If you take a look at the Vans Aircraft website.
You will find the story and pictures of the RV-11.
Looks cool.

Scott.

Here is the link:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-11int.htm





At 17:18 28 December 2003, Scott Correa wrote:
>If you take a look at the Vans Aircraft website.
>You will find the story and pictures of the RV-11.
>Looks cool.
>
>Scott.
>
>
>

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:02:46 -0600, "Scott Correa"
> wrote:

>If you take a look at the Vans Aircraft website.
>You will find the story and pictures of the RV-11.
>Looks cool.
>
>Scott.
>


About a month ago I had the fortune to be able to discuss this project
with the man himself. Looks interesting with some good ideas about
reducing drag while the engine is not running.

It is however a proof of concept vehicle not a kit prototype at this
stage and is using the HP 18 wings.

Mike Borgelt

Scott Correa > wrote:
>If you take a look at the Vans Aircraft website.
>You will find the story and pictures of the RV-11.
>Looks cool.
>

I think it is an interesting idea, but if it is
simply a grob 109 or an HP-18 self-launcher,
I don't think there would be much market.

On the other hand, a metal glider with a
turbine self-launch would be interesting.

Gliders are extremely elegant and clean.
Turbines are also quite elegant and reliable,
with the only drawback being fuel consumption.
For self-launch gliders this is not very
important, since only minutes
of climb are needed anyway.

The benefit is the simplicity. Those silly
retract booms or the awkward gear and prop
of a Grob 109 are inelegant.

So how about a single turbine putting out
150# thrust? Burns maybe 25 gallons an hour?
And a small size (8" by 8" by 12")?
Boy it'd be nice if they were made of some
material that cooled real fast (ceramics?)
so it could be retracted quickly.

I saw the twin 40# thrust glider jet. I'd
rather have a single, more powerful turbine.
Simpler, and I'd imagine cheaper.

Throttle response should be no issue at all.
When landing, if you want to do a go around,
just land with full throttle and using spoilers
to destroy lift. If you want to go around,
close spoilers fully. If you're landed and stopped,
throttle back the engine.

I wonder about the glass vs. metal advantages
with a turbine, however. Weight is a real
issue (so a Sparrowhawk turbine would be nice)
for acceleration for takeoff. But heat and
structural fastening seem to be important too.

And then the fuel weight vs. capability (runway
length) issue seems important.

Hmmm...I hope Van's builds a Proof of Concept
turbine glider. I'd like to see an experienced
designer pick up this ball and approach the
idea of "personal jets" from a minimalist
point of view...

"Mike Borgelt" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:02:46 -0600, "Scott Correa"
> About a month ago I had the fortune to be able to discuss this project
> with the man himself. Looks interesting with some good ideas about
> reducing drag while the engine is not running.
>
> It is however a proof of concept vehicle not a kit prototype at this
> stage and is using the HP 18 wings.
>
> Mike Borgelt

I believe, that www.icon.fi/~jtki/3dimens.html could be a good point for a
discussion how to use the HP 18 wings.

George

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<3fefb612$1@darkstar>...

> So how about a single turbine putting out
> 150# thrust? Burns maybe 25 gallons an hour?
> And a small size (8" by 8" by 12")?
> Boy it'd be nice if they were made of some
> material that cooled real fast (ceramics?)
> so it could be retracted quickly.


What would really be nice is a small turboprop - a lot more reliable
than any recip, and much more efficient (and quieter) than a pure jet.

Heavier, though, and you are back to the pylon, unless you put it on
the tail; or in the nose - and there we are back to the RV-11 or Carat
configuration.

But a turboprop would allow a nice pointy nose, and with a feathering
prop...

Kirk

The turboprop is also a lot more suitable for a pusher installation than any
recip. Have a look at www.icon.fi/~jtki/3dimens.html

George

"Kirk Stant" > wrote in message
om...
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote in message
news:<3fefb612$1@darkstar>...
>
> > So how about a single turbine putting out
> > 150# thrust? Burns maybe 25 gallons an hour?
> > And a small size (8" by 8" by 12")?
> > Boy it'd be nice if they were made of some
> > material that cooled real fast (ceramics?)
> > so it could be retracted quickly.
>
>
> What would really be nice is a small turboprop - a lot more reliable
> than any recip, and much more efficient (and quieter) than a pure jet.
>
> Heavier, though, and you are back to the pylon, unless you put it on
> the tail; or in the nose - and there we are back to the RV-11 or Carat
> configuration.
>
> But a turboprop would allow a nice pointy nose, and with a feathering
> prop...
>
> Kirk

Not a great idea. Turboprops cost, even in the cheapest incarnation several
hundred thousand $s and the lowest powered engines available are really big
and heavy compared to what is needed. A warp drive proton engine would be
suitable though.

I don't like the idea of a touring motor glider. I don't see the point,
they don't glide well enough to be much use as a glider except in
exceptional conditions.

"Kirk Stant" > wrote in message
om...
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote in message
news:<3fefb612$1@darkstar>...
>
> > So how about a single turbine putting out
> > 150# thrust? Burns maybe 25 gallons an hour?
> > And a small size (8" by 8" by 12")?
> > Boy it'd be nice if they were made of some
> > material that cooled real fast (ceramics?)
> > so it could be retracted quickly.
>
>
> What would really be nice is a small turboprop - a lot more reliable
> than any recip, and much more efficient (and quieter) than a pure jet.
>
> Heavier, though, and you are back to the pylon, unless you put it on
> the tail; or in the nose - and there we are back to the RV-11 or Carat
> configuration.
>
> But a turboprop would allow a nice pointy nose, and with a feathering
> prop...
>
> Kirk

">
> Gliders are extremely elegant and clean.
> Turbines are also quite elegant and reliable,
> with the only drawback being fuel consumption.
> For self-launch gliders this is not very
> important, since only minutes
> of climb are needed anyway.
>
I agree with much of what you say but fuel consumption is actually important
to get the full utility of a self launcher. If you want to do a tour for
example and go from place to place then you often need to relaunch without
refuelling or you may want to cruise a while to get into wave or good
soaring. If you go on a long task and totally misjudge the weather you may
need forty minutes of engine time and most of your fuel in a petrol engine
machine just to get home.

John Mason wrote:
> Not a great idea. Turboprops cost, even in the cheapest incarnation several
> hundred thousand $s and the lowest powered engines available are really big
> and heavy compared to what is needed. A warp drive proton engine would be
> suitable though.
>

I saw a web site with turboprop based on one of the large model airplane
turbines, but can't find it now. It was attached to about a 50-60 inch
propeller.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Earlier, (Mark James Boyd) wrote:

> ...Turbines are also quite elegant and reliable,
> with the only drawback being fuel consumption.

Personally, I consider ear-splitting shrieks at decibels above the
threshold of pain to comprise a third drawback. I suspect that my
neighbors would agree.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

"John Mason" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't like the idea of a touring motor glider. I don't see the point,
> they don't glide well enough to be much use as a glider except in
> exceptional conditions.
>


Hmmm, generalizations?

The Stemme S10-VT tours quite nicely, thank you. It also handles adverse
conditions, such as being able to taxi out in 30+ knot crosswinds with no
wing walker, stuff that would keep most gliders in their trailers (I'm not
recommending this BTW, but I watched 4 Stemmes do it at Cedar City, UT a
couple of years back - - one being mine.). The point you failed to see is
that it glides well too, with a claimed L/D of 50 to1 (but most owners find
47 is probably closer), no matter, it is still a capable glider even in
relatively light conditions. Does okay in exceptional conditions as well
(g).

Okay, there are lessor performing touring MGs as well. Most do what they
were designed to do and their owners enjoy them . . . *that's* the point.
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."

"bumper" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Mason" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I don't like the idea of a touring motor glider. I don't see the point,
> > they don't glide well enough to be much use as a glider except in
> > exceptional conditions.
> >
>
>
> Hmmm, generalizations?
>
> The Stemme S10-VT tours quite nicely, thank you. It also handles adverse
> conditions, such as being able to taxi out in 30+ knot crosswinds with no
> wing walker, stuff that would keep most gliders in their trailers (I'm not
> recommending this BTW, but I watched 4 Stemmes do it at Cedar City, UT a
> couple of years back - - one being mine.). The point you failed to see is
> that it glides well too, with a claimed L/D of 50 to1 (but most owners
find
> 47 is probably closer), no matter, it is still a capable glider even in
> relatively light conditions. Does okay in exceptional conditions as well
> (g).
>
> Okay, there are lessor performing touring MGs as well. Most do what they
> were designed to do and their owners enjoy them . . . *that's* the point.
> --
> bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
> "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
>

The Stemme is not a touring motor glider, according to the UK definition it
is a self launching motor glider. I don't have issue with your comments on
the Stemme. What I was referring to was for example the Grob 109b, the
Dimona the Falkes and Fourniers etc. They all are pretty awful gliders,
especially in the UK where we need good min sink figures and low thermaling
speeds and good glide angles.

To elaborate on what I meant when I say I don't see the point: Why get an
aircraft that purports to be a glider when it isn't? There are perfectly
good touring aeroplanes around - ah! but they are usually more expensive,
perhaps that is the point. You can buy an aeroplane cheaply in the
misguided hope of being able to glide sometimes as a bonus. I suspect that
is the reasoning behind the purchase. I would say though that unless you
can use it properly as a glider and not just for field landing practice or
the occasional strong wave flight then it is pointless to have the gliding
capability as it detracