's Antares 20e is for sale and is ready to go...
> >
> > I certainly considered it. The Antares 20E is my dream machine.
> > Dave was of the opinion that it's not suitable for a low-time pilot,
> > I guess because of the need to handle the possibility of the motor
> > not starting and the motor pylon failing to retract. Also, because
> > of the increased complexity of a self launcher in general.
>
> To repeat what I said to Ben:
>
> The Antares is a VERY easy machine to fly, with failure modes
> (especially sink with pylon out and motor stopped) more benign
> than anything except FES (but Antares has fewer controls!).
>
> Ben informed me he has 50 hours experience, with
> no experience in high performance or with flaps.
> Please no offense, but you're discussing the merits of various
> models, with a guy just received driver's permit,
> in the Ferrari showroom.
>
> 50 hours is IMHO no where near enough to be considering motorized
> gliders and certainly not self-launchers. FIRST get a 100 or 200
> hours of experience in high-performance, including XC and a few
> out-landings, THEN get the self-launch training and endorsement.
>
> A seriously motivated person can do this quickly by booking continuous
> training courses at any number of advanced operations (available
> certainly in Europe, Oz, not in USA this time of year). Certainly
> I know folks that have gone from zero to complex gliders including
> self-launch quickly and safely this way. Flying with most clubs
> it will be VERY hard to quickly get up to the level of experience
> needed to be safe in advanced machines (even in the few USA clubs
> with the appropriate equipment and instructors). No disrespect
> to Ben's club either, and I'd love to see it work, but truly...
>
> Hope this helps clear some of the fog,
> and Ben hope you have a blast learning,
> Best Regards, Dave

Dave, I agree that most motorized gliders are not suitable for a new pilot, but if you're saying that glider with a FES sustainer (non-self-launching) isn't appropriate for a new pilot, I'm afraid I disagree. The FES system could not be simpler to operate. If it fails to run in flight, it adds no additional pilot workload the way a pylon mounted motor would. It does not make the aircraft more difficult to fly, or add any meaningful amount of risk.. In fact, by avoiding outlandings, I think it will reduce the risk I'm exposing myself to by flying sailplanes.

If you're simply objecting to me buying a high performance sailplane with 50 hours of experience, then please read my previous posts. By the time I take delivery of one of these high performance gliders, I will have accumulated a decent amount of experience in my club's high performance gliders. If I'm qualified to fly my club's high performance gliders, I don't see why I wouldn't be qualified to fly my own high performance glider, FES or not.

May I suggest a different concept?
What would be wrong with ordering something like a "Ventus 3 FES" (it won't be called that) and while you're waiting buy and fly a more simple flying machine like an older Discus, LS4 or 7, ASW19, Pegase, etc? You can sell that when the new ship is on the way. At that point you'll be flying a superb new FES glider with a much more experienced approach. Experience might mean having landed out a few times, damaging it while rigging, who knows, but perhaps less stress to learn on the less expensive glider and it's all good for you in the end.
Jim

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 3:15:57 PM UTC-8, JS wrote:
> May I suggest a different concept?
> What would be wrong with ordering something like a "Ventus 3 FES" (it won't be called that) and while you're waiting buy and fly a more simple flying machine like an older Discus, LS4 or 7, ASW19, Pegase, etc? You can sell that when the new ship is on the way. At that point you'll be flying a superb new FES glider with a much more experienced approach. Experience might mean having landed out a few times, damaging it while rigging, who knows, but perhaps less stress to learn on the less expensive glider and it's all good for you in the end.
> Jim

Sure, but why buy an older glider when I can fly my club's gliders? Are you thinking I'll be able to get more flying time in my own ship? My club has an ample stable that includes a DG-1000, DG-505 and two Pegasi that barely get used. So far, getting a glider when I want one hasn't been a problem.

Le mardi 8 décembre 2015 17:36:06 UTC-5, a écrit*:
> I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane, and would like to hear thoughts and opinions about the various options available. I'm seeking a cross country machine with long legs and a highly reliable sustainer. An 18m FES sailplane should fit that requirement nicely.
>
> I'm a somewhat green pilot, but in the year or so before a new glider could be manufactured and delivered, I will have accumulated some more experience in my club's DG-505 and DG-1000. I have eliminated the Ventus 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the following gliders that are available with a FES system:
>
> - Discus 2c
> - Lak-17B
> - HpH 304S Shark
>
> All three appear to have similar performance, as best I can tell from published data. I don't plan to be racing any time soon, so a difference of a few points in best glide ratio is not significant to me.
>
> According to the flight reports that I've read, all three feature docile handling that should not be a problem for a low-time pilot. The Lak-17B and HpH Shark have flaps. I have thoroughly researched the apparently controversial issue of whether flapped ships are suitable for low-time pilots, and am convinced that they are more of an asset than a liability.
>
> In the interests of staying on topic, let's not make this thread about flaps or the FES. These topics have already been thoroughly discussed on RAS. Please start a new thread or add to an old thread if you wish to discuss further.
>
> I'll list some of the pros and cons of each ship that I can see, but would love to hear if anyone disagrees with them, or has anything to add.
>
> Discus 2c
> - Pros: Reputation for excellent handling. Optional GRS. Possibly higher resale value and ease of selling due to its popularity.
> - Cons: No flaps.
>
> Lak-17B
> - Pros: Lower cost (better value) than the other two. Half the lead time of the other two (6 vs 12 mo).
> - Cons: No safety cockpit.
>
> HpH Shark
> - Pros: Good looking (purely my opinion).
> - Cons: Every flight review I've read says it handles well but... every reviewer had at least one negative thing to say about the handling. Hard to draw conclusions, but some doubt as been cast in my mind.
>
> By now it may be clear which one I'm leaning toward. However, I wouldn't have posted this if my mind wasn't open to others' opinions, so I welcome and appreciate your thoughts. In the end, the decision will come down to what's most important to me: safety and handling. I guess what I'm really seeking is a double-check on my thinking regarding this rather significant purchase.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben

Hi

I witness a LAK 17b FES 21 meter termination of the tow at tree top,about 25 meters high. No place to land.

The pilot turn the motor on flew away found a thermal and came back 5 hours
later.

Any other glider would have been destroyed.

On Friday, 11 December 2015 00:23:42 UTC, wrote:
>
> I witness a LAK 17b FES 21 meter termination of the tow at tree top,about 25 meters high. No place to land.
>
> The pilot turn the motor on flew away found a thermal and came back 5 hours
> later.
>
> Any other glider would have been destroyed.

I wonder what the point was of doing that. By the time you have queued for an aerotow, and paid anything for it, you have lost all the benefit of having a self launcher. So why on earth accept even the admittedly very small risk of a problem with the FES, instead of holding onto the aerotow up to a height for a comfortable landing back on the airfield if the FES does not perform?

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 7:23:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:

> I witness a LAK 17b FES 21 meter termination of the tow at tree top,about 25 meters high. No place to land.
>
> The pilot turn the motor on flew away found a thermal and came back 5 hours
> later.

But if Benhir buys a FES sooner rather than later, he will miss a lot of the FUN and ADVENTURE of landing out.

Le mardi 8 décembre 2015 17:36:06 UTC-5, a écrit*:
> I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane, and would like to hear thoughts and opinions about the various options available. I'm seeking a cross country machine with long legs and a highly reliable sustainer. An 18m FES sailplane should fit that requirement nicely.
>
> I'm a somewhat green pilot, but in the year or so before a new glider could be manufactured and delivered, I will have accumulated some more experience in my club's DG-505 and DG-1000. I have eliminated the Ventus 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the following gliders that are available with a FES system:
>
> - Discus 2c
> - Lak-17B
> - HpH 304S Shark
>
> All three appear to have similar performance, as best I can tell from published data. I don't plan to be racing any time soon, so a difference of a few points in best glide ratio is not significant to me.
>
> According to the flight reports that I've read, all three feature docile handling that should not be a problem for a low-time pilot. The Lak-17B and HpH Shark have flaps. I have thoroughly researched the apparently controversial issue of whether flapped ships are suitable for low-time pilots, and am convinced that they are more of an asset than a liability.
>
> In the interests of staying on topic, let's not make this thread about flaps or the FES. These topics have already been thoroughly discussed on RAS. Please start a new thread or add to an old thread if you wish to discuss further.
>
> I'll list some of the pros and cons of each ship that I can see, but would love to hear if anyone disagrees with them, or has anything to add.
>
> Discus 2c
> - Pros: Reputation for excellent handling. Optional GRS. Possibly higher resale value and ease of selling due to its popularity.
> - Cons: No flaps.
>
> Lak-17B
> - Pros: Lower cost (better value) than the other two. Half the lead time of the other two (6 vs 12 mo).
> - Cons: No safety cockpit.
>
> HpH Shark
> - Pros: Good looking (purely my opinion).
> - Cons: Every flight review I've read says it handles well but... every reviewer had at least one negative thing to say about the handling. Hard to draw conclusions, but some doubt as been cast in my mind.
>
> By now it may be clear which one I'm leaning toward. However, I wouldn't have posted this if my mind wasn't open to others' opinions, so I welcome and appreciate your thoughts. In the end, the decision will come down to what's most important to me: safety and handling. I guess what I'm really seeking is a double-check on my thinking regarding this rather significant purchase.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben


It was not intentional!!!

Le mardi 8 décembre 2015 17:36:06 UTC-5, a écrit*:
> I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane, and would like to hear thoughts and opinions about the various options available. I'm seeking a cross country machine with long legs and a highly reliable sustainer. An 18m FES sailplane should fit that requirement nicely.
>
> I'm a somewhat green pilot, but in the year or so before a new glider could be manufactured and delivered, I will have accumulated some more experience in my club's DG-505 and DG-1000. I have eliminated the Ventus 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the following gliders that are available with a FES system:
>
> - Discus 2c
> - Lak-17B
> - HpH 304S Shark
>
> All three appear to have similar performance, as best I can tell from published data. I don't plan to be racing any time soon, so a difference of a few points in best glide ratio is not significant to me.
>
> According to the flight reports that I've read, all three feature docile handling that should not be a problem for a low-time pilot. The Lak-17B and HpH Shark have flaps. I have thoroughly researched the apparently controversial issue of whether flapped ships are suitable for low-time pilots, and am convinced that they are more of an asset than a liability.
>
> In the interests of staying on topic, let's not make this thread about flaps or the FES. These topics have already been thoroughly discussed on RAS. Please start a new thread or add to an old thread if you wish to discuss further.
>
> I'll list some of the pros and cons of each ship that I can see, but would love to hear if anyone disagrees with them, or has anything to add.
>
> Discus 2c
> - Pros: Reputation for excellent handling. Optional GRS. Possibly higher resale value and ease of selling due to its popularity.
> - Cons: No flaps.
>
> Lak-17B
> - Pros: Lower cost (better value) than the other two. Half the lead time of the other two (6 vs 12 mo).
> - Cons: No safety cockpit.
>
> HpH Shark
> - Pros: Good looking (purely my opinion).
> - Cons: Every flight review I've read says it handles well but... every reviewer had at least one negative thing to say about the handling. Hard to draw conclusions, but some doubt as been cast in my mind.
>
> By now it may be clear which one I'm leaning toward. However, I wouldn't have posted this if my mind wasn't open to others' opinions, so I welcome and appreciate your thoughts. In the end, the decision will come down to what's most important to me: safety and handling. I guess what I'm really seeking is a double-check on my thinking regarding this rather significant purchase.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben

It was not intentional

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 7:23:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Le mardi 8 décembre 2015 17:36:06 UTC-5, a écrit*:
> > I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane, and would like to hear thoughts and opinions about the various options available. I'm seeking a cross country machine with long legs and a highly reliable sustainer. An 18m FES sailplane should fit that requirement nicely.
> >
> > I'm a somewhat green pilot, but in the year or so before a new glider could be manufactured and delivered, I will have accumulated some more experience in my club's DG-505 and DG-1000. I have eliminated the Ventus 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the following gliders that are available with a FES system:
> >
> > - Discus 2c
> > - Lak-17B
> > - HpH 304S Shark
> >
> > All three appear to have similar performance, as best I can tell from published data. I don't plan to be racing any time soon, so a difference of a few points in best glide ratio is not significant to me.
> >
> > According to the flight reports that I've read, all three feature docile handling that should not be a problem for a low-time pilot. The Lak-17B and HpH Shark have flaps. I have thoroughly researched the apparently controversial issue of whether flapped ships are suitable for low-time pilots, and am convinced that they are more of an asset than a liability.
> >
> > In the interests of staying on topic, let's not make this thread about flaps or the FES. These topics have already been thoroughly discussed on RAS. Please start a new thread or add to an old thread if you wish to discuss further.
> >
> > I'll list some of the pros and cons of each ship that I can see, but would love to hear if anyone disagrees with them, or has anything to add.
> >
> > Discus 2c
> > - Pros: Reputation for excellent handling. Optional GRS. Possibly higher resale value and ease of selling due to its popularity.
> > - Cons: No flaps.
> >
> > Lak-17B
> > - Pros: Lower cost (better value) than the other two. Half the lead time of the other two (6 vs 12 mo).
> > - Cons: No safety cockpit.
> >
> > HpH Shark
> > - Pros: Good looking (purely my opinion).
> > - Cons: Every flight review I've read says it handles well but... every reviewer had at least one negative thing to say about the handling. Hard to draw conclusions, but some doubt as been cast in my mind.
> >
> > By now it may be clear which one I'm leaning toward. However, I wouldn't have posted this if my mind wasn't open to others' opinions, so I welcome and appreciate your thoughts. In the end, the decision will come down to what's most important to me: safety and handling. I guess what I'm really seeking is a double-check on my thinking regarding this rather significant purchase.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ben
>
> Hi
>
> I witness a LAK 17b FES 21 meter termination of the tow at tree top,about 25 meters high. No place to land.
>
> The pilot turn the motor on flew away found a thermal and came back 5 hours
> later.
>
> Any other glider would have been destroyed.

I also think the Shark is nice looking and appears to me a little better quality than LAK.

Someone told me that the Shark is an older design and true L/D is lower than newer design gliders. And for all I know is same design as the 1980's Glasflugal 304.

LAK has been building glider a long time and the 304 is a proven design. I like German gliders and Czech Republic is closer to Germany than Lithuania and Lithuania use to be part of Russian and I have not liked anything coming out of Russia.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:58:06 -0800, benhirashima wrote:

> Sure, but why buy an older glider when I can fly my club's gliders? Are
> you thinking I'll be able to get more flying time in my own ship? My
> club has an ample stable that includes a DG-1000, DG-505 and two Pegasi
> that barely get used. So far, getting a glider when I want one hasn't
> been a problem.
>
Grab the Peg(s) and put some serious time onto them. Pegs are nice to fly
and I've always found them more comfortable than a Discus. Besides, its a
shame to let a Peg sit in a hangar when it could be flown.

I got Silver C in my club's SZD Juniors before converting to my club's
high performance fleet (a Peg 90 and two Discii) and spent two years
flying mainly the Peg, which suited me better than the Discii, before
buying.

I almost got Gold distance in the Peg (6 attempts foiled by various
mistakes at up to 100 km from home) and two of us had immense fun flying
it in the local Regionals. I learned a lot from flying it as well as
firming up my ideas about what I wanted in a glider, what I want my panel
to show and where I prefer instruments to be placed.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

....and no experience with flaps with any of those except, maybe on of
the Pegase models.

On 12/10/2015 4:15 PM, JS wrote:
> May I suggest a different concept?
> What would be wrong with ordering something like a "Ventus 3 FES" (it won't be called that) and while you're waiting buy and fly a more simple flying machine like an older Discus, LS4 or 7, ASW19, Pegase, etc? You can sell that when the new ship is on the way. At that point you'll be flying a superb new FES glider with a much more experienced approach. Experience might mean having landed out a few times, damaging it while rigging, who knows, but perhaps less stress to learn on the less expensive glider and it's all good for you in the end.
> Jim

--
Dan, 5J

Though not an FES, I absolutely love my LAK-17a. It's entirely
different from the Soviet-era LAK-12 and has some features which I
consider to be superior to the German designs. Not all, of course. I
regularly fly with a friend who flies an HPH 304. Both ships seem to
perform equally well.

On 12/11/2015 3:05 AM, Casey Cox wrote:
> Lithuania use to be part of Russian and I have not liked anything coming out of Russia

--
Dan, 5J

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 12:23:03 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Though not an FES, I absolutely love my LAK-17a.* It's entirely
> different from the Soviet-era LAK-12 and has some features which I
> consider to be superior to the German designs.* Not all, of course.*
> I regularly fly with a friend who flies an HPH 304.* Both ships seem
> to perform equally well.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/11/2015 3:05 AM, Casey Cox wrote:
>
>
>
> Lithuania use to be part of Russian and I have not liked anything coming out of Russia
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan, 5J

I fly with Dan M. at Moriarty and I absolutely agree with his comments about modern LAK gliders. My LAK-17B FES is a great ship and I thoroughly enjoy flying it. It is well made, docile, holds no surprises and it really performs. With 3 each, LAK-17s at Moriarty (two As and one B), they have all performed very well over the years with many outstanding flights uploaded to the OLC!

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:15:17 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

> ...and no experience with flaps with any of those except, maybe on of
> the Pegase models.
>
No flaps on any Pegase that I'm aware of. 101D has carbon spars.

Pegase 90 is the last version and best, with all self-connecting
controls. No, I don't know how many were made or why the 90 should be a
successor to the 101, unless it was the 1990 model.

I had around 200 hours solo before I converted to a flapped glider
(ASW-20) and that seemed about right. I didn't have any problems with
flaps once I learnt to give the stick a good shove as I put in landing
flap on finals (or is the matching speed drop an ASW-20 feature?).
However I reckon it was another 35 hours before I was almost always in
the right flap setting without having to think about it.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 12:51:38 AM UTC+3, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:15:17 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> > ...and no experience with flaps with any of those except, maybe on of
> > the Pegase models.
> >
> No flaps on any Pegase that I'm aware of. 101D has carbon spars.
>
> Pegase 90 is the last version and best, with all self-connecting
> controls. No, I don't know how many were made or why the 90 should be a
> successor to the 101, unless it was the 1990 model.
>
> I had around 200 hours solo before I converted to a flapped glider
> (ASW-20) and that seemed about right. I didn't have any problems with
> flaps once I learnt to give the stick a good shove as I put in landing
> flap on finals (or is the matching speed drop an ASW-20 feature?).
> However I reckon it was another 35 hours before I was almost always in
> the right flap setting without having to think about it.

I was 83 hours PIC when I was cleared for solo (and passengers) in a flapped glider -- an original Janus with reputation for bad handling, twitchy all-flying tail, and aero-towing on the belly hook.

Loved that glider!

I don't know about a "shove" on the stick, but before I got rated in it I practiced flying at 65 knots or so and moving the flap lever fairly quickly between -7 and landing flap and back repeatedly, while having no noticeable change in G loading or airspeed.

I just bought an Antares 20E awesome ship very easy to fly! 10-12 sec extend retract time. SIMPLE engine control full forward with power lever and 10-12 seconds later you are climbing. Launch to 2000' about 12-15% of battery power. Recharges with automatic shutdown in the trailer!

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:10:48 PM UTC-5, Tom (2N0) wrote:
> I just bought an Antares 20E awesome ship very easy to fly!
> 10-12 sec extend retract time. SIMPLE engine control full forward
> with power lever and 10-12 seconds later you are climbing.
> Launch to 2000' about 12-15% of battery power.
> Recharges with automatic shutdown in the trailer!

Yup. Mine's still for sale, at a bargain price:
http://wingsandwheels.com/class/index.php?id=685
http://youtu.be/uEOSUOLq29Q

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:01:17 -0800, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> I don't know about a "shove" on the stick, but before I got rated in it
> I practiced flying at 65 knots or so and moving the flap lever fairly
> quickly between -7 and landing flap and back repeatedly, while having no
> noticeable change in G loading or airspeed.
>
In that case its a glider-specific issue. If I simply moved the flaps
from zero to landing, my ASW-20 lost 10-15 kts 'like that', but a
simultaneous shove on the stick made the speed loss go away.

Actually, its not all that different different to the SZD Puchacz, where
opening the brakes tends to cause a slight pitch-up and loss of speed,
also eliminated with a simultaneous push on the stick.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 7:58:37 AM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:

> In that case its a glider-specific issue. If I simply moved the flaps
> from zero to landing, my ASW-20 lost 10-15 kts 'like that', but a
> simultaneous shove on the stick made the speed loss go away.

Did the guy that signed of your type transition run you through any of this? He should have...

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:15:16 AM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 7:58:37 AM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> > In that case its a glider-specific issue. If I simply moved the flaps
> > from zero to landing, my ASW-20 lost 10-15 kts 'like that', but a
> > simultaneous shove on the stick made the speed loss go away.
>
> Did the guy that signed of your type transition run you through any of this? He should have...

Inadvertent post. "Signed off", not "of".

Anyhow: with powerful flaps in most any glider or power plane one has to coordinate flap, elevator & trim. Shouldn't have been a surprise.

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 3:58:37 PM UTC+3, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:01:17 -0800, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> > I don't know about a "shove" on the stick, but before I got rated in it
> > I practiced flying at 65 knots or so and moving the flap lever fairly
> > quickly between -7 and landing flap and back repeatedly, while having no
> > noticeable change in G loading or airspeed.
> >
> In that case its a glider-specific issue. If I simply moved the flaps
> from zero to landing, my ASW-20 lost 10-15 kts 'like that', but a
> simultaneous shove on the stick made the speed loss go away.

Certainly. And gain altitude at the same time.

Increasing flaps gives a bigger coefficient of lift at the same angle of attack. If you want to keep the same AMOUNT of lift, at the same speed, then you have to simultaneously reduce the angle of attack.

But it's not a "shove" .. it's a precise and co-ordinated movement of two controls at the same time. The same as co-ordinating the use of aileron and rudder.

In the case of landing flap, there is also a fair bit of extra drag, so you also have to lower the nose a little to compensate for the drag, as well as lowering it to decrease the angle of attack. Drag is not really a factor in moving between -ve and thermalling flap (at reasonable speed), it's just the CL change in that case.

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:19:57 AM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
>
> Anyhow: with powerful flaps in most any glider or power plane one has to coordinate flap, elevator & trim. Shouldn't have been a surprise.
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

I agree, my "pre flapped glider checkout" was done in a Cessna 150. We went up to altitude and played with flap settings while observing what the pitch attitude & AS did.
After that was some cockpit time (on the ground)in a SGS-1-35, then a flight. Followed quickly by a PIK-20 & a ASW-20. The 150 was good since it had more flap deflection than a 152 and was really draggy.
We didn't have any 2 seat flapped gliders on the field (late 70's) for dual training, but I did have ~200 hours in a 1-26 along with hours in a 1-34 and others.

It worked for me, no real surprises. The ASW-20 was a bit easier, I could set the flaps (usually thermal flaps) and then fly the dive brakes "like normal" in the pattern, unlike the other 2.

On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 05:19:55 -0800, Tango Eight wrote:

> Anyhow: with powerful flaps in most any glider or power plane one has to
> coordinate flap, elevator & trim. Shouldn't have been a surprise.
>
I don't remember saying I found it a surprise. Please don't put words in
my mouth.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 05:49:22 -0800, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> But it's not a "shove" .. it's a precise and co-ordinated movement of
> two controls at the same time. The same as co-ordinating the use of
> aileron and rudder.
>
Indeed. Shorthand term, OK?

n
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Another advantage to the 13.5 meter gliders like the Silent is that when fitted with an FES system they are not just sustainers but self-launchers. Hence the Silent Electro is a real self-launcher. No more waiting for a $50 tow.

Hi Ben! It been about three years since your post. I was wondering if you decided to buy a FES equiped glider after all, and if so, which one?
Just interested to see whay came of this!

Thanks,

Marco

Hi Marco. I ended up ordering a GP15.

To answer the subject question:Â* Buy the one you like best, not what
someone tells you to buy.Â* Just because you buy the "top" ship does not
mean you'll win any contests.Â* Find what's comfortable for you, they all
perform pretty much the same and you'll want to be comfortable above all
else.

My 2 cents,

On 11/22/2018 10:33 PM, Ben Hirashima wrote:
> Hi Marco. I ended up ordering a GP15.

--
Dan, 5J

On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 10:33:55 PM UTC-7, Ben Hirashima wrote:
> Hi Marco. I ended up ordering a GP15.

Please be sure to let us know how you like it and how it performs, once you have a few hours in it. Thanks.

Thanks for answering Ben. Great choice, I’m thinking about going on the GP 15 list as well!!!

On 11/25/18 8:17 PM, wrote:
> Thanks for answering Ben. Great choice, I’m thinking about going on the GP 15 list as well!!!
>

I'm a big fan of buying actual gliders that you can fly, rather than pie
in the sky empty promises.

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 2:36:06 PM UTC-8, Ben Hirashima wrote:
> I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane...

You could always just build one.

El lunes, 26 de noviembre de 2018, 14:55:16 (UTC-3), Bob Kuykendall escribió:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 2:36:06 PM UTC-8, Ben Hirashima wrote:
> > I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane...
>
> You could always just build one.

And install a grasshopper!

Hi Ben: I recently returned from Lithuania where I flew a modified LAK17B FES 18 meter that had been fitted with an upgraded FES battery system that allowed for self-launch. I also flew the MiniLAK FES, a self-launched 13.5 meter. Both gliders are flapped, and from 17 years experience with flapped and unflapped gliders, I would never buy an unflapped glider.

The LAK 17B FES launched easily from a relatively short paved strip, and was a joy to fly. My understanding from Vytas Maciulius, the Director of the LAK factory, is that LAK is working on a self-launching LAK17C FES. I don't know how soon it will be available, but I do know that FES battery packs with an extra 4 cells are now available, because Vytas gave me the option of adding one to the MiniLAK FES that I made a down payment on. Perhaps that might also be an option on the purchase of new LAK 17B. I don't know that for sure, but you certainly could find out. It would then become a self-launcher.
I've made only three flights in LAK gliders, so I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but I was impressed enough with the gliders to purchase one. I thought the engineering of cockpit controls was exceptional (I'm comparing to my current LS-6), and my tour of the LAK factory convinced me that that a very high quality of craftsmanship prevails.
I've written an article on the trip and my experiences for an upcoming issue of Soaring, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might think to ask.
Matt Herron

Thanks, Matt. What is the current delivery date?

Matt,
I am currently flying a 17B FES and and have a Mini Lak FESL on order. I would really appreciate a conversation about your trip to the factory and your thoughts on both the Mini and the 17C. Here's my email address: . Thanks,

Steve Bair

Matt,

Thank you so much for sharing your most positive experience with Lak. I am in a full agreement with the previous poster, in that I would love to hear more about your recent visit to their production facilities. As I told our Lak sales representative up here in Canada, it’s unfortunate Lak doesn’t organize a North American tour with there lineup of toys. I have several questions and concerns over their products, starting with fit and comfort in a Mini with my 6 foot frame, to support for batteries here in North America.

John Hebert
Montreal, Canada

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 7:14:48 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Thank you so much for sharing your most positive experience with Lak. I am in a full agreement with the previous poster, in that I would love to hear more about your recent visit to their production facilities. As I told our Lak sales representative up here in Canada, it’s unfortunate Lak doesn’t organize a North American tour with there lineup of toys. I have several questions and concerns over their products, starting with fit and comfort in a Mini with my 6 foot frame, to support for batteries here in North America.
>
> John Hebert
> Montreal, Canada

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 7:14:48 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Thank you so much for sharing your most positive experience with Lak. I am in a full agreement with the previous poster, in that I would love to hear more about your recent visit to their production facilities. As I told our Lak sales representative up here in Canada, it’s unfortunate Lak doesn’t organize a North American tour with there lineup of toys. I have several questions and concerns over their products, starting with fit and comfort in a Mini with my 6 foot frame, to support for batteries here in North America.
>
> John Hebert
> Montreal, Canada

Hi John:
I'm 5'7", so I can't help you on fit. But I found both the LAK17 and the Mini completely comfortable, and I think there was extra room beyond my personal dimensions. The 17 and the Mini essentially have the same fuselage, so if you've ever sat in a 17, you would probably find the Mini about the same fit.

As for batteries, I assume one could get support through US/Canadian distributor, but my guess is that any serious repairs would have to come from LZ in Slovenia.

As you probably know, LZ recalled all FES batteries for inspection and upgrade following the two battery fires. Here's what I wrote about that issue for Soaring:

In accordance with a Modification Bulletin
issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), the LAK factory has reinforced the
battery pack housing with flame retardant
fiberglass, installed an independent fire
warning system, and added a safety valve smoke
vent to the battery compartment cover.

The FES system has been with us for about
eight years now. During this time some 180
gliders have been fitted with the engine,
either as self-launch or sustainer. /There
have been no reported engine failures in
flight./ However, there have been two fires
involving the lithium polymer battery packs at
the heart of the FES system. One happened
during a landing in the UK and was
extinguished after the pilot exited the glider
safely. The pilot reported that one of the
battery packs had previously been dropped,
which could have damaged one or more of the
lithium cells. The other fire occurred in a
trailer where the batteries had been stored
with the units still connected, a big “no no“
according to FES maintenance manuals. While
the exact cause of the fires has not been
determined, any fire involving lithium
batteries can be extremely serious – these
units pack a lot of energy and must be handled
with respect.


In response to the fires, LZ Design, the
Slovenian manufacturer of the FES system, has
recalled all the battery packs for disassembly
and inspection. LZ is checking for the
suspected presence of small metal shards, a
possible by-product of machine work on the
battery case cover. Since the individual
lithium cells are housed in plastic bags
rather than hard cases, if a shard were
present it would be possible for it to migrate
during battery usage and penetrate a lithium
cell, potentially causing a short and a
resulting fire. After each inspection is
complete, LZ re-installs all the lithium cells
in a solid matrix of silicon gel, which should
correct the problem.

Regards,

Matt Herron

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:26:46 PM UTC-5, Matt Herron (Sr) wrote:
> Hi John:
> I'm 5'7", so I can't help you on fit. But I found both the LAK17 and the Mini completely comfortable, and I think there was extra room beyond my personal dimensions. The 17 and the Mini essentially have the same fuselage, so if you've ever sat in a 17, you would probably find the Mini about the same fit.
>
> As for batteries, I assume one could get support through US/Canadian distributor, but my guess is that any serious repairs would have to come from LZ in Slovenia.
>
> As you probably know, LZ recalled all FES batteries for inspection and upgrade following the two battery fires. Here's what I wrote about that issue for Soaring:
>
> In accordance with a Modification Bulletin
> issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency
> (EASA), the LAK factory has reinforced the
> battery pack housing with flame retardant
> fiberglass, installed an independent fire
> warning system, and added a safety valve smoke
> vent to the battery compartment cover.
>
> The FES system has been with us for about
> eight years now. During this time some 180
> gliders have been fitted with the engine,
> either as self-launch or sustainer. /There
> have been no reported engine failures in
> flight./ However, there have been two fires
> involving the lithium polymer battery packs at
> the heart of the FES system. One happened
> during a landing in the UK and was
> extinguished after the pilot exited the glider
> safely. The pilot reported that one of the
> battery packs had previously been dropped,
> which could have damaged one or more of the
> lithium cells. The other fire occurred in a
> trailer where the batteries had been stored
> with the units still connected, a big “no no“
> according to FES maintenance manuals. While
> the exact cause of the fires has not been
> determined, any fire involving lithium
> batteries can be extremely serious – these
> units pack a lot of energy and must be handled
> with respect.
>
>
> In response to the fires, LZ Design, the
> Slovenian manufacturer of the FES system, has
> recalled all the battery packs for disassembly
> and inspection. LZ is checking for the
> suspected presence of small metal shards, a
> possible by-product of machine work on the
> battery case cover. Since the individual
> lithium cells are housed in plastic bags
> rather than hard cases, if a shard were
> present it would be possible for it to migrate
> during battery usage and penetrate a lithium
> cell, potentially causing a short and a
> resulting fire. After each inspection is
> complete, LZ re-installs all the lithium cells
> in a solid matrix of silicon gel, which should
> correct the problem.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt Herron

3 fires. One in the US
UH

John,

I took a chance to try on Jamie Shore's Mini LAK here at SCOH and I did fit - barely. I am 6'2" and I think with some fiddling of the seat cushion type I would fit very comfortably. Did not get to fly it so cannot comment on how comfortable I would be after 3 to 4 hours in it - guess I'll have to fly before I buy.

Tony Smolder
TS1

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 12:22:06 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:26:46 PM UTC-5, Matt Herron (Sr) wrote:
> > Hi John:
> > I'm 5'7", so I can't help you on fit. But I found both the LAK17 and the Mini completely comfortable, and I think there was extra room beyond my personal dimensions. The 17 and the Mini essentially have the same fuselage, so if you've ever sat in a 17, you would probably find the Mini about the same fit.
> >
> > As for batteries, I assume one could get support through US/Canadian distributor, but my guess is that any serious repairs would have to come from LZ in Slovenia.
> >
> > As you probably know, LZ recalled all FES batteries for inspection and upgrade following the two battery fires. Here's what I wrote about that issue for Soaring:
> >
> > In accordance with a Modification Bulletin
> > issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency
> > (EASA), the LAK factory has reinforced the
> > battery pack housing with flame retardant
> > fiberglass, installed an independent fire
> > warning system, and added a safety valve smoke
> > vent to the battery compartment cover.
> >
> > The FES system has been with us for about
> > eight years now. During this time some 180
> > gliders have been fitted with the engine,
> > either as self-launch or sustainer. /There
> > have been no reported engine failures in
> > flight./ However, there have been two fires
> > involving the lithium polymer battery packs at
> > the heart of the FES system. One happened
> > during a landing in the UK and was
> > extinguished after the pilot exited the glider
> > safely. The pilot reported that one of the
> > battery packs had previously been dropped,
> > which could have damaged one or more of the
> > lithium cells. The other fire occurred in a
> > trailer where the batteries had been stored
> > with the units still connected, a big “no no“
> > according to FES maintenance manuals. While
> > the exact cause of the fires has not been
> > determined, any fire involving lithium
> > batteries can be extremely serious – these
> > units pack a lot of energy and must be handled
> > with respect.
> >
> >
> > In response to the fires, LZ Design, the
> > Slovenian manufacturer of the FES system, has
> > recalled all the battery packs for disassembly
> > and inspection. LZ is checking for the
> > suspected presence of small metal shards, a
> > possible by-product of machine work on the
> > battery case cover. Since the individual
> > lithium cells are housed in plastic bags
> > rather than hard cases, if a shard were
> > present it would be possible for it to migrate
> > during battery usage and penetrate a lithium
> > cell, potentially causing a short and a
> > resulting fire. After each inspection is
> > complete, LZ re-installs all the lithium cells
> > in a solid matrix of silicon gel, which should
> > correct the problem.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Matt Herron
>
> 3 fires. One in the US
> UH

I went to the FES presentation in Reno this year. I was unimpressed in the resolution of the fires that have occurred (I am an electrical engineer), especially in not acknowledging the third fire. My advice is to wait until the root cause of these fires has been conclusively identified. Having a parachute (as one friend of mine opined) is not an adequate backup plan.

Tom

On 11/27/18 9:01 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 12:22:06 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:26:46 PM UTC-5, Matt Herron (Sr) wrote:
>>> Hi John:
>>> I'm 5'7", so I can't help you on fit. But I found both the LAK17 and the Mini completely comfortable, and I think there was extra room beyond my personal dimensions. The 17 and the Mini essentially have the same fuselage, so if you've ever sat in a 17, you would probably find the Mini about the same fit.
>>>
>>> As for batteries, I assume one could get support through US/Canadian distributor, but my guess is that any serious repairs would have to come from LZ in Slovenia.
>>>
>>> As you probably know, LZ recalled all FES batteries for inspection and upgrade following the two battery fires. Here's what I wrote about that issue for Soaring:
>>>
>>> In accordance with a Modification Bulletin
>>> issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency
>>> (EASA), the LAK factory has reinforced the
>>> battery pack housing with flame retardant
>>> fiberglass, installed an independent fire
>>> warning system, and added a safety valve smoke
>>> vent to the battery compartment cover.
>>>
>>> The FES system has been with us for about
>>> eight years now. During this time some 180
>>> gliders have been fitted with the engine,
>>> either as self-launch or sustainer. /There
>>> have been no reported engine failures in
>>> flight./ However, there have been two fires
>>> involving the lithium polymer battery packs at
>>> the heart of the FES system. One happened
>>> during a landing in the UK and was
>>> extinguished after the pilot exited the glider
>>> safely. The pilot reported that one of the
>>> battery packs had previously been dropped,
>>> which could have damaged one or more of the
>>> lithium cells. The other fire occurred in a
>>> trailer where the batteries had been stored
>>> with the units still connected, a big “no no“
>>> according to FES maintenance manuals. While
>>> the exact cause of the fires has not been
>>> determined, any fire involving lithium
>>> batteries can be extremely serious – these
>>> units pack a lot of energy and must be handled
>>> with respect.
>>>
>>>
>>> In response to the fires, LZ Design, the
>>> Slovenian manufacturer of the FES system, has
>>> recalled all the battery packs for disassembly
>>> and inspection. LZ is checking for the
>>> suspected presence of small metal shards, a
>>> possible by-product of machine work on the
>>> battery case cover. Since the individual
>>> lithium cells are housed in plastic bags
>>> rather than hard cases, if a shard were
>>> present it would be possible for it to migrate
>>> during battery usage and penetrate a lithium
>>> cell, potentially causing a short and a
>>> resulting fire. After each inspection is
>>> complete, LZ re-installs all the lithium cells
>>> in a solid matrix of silicon gel, which should
>>> correct the problem.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Matt Herron
>>
>> 3 fires. One in the US
>> UH
>
> I went to the FES presentation in Reno this year. I was unimpressed in the resolution of the fires that have occurred (I am an electrical engineer), especially in not acknowledging the third fire. My advice is to wait until the root cause of these fires has been conclusively identified. Having a parachute (as one friend of mine opined) is not an adequate backup plan.
>
> Tom
>

The third fire was disclosed in one of the papers I read, it was about
40 pages on the testing and corrective actions that were being taken.

It did strike me as random shotgunning of fixes, replacing the carbon
fiber battery cases with fiberglass would seem to be minimally effective
for a lithium fire. Improving the terminal insulation, when terminal
insulation had no apparent involvement in the fires, may not do
anything. Hard to argue with an improved fire detection system, but
does nothing to prevent the fires.

-Dave

On 11/27/18 9:01 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 12:22:06 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:26:46 PM UTC-5, Matt Herron (Sr) wrote:
>>> Hi John:
>>> I'm 5'7", so I can't help you on fit. But I found both the LAK17 and the Mini completely comfortable, and I think there was extra room beyond my personal dimensions. The 17 and the Mini essentially have the same fuselage, so if you've ever sat in a 17, you would probably find the Mini about the same fit.
>>>
>>> As for batteries, I assume one could get support through US/Canadian distributor, but my guess is that any serious repairs would have to come from LZ in Slovenia.
>>>
>>> As you probably know, LZ recalled all FES batteries for inspection and upgrade following the two battery fires. Here's what I wrote about that issue for Soaring:
>>>
>>> In accordance with a Modification Bulletin
>>> issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency
>>> (EASA), the LAK factory has reinforced the
>>> battery pack housing with flame retardant
>>> fiberglass, installed an independent fire
>>> warning system, and added a safety valve smoke
>>> vent to the battery compartment cover.
>>>
>>> The FES system has been with us for about
>>> eight years now. During this time some 180
>>> gliders have been fitted with the engine,
>>> either as self-launch or sustainer. /There
>>> have been no reported engine failures in
>>> flight./ However, there have been two fires
>>> involving the lithium polymer battery packs at
>>> the heart of the FES system. One happened
>>> during a landing in the UK and was
>>> extinguished after the pilot exited the glider
>>> safely. The pilot reported that one of the
>>> battery packs had previously been dropped,
>>> which could have damaged one or more of the
>>> lithium cells. The other fire occurred in a
>>> trailer where the batteries had been stored
>>> with the units still connected, a big “no no“
>>> according to FES maintenance manuals. While
>>> the exact cause of the fires has not been
>>> determined, any fire involving lithium
>>> batteries can be extremely serious – these
>>> units pack a lot of energy and must be handled
>>> with respect.
>>>
>>>
>>> In response to the fires, LZ Design, the
>>> Slovenian manufacturer of the FES system, has
>>> recalled all the battery packs for disassembly
>>> and inspection. LZ is checking for the
>>> suspected presence of small metal shards, a
>>> possible by-product of machine work on the
>>> battery case cover. Since the individual
>>> lithium cells are housed in plastic bags
>>> rather than hard cases, if a shard were
>>> present it would be possible for it to migrate
>>> during battery usage and penetrate a lithium
>>> cell, potentially causing a short and a
>>> resulting fire. After each inspection is
>>> complete, LZ re-installs all the lithium cells
>>> in a solid matrix of silicon gel, which should
>>> correct the problem.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Matt Herron
>>
>> 3 fires. One in the US
>> UH
>
> I went to the FES presentation in Reno this year. I was unimpressed in the resolution of the fires that have occurred (I am an electrical engineer), especially in not acknowledging the third fire. My advice is to wait until the root cause of these fires has been conclusively identified. Having a parachute (as one friend of mine opined) is not an adequate backup plan.
>
> Tom
>

Page number 38, brief mention

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b74225ce5274a0b344cabd5/HPH_Glasflugel_304_eS_G-GSGS_09-18.pdf

Dne sreda, 28. november 2018 05.01.09 UTC+1 je oseba 2G napisala:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 12:22:06 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:26:46 PM UTC-5, Matt Herron (Sr) wrote:
> > > Hi John:
> > > I'm 5'7", so I can't help you on fit. But I found both the LAK17 and the Mini completely comfortable, and I think there was extra room beyond my personal dimensions. The 17 and the Mini essentially have the same fuselage, so if you've ever sat in a 17, you would probably find the Mini about the same fit.
> > >
> > > As for batteries, I assume one could get support through US/Canadian distributor, but my guess is that any serious repairs would have to come from LZ in Slovenia.
> > >
> > > As you probably know, LZ recalled all FES batteries for inspection and upgrade following the two battery fires. Here's what I wrote about that issue for Soaring:
> > >
> > > In accordance with a Modification Bulletin
> > > issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency
> > > (EASA), the LAK factory has reinforced the
> > > battery pack housing with flame retardant
> > > fiberglass, installed an independent fire
> > > warning system, and added a safety valve smoke
> > > vent to the battery compartment cover.
> > >
> > > The FES system has been with us for about
> > > eight years now. During this time some 180
> > > gliders have been fitted with the engine,
> > > either as self-launch or sustainer. /There
> > > have been no reported engine failures in
> > > flight./ However, there have been two fires
> > > involving the lithium polymer battery packs at
> > > the heart of the FES system. One happened
> > > during a landing in the UK and was
> > > extinguished after the pilot exited the glider
> > > safely. The pilot reported that one of the
> > > battery packs had previously been dropped,
> > > which could have damaged one or more of the
> > > lithium cells. The other fire occurred in a
> > > trailer where the batteries had been stored
> > > with the units still connected, a big “no no“
> > > according to FES maintenance manuals. While
> > > the exact cause of the fires has not been
> > > determined, any fire involving lithium
> > > batteries can be extremely serious – these
> > > units pack a lot of energy and must be handled
> > > with respect.
> > >
> > >
> > > In response to the fires, LZ Design, the
> > > Slovenian manufacturer of the FES system, has
> > > recalled all the battery packs for disassembly
> > > and inspection. LZ is checking for the
> > > suspected presence of small metal shards, a
> > > possible by-product of machine work on the
> > > battery case cover. Since the individual
> > > lithium cells are housed in plastic bags
> > > rather than hard cases, if a shard were
> > > present it would be possible for it to migrate
> > > during battery usage and penetrate a lithium
> > > cell, potentially causing a short and a
> > > resulting fire. After each inspection is
> > > complete, LZ re-installs all the lithium cells
> > > in a solid matrix of silicon gel, which should
> > > correct the problem.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Matt Herron
> >
> > 3 fires. One in the US
> > UH
>
> I went to the FES presentation in Reno this year. I was unimpressed in the resolution of the fires that have occurred (I am an electrical engineer), especially in not acknowledging the third fire. My advice is to wait until the root cause of these fires has been conclusively identified. Having a parachute (as one friend of mine opined) is not an adequate backup plan.
>
> Tom

Dear Tom,

I think you did not listening carefully, as it was mentioned. The problem with 3rd fire was that owner of the glider was informed and asked by the factory not to use his batteries. So this this 3rd fire could be easily avoided, but he could not resist to use his batteries. This happened when we already had a solution and it was part of the same problem, which could be easily avoided.

Regards,
Luka

Hi Luka,
thanks for joining this discussion.
While refurbishing the batterypacks you have seen all these packs after years of use. Do you think, that these swarf were causing the fires?
Or what do you think was the root cause of the fires?
greets
Lukas

Dne sreda, 28. november 2018 13.08.23 UTC+1 je oseba napisala:
> Hi Luka,
> thanks for joining this discussion.
> While refurbishing the batterypacks you have seen all these packs after years of use. Do you think, that these swarf were causing the fires?
> Or what do you think was the root cause of the fires?
> greets
> Lukas

Hi Lukas,

Based on our initial tests and final tests from AAIB (they made also vibration test) where metal swarfs were placed between the cells and pressed together, we do not think that swarfs were the reason of thermal runaway as it was my initial theory. Our inspection of the cells during refurbishing process of battery packs further excluded swarfs as the reason. After all the work on battery packs, it seems to me that that root cause might be galvanic corrosion at pouch cell edges, which appeared in some special circumstances. We isolate all pouch cell edges and installed additional isolation material between the cells. Cells are now installed into new housing, which is fully non-conductive and much stronger. We doubled thickens of walls as we found out that many packs were mechanically damaged. New housing is high temperature resistant, to prevent housing failure in worst case of thermal runaway. We tested new arrangement with intentionally created internal shortcut at 50% level of charge and at 100% level of charge. In each test case there was no fire anymore, and new housing withstand the pressure. And we did much more than that. New SS housing for further protection during transportation of battery packs, become standard equipment. As we received many packs fully charged we introduced also FES discharger assistant as standard equipment etc.

It is getting late, so I need to get some rest now, so that tomorrow I can do some more work regarding further FES development and improvements :)

Kind regards,

Luka

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 3:53:44 PM UTC-7, Luka Žnidarši� wrote:
> Dne sreda, 28. november 2018 13.08.23 UTC+1 je oseba napisala:
> > Hi Luka,
> > thanks for joining this discussion.
> > While refurbishing the batterypacks you have seen all these packs after years of use. Do you think, that these swarf were causing the fires?
> > Or what do you think was the root cause of the fires?
> > greets
> > Lukas
>
> Hi Lukas,
>
> Based on our initial tests and final tests from AAIB (they made also vibration test) where metal swarfs were placed between the cells and pressed together, we do not think that swarfs were the reason of thermal runaway as it was my initial theory. Our inspection of the cells during refurbishing process of battery packs further excluded swarfs as the reason. After all the work on battery packs, it seems to me that that root cause might be galvanic corrosion at pouch cell edges, which appeared in some special circumstances. We isolate all pouch cell edges and installed additional isolation material between the cells. Cells are now installed into new housing, which is fully non-conductive and much stronger. We doubled thickens of walls as we found out that many packs were mechanically damaged. New housing is high temperature resistant, to prevent housing failure in worst case of thermal runaway. We tested new arrangement with intentionally created internal shortcut at 50% level of charge and at 100% level of charge. In each test case there was no fire anymore, and new housing withstand the pressure. And we did much more than that. New SS housing for further protection during transportation of battery packs, become standard equipment. As we received many packs fully charged we introduced also FES discharger assistant as standard equipment etc.
>
> It is getting late, so I need to get some rest now, so that tomorrow I can do some more work regarding further FES development and improvements :)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Luka

Impressive!

Good morning to all from a very grey and mushy Montreal,

I want to thank everyone for posting and sharing their experiences with those of us who are looking at buying some type of FES equipped sailplane down the road. Please keep this thread going with your own impressions on this most fascinating technological development. I especially want to thank Luka for jumping in and sharing the latest in 'forensic' battery research. If ever there was an authority on this advancement in green and very compact propulsion, it surely is him and his company. And while I am sensitive to the many challenges of developing this technology and bringing it to soaring community, my concerns are mainly to do with support of these high capacity storage devices once they reach foreign shores, far from the factories of both the glider, power plant AND battery manufacturers, in a galaxy far, far away.......

From the sidelines of my club this past soaring season, I watched two fellow members and LAK 17b FES owner enjoy their 21m toy....WITHOUT the benefit of that rather expensive FES option. Now, these two fellows hardly need this technology, as their long distance flights attest to, and they do not seem hampered by the LAK (lack, get it?) of FES in the slightest, even under weak soaring conditions. However, even after you factor in the time to complete the investigation into the cause of the fires, issuance of the emergency Airworthiness Directive on the storage device, design and implementation of the manufacturer's supported battery box modification, I still find it very disturbing that these customers, after having spent some considerable coinage on this technology, were left high and dry without a suitable battery replacement, not to be found anywhere across North America. Now, it is all very nice for you folks living in Europe to simply send the defective or recalled units back from whence they came, but when a lithium device here is declared 'defective', it is essentially treated for what is, to wit, 'Dangerous Goods' under the act of the same name as set forth by various members if IATA, including Canada.

So then, as this technology matures and improves every year, sometimes at a snail's pace, at others, leaps and bounds, my question is really a simple one, and back to the essence of the original post, which FES/Self-Launch sailplane is worthy of my consideration? The next time a problem with the storage unit is encountered, and let us be frank, problems WILL be encountered, even if it isn't traceable to a design or manufacturing flaw, who will come to my rescue with a replacement battery, if only a temporary or loaner unit, to at least see me through the very short gliding season in my region? Batteries in service, even with the best of care, have a hard life. They get dropped. The get left outdoors by the trailer or vehicle, in the sun and the rain. They get left on cold concrete floors or in trailers. They are left unattended on chargers for extended periods of time.......I digress, this has all been covered before, and there are very clear directives issued by Luka and others on what NOT to do with these batteries whilst in service, but mistakes still happen. What I don't understand, or much less accept, is how come there are no provisions here, ANYWHERE in North America, to send 'muy-rapido-express-now-or-better-yet-yesterday' replacement units when Murphy pays a visit? Surely, if the combined efforts of LAK, GP, Schempp-Hirth, Silent, and yes, LZ Design, can't provide for support of a these storage units, either by way of replacement units, or handling of defective units, or preferably both, the effort of marketing this development in North America will, I dare say, be 'rather difficult'.

Thank you all again, and I look forward to more informative rebuttal.

John Hebert

I bought into a LAK17BFES in the spring. Once the batteries were back from
LZ I have had a great time flying it in a mixture of XC and ridge flying.

The engine start is as easy as advertised and has taken some of the stress
away from some low level ridge running this autumn certainly! With a young
family the thought of a muddy field and the retrieve I probably wouldn't
have flown!

Anyway, I'm 6ft 2 and fit in the LAK fine. It seems to run pretty well
with V2s etc but when the lift gets weak it seemed to lose out a bit to the
JS1 I have been flying with (although Matt is a better pilot than I am -
but don't tell him I said that).

I can't talk about the "over the other side of the pond" issues relating to
transport but it is a thumbs up for the LAK/FES system so far in the 6
months I have owned one.







At 14:34 30 November 2018, wrote:
>Good morning to all from a very grey and mushy Montreal,
>
>I want to thank everyone for posting and sharing their experiences with
>tho=
>se of us who are looking at buying some type of FES equipped sailplane
>down=
> the road. Please keep this thread going with your own impressions on
this
>=
>most fascinating technological development. I especially want to thank
>Luka=
> for jumping in and sharing the latest in 'forensic' battery research. If
>e=
>ver there was an authority on this advancement in green and very compact
>pr=
>opulsion, it surely is him and his company. And while I am sensitive to
>the=
> many challenges of developing this technology and bringing it to soaring
>c=
>ommunity, my concerns are mainly to do with support of these high
capacity
>=
>storage devices once they reach foreign shores, far from the factories of
>b=
>oth the glider, power plant AND battery manufacturers, in a galaxy far,
>far=
> away.......
>
>From the sidelines of my club this past soaring season, I watched two
>fell=
>ow members and LAK 17b FES owner enjoy their 21m toy....WITHOUT the
>benefit=
> of that rather expensive FES option. Now, these two fellows hardly need
>th=
>is technology, as their long distance flights attest to, and they do not
>se=
>em hampered by the LAK (lack, get it?) of FES in the slightest, even
under
>=
>weak soaring conditions. However, even after you factor in the time to
>comp=
>lete the investigation into the cause of the fires, issuance of the
>emergen=
>cy Airworthiness Directive on the storage device, design and
>implementation=
> of the manufacturer's supported battery box modification, I still find
it
>=
>very disturbing that these customers, after having spent some
considerable
>=
>coinage on this technology, were left high and dry without a suitable
>batte=
>ry replacement, not to be found anywhere across North America. Now, it is
>a=
>ll very nice for you folks living in Europe to simply send the defective
>or=
> recalled units back from whence they came, but when a lithium device
here
>=
>is declared 'defective', it is essentially treated for what is, to wit,
>'Da=
>ngerous Goods' under the act of the same name as set forth by various
>membe=
>rs if IATA, including Canada.=20
>
>So then, as this technology matures and improves every year, sometimes at
>a=
> snail's pace, at others, leaps and bounds, my question is really a
simple
>=
>one, and back to the essence of the original post, which FES/Self-Launch
>sa=
>ilplane is worthy of my consideration? The next time a problem with the
>sto=
>rage unit is encountered, and let us be frank, problems WILL be
>encountered=
>, even if it isn't traceable to a design or manufacturing flaw, who will
>co=
>me to my rescue with a replacement battery, if only a temporary or loaner
>u=
>nit, to at least see me through the very short gliding season in my
>region?=
> Batteries in service, even with the best of care, have a hard life. They
>g=
>et dropped. The get left outdoors by the trailer or vehicle, in the sun
>and=
> the rain. They get left on cold concrete floors or in trailers. They are
>l=
>eft unattended on chargers for extended periods of time.......I digress,
>th=
>is has all been covered before, and there are very clear directives
issued
>=
>by Luka and others on what NOT to do with these batteries whilst in
>service=
>, but mistakes still happen. What I don't understand, or much less
accept,
>=
>is how come there are no provisions here, ANYWHERE in North America, to
>sen=
>d 'muy-rapido-express-now-or-better-yet-yesterday' replacement units when
>M=
>urphy pays a visit? Surely, if the combined efforts of LAK, GP,
>Schempp-Hi=
>rth, Silent, and yes, LZ Design, can't provide for support of a these
>stora=
>ge units, either by way of replacement units, or handling of defective
>unit=
>s, or preferably both, the effort of marketing this development in North
>Am=
>erica will, I dare say, be 'rather difficult'.=20
>
>Thank you all again, and I look forward to more informative rebuttal.=20
>
>John Hebert
>

OK, since you asked for rebuttals, how about this...?

How many FES equipped sailplanes are in North America?Â* How many
replacement batteries do you think would be a reasonable number to be
stored/maintained here?Â* Who will provide the time, labor, shop/storage
space to maintain these units?Â* What is their shelf life?Â* Do you get my
drift?

I don't believe it would be economically feasible to have
replacement/loaner batteries stored around the world though that would
seem to me to be ideal.Â* A better approach, IMHO, would be to reduce or
eliminate all of these ridiculous regulations which make it impossible
to move these things around economically.Â* But figure the odds on
changing regulations...

On 11/30/2018 7:34 AM, wrote:
> Good morning to all from a very grey and mushy Montreal,
>
> I want to thank everyone for posting and sharing their experiences with those of us who are looking at buying some type of FES equipped sailplane down the road. Please keep this thread going with your own impressions on this most fascinating technological development. I especially want to thank Luka for jumping in and sharing the latest in 'forensic' battery research. If ever there was an authority on this advancement in green and very compact propulsion, it surely is him and his company. And while I am sensitive to the many challenges of developing this technology and bringing it to soaring community, my concerns are mainly to do with support of these high capacity storage devices once they reach foreign shores, far from the factories of both the glider, power plant AND battery manufacturers, in a galaxy far, far away.......
>
> From the sidelines of my club this past soaring season, I watched two fellow members and LAK 17b FES owner enjoy their 21m toy....WITHOUT the benefit of that rather expensive FES option. Now, these two fellows hardly need this technology, as their long distance flights attest to, and they do not seem hampered by the LAK (lack, get it?) of FES in the slightest, even under weak soaring conditions. However, even after you factor in the time to complete the investigation into the cause of the fires, issuance of the emergency Airworthiness Directive on the storage device, design and implementation of the manufacturer's supported battery box modification, I still find it very disturbing that these customers, after having spent some considerable coinage on this technology, were left high and dry without a suitable battery replacement, not to be found anywhere across North America. Now, it is all very nice for you folks living in Europe to simply send the defective or recalled units back from whence they came, but when a lithium device here is declared 'defective', it is essentially treated for what is, to wit, 'Dangerous Goods' under the act of the same name as set forth by various members if IATA, including Canada.
>
> So then, as this technology matures and improves every year, sometimes at a snail's pace, at others, leaps and bounds, my question is really a simple one, and back to the essence of the original post, which FES/Self-Launch sailplane is worthy of my consideration? The next time a problem with the storage unit is encountered, and let us be frank, problems WILL be encountered, even if it isn't traceable to a design or manufacturing flaw, who will come to my rescue with a replacement battery, if only a temporary or loaner unit, to at least see me through the very short gliding season in my region? Batteries in service, even with the best of care, have a hard life. They get dropped. The get left outdoors by the trailer or vehicle, in the sun and the rain. They get left on cold concrete floors or in trailers. They are left unattended on chargers for extended periods of time.......I digress, this has all been covered before, and there are very clear directives issued by Luka and others on what NOT to do with these batteries whilst in service, but mistakes still happen. What I don't understand, or much less accept, is how come there are no provisions here, ANYWHERE in North America, to send 'muy-rapido-express-now-or-better-yet-yesterday' replacement units when Murphy pays a visit? Surely, if the combined efforts of LAK, GP, Schempp-Hirth, Silent, and yes, LZ Design, can't provide for support of a these storage units, either by way of replacement units, or handling of defective units, or preferably both, the effort of marketing this development in North America will, I dare say, be 'rather difficult'.
>
> Thank you all again, and I look forward to more informative rebuttal.
>
> John Hebert

--
Dan, 5J

While I sypathize with Dan Marotta's point of view (and emphatically with John Hebert's) , I think a small dose of reality salts may be in order here.

1) Defective Lythium batteries are a SERIOUS fire hazard! And Lythium fires can be extremely intense. Would you want to schedule your trans Atlantic filght on an aircraft that due to “changing regulations� was carrying those defective batteries in its cargo hold? How would you feel if you were the captain of a container ship? Wonderful though those batteries are, they are still probably the Achellies Heel of the FES system.

2) The FES system (which I firmly believe to be the future of motor gliding) is still in its infancy. How large is the current FES customer base in North (South?) America? As that base expands, it may be reasoable to expect dealors to stock a limited supply of loaner batteries, Right now, probably not.

3) We all owe a debt of gratitude to the folks at LZ Designs for creating a remarkable advancement in glider power. Since it's inception the FES system has already gone through three design enhancements. And since Luca and his folks seem intent on further design improvements (rather than just sitting back and enjoying their profits), I think we can expect much innovation in a few short years. What will FES be like in ten years?

AFAIK, there was no swapping batteries in Europe either, during the "crisis". All batteries were declared not-airworthy. The sailplanes could only fly as pure gliders.
I was deeply impressed by how short has been the time it took Luka to analyze the faults and then provide a solution, then have it approved by the authorities and finally return the FES systems to service.

There are so many examples of much longer delays, lasting up to many years, for relatively simpler problems like (for example) the propeller hub failures on the Solo 2350C engine system as fitted to Antares and DG1000T.

In many if not all aspects, auxiliary powered gliding has always been a bag of problems. That said, all my sailplanes are/were fitted with engines.

Aldo Cernezzi

Very good perspective, Matt.Â* Points that I did not consider.

On 11/30/2018 12:42 PM, Matt Herron (Sr) wrote:
> While I sypathize with Dan Marotta's point of view (and emphatically with John Hebert's) , I think a small dose of reality salts may be in order here.
>
> 1) Defective Lythium batteries are a SERIOUS fire hazard! And Lythium fires can be extremely intense. Would you want to schedule your trans Atlantic filght on an aircraft that due to “changing regulations� was carrying those defective batteries in its cargo hold? How would you feel if you were the captain of a container ship? Wonderful though those batteries are, they are still probably the Achellies Heel of the FES system.
>
> 2) The FES system (which I firmly believe to be the future of motor gliding) is still in its infancy. How large is the current FES customer base in North (South?) America? As that base expands, it may be reasoable to expect dealors to stock a limited supply of loaner batteries, Right now, probably not.
>
> 3) We all owe a debt of gratitude to the folks at LZ Designs for creating a remarkable advancement in glider power. Since it's inception the FES system has already gone through three design enhancements. And since Luca and his folks seem intent on further design improvements (rather than just sitting back and enjoying their profits), I think we can expect much innovation in a few short years. What will FES be like in ten years?
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

Hello again everyone,

You all made my point, precisely. So just how many units of various models of FES equipped sailplanes do we need here in North America to reach critical mass, or, where a 'fleet' of aircraft is large enough to make it feasible to have a reserve of batteries on hand somewhere, anywhere? How difficult is it, for example, to have a large and wonderfully successful sport aviation components company the likes of 'Spruce and Specialty', or even our beloved 'Wings and Wheels', to stock a 'reasonable' number of serviceable batteries, either new or reconditioned? Appropriately enough, some of these same company already carry a line of batteries, with all manners of exotic chemicals, from lead acid, to Nicad, to gel, to lithium, to.....whatever the industry needs, and they possess the shipping expertise to deliver these dangerous goods 'overland' pretty much anywhere within a reasonable delay.

Now, please don’t think I am unsympathetic to the enormous efforts made by Luka in resolving these HUGE technological challenges. Quite au contraire mes amis, but before I pluck out anywhere between 120 000 and 200 000 American dineros on new glass, equipped with this marvellous new technology, I and many others need to see improvements in this area. And I wholeheartedly agree with Matt, this IS the future, however a dose of realism is required here. Please chime in here Lukas, yours is the voice that counts the most.

And to the other view expressed about relaxing transportation and handling regulations; as an airline pilot for our national carrier, that is the last thing I want to see happen. On any given flight, we are already carrying anywhere between 50 and 400 kg of lithium batteries IN THE CABIN as it is, depending on one's estimate. Our low cost division alone loads them by the trolley full as part of our on-board entertainment system, which on the narrow body jet is 20 kg or more just for this purpose, and from there it just escalates. Why just on the flight deck, with our jepessen airways and company manuals which are now fully iPad integrated, there is another 5 kg, if you count our personal smartphones and tablets.....anyway, you get my drift.. If anything, expect the regulations to get more complex and convoluted, not the other way around.

Thank you, it is a real pleasure.

John Hebert

I thought the propellor hub problems were with the DG1000 &
Duo Turbo?
I wasn't aware the Antares 18T had this problem as their hub
design is different?
Dave Walsh
>

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 2:15:05 PM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
> I thought the propellor hub problems were with the DG1000 & Duo Turbo?
> I wasn't aware the Antares 18T had this problem as their hub design is

No, DG1000 and 18T had same faulty hub (redesigned twice now).
Loose prop when hub breaks often causes havoc (went thru DG wing in ground run,
wing was almost totaled), bounced of fuselage in other instances).
Duo T is completely different (folding prop).

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 2:45:01 AM UTC-8, Luka Žnidarši� wrote:
> Dne sreda, 28. november 2018 05.01.09 UTC+1 je oseba 2G napisala:
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 12:22:06 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:26:46 PM UTC-5, Matt Herron (Sr) wrote:
> > > > Hi John:
> > > > I'm 5'7", so I can't help you on fit. But I found both the LAK17 and the Mini completely comfortable, and I think there was extra room beyond my personal dimensions. The 17 and the Mini essentially have the same fuselage, so if you've ever sat in a 17, you would probably find the Mini about the same fit.
> > > >
> > > > As for batteries, I assume one could get support through US/Canadian distributor, but my guess is that any serious repairs would have to come from LZ in Slovenia.
> > > >
> > > > As you probably know, LZ recalled all FES batteries for inspection and upgrade following the two battery fires. Here's what I wrote about that issue for Soaring:
> > > >
> > > > In accordance with a Modification Bulletin
> > > > issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency
> > > > (EASA), the LAK factory has reinforced the
> > > > battery pack housing with flame retardant
> > > > fiberglass, installed an independent fire
> > > > warning system, and added a safety valve smoke
> > > > vent to the battery compartment cover.
> > > >
> > > > The FES system has been with us for about
> > > > eight years now. During this time some 180
> > > > gliders have been fitted with the engine,
> > > > either as self-launch or sustainer. /There
> > > > have been no reported engine failures in
> > > > flight./ However, there have been two fires
> > > > involving the lithium polymer battery packs at
> > > > the heart of the FES system. One happened
> > > > during a landing in the UK and was
> > > > extinguished after the pilot exited the glider
> > > > safely. The pilot reported that one of the
> > > > battery packs had previously been dropped,
> > > > which could have damaged one or more of the
> > > > lithium cells. The other fire occurred in a
> > > > trailer where the batteries had been stored
> > > > with the units still connected, a big “no no“
> > > > according to FES maintenance manuals. While
> > > > the exact cause of the fires has not been
> > > > determined, any fire involving lithium
> > > > batteries can be extremely serious – these
> > > > units pack a lot of energy and must be handled
> > > > with respect.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In response to the fires, LZ Design, the
> > > > Slovenian manufacturer of the FES system, has
> > > > recalled all the battery packs for disassembly
> > > > and inspection. LZ is checking for the
> > > > suspected presence of small metal shards, a
> > > > possible by-product of machine work on the
> > > > battery case cover. Since the individual
> > > > lithium cells are housed in plastic bags
> > > > rather than hard cases, if a shard were
> > > > present it would be possible for it to migrate
> > > > during battery usage and penetrate a lithium
> > > > cell, potentially causing a short and a
> > > > resulting fire. After each inspection is
> > > > complete, LZ re-installs all the lithium cells
> > > > in a solid matrix of silicon gel, which should
> > > > correct the problem.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Matt Herron
> > >
> > > 3 fires. One in the US
> > > UH
> >
> > I went to the FES presentation in Reno this year. I was unimpressed in the resolution of the fires that have occurred (I am an electrical engineer), especially in not acknowledging the third fire. My advice is to wait until the root cause of these fires has been conclusively identified. Having a parachute (as one friend of mine opined) is not an adequate backup plan.
> >
> > Tom
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> I think you did not listening carefully, as it was mentioned. The problem with 3rd fire was that owner of the glider was informed and asked by the factory not to use his batteries. So this this 3rd fire could be easily avoided, but he could not resist to use his batteries. This happened when we already had a solution and it was part of the same problem, which could be easily avoided.
>
> Regards,
> Luka

Perhaps I didn't listen carefully enough, but I was listening carefully - it was not a part of your presentation, but a question from the audience. Whether the 3rd fire could have been avoided is not the issue here. It is probably better, from a safety analysis standpoint, that it DID occur.

I have read the AAIB report, which was very thorough. The most disturbing part was that there was no root cause found for these fires. Your manufacturing process was careless, which has been corrected, but this wasn't determined to be the cause. The recommendations deal only with mitigating the effects of a fire once it starts. I am concerned that fires will continue to happen. I can only conclude that there are random defects occurring during the manufacture of the cells, and there has been no change made in this area.

Tom

On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 7:33:55 AM UTC+2, Ben Hirashima wrote:
> Hi Marco. I ended up ordering a GP15.

Hello,

I was wondering if the 50 L/D is actually real.
How is this glider's thermaling and slow speed flying performance and handling?

On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I was wondering if the 50 L/D is actually real.

Why of course!
Isn't that's what is printed in the brochure?

wrote on 5/9/2020 11:34 AM:
> On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 7:33:55 AM UTC+2, Ben Hirashima wrote:
>> Hi Marco. I ended up ordering a GP15.
>
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if the 50 L/D is actually real.
> How is this glider's thermaling and slow speed flying performance and handling?

We don't have any flight test data, and I'm not aware of any comparison flight
reports, but 50 L/D for the small fuselage (48 for the standard fuselage) is
credible for new 15M design. The only US delivery (the one at the convention)
should fly this month, and I hope to do some comparison flying with it in my
ASH26E. The brochures for each glider indicate very similar gliding performance
when unballasted ;^)

There was an article in Soaring magazine by the US dealer for the glider,
describing his trip to the factory and his flight in a GP15. November, I think.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

It would be great if we could get some feedback of how this glider behaves at slow speeds, and in thermals, what's it's climbing performance and especially handling. Does it require a lot of work and concentration from the pilot to keep it circling at low speeds? Does it do unannounced spins? What's the feel in general? I have no doubt it's a good jumper, my questions are mostly about climbing and handling. If anyone gets to test it and compare it to other gliders it would be great, cause I might be considering buying this glider. Other variant is a LAK-17c-FES 18m self-launch, or an older ventus 2cM.

On 5/10/20 9:44 AM, wrote:
> It would be great if we could get some feedback of how this glider behaves at slow speeds, and in thermals, what's it's climbing performance and especially handling. Does it require a lot of work and concentration from the pilot to keep it circling at low speeds? Does it do unannounced spins? What's the feel in general? I have no doubt it's a good jumper, my questions are mostly about climbing and handling. If anyone gets to test it and compare it to other gliders it would be great, cause I might be considering buying this glider. Other variant is a LAK-17c-FES 18m self-launch, or an older ventus 2cM.
>

There was a small amount of chatter about that in an old thread "My
September 2017 visit to GP Gliders" If you want the whole scoop,
probably should take a trip to Poland for a test flight yourself, GP has
been a little slow to ship products.

-Dave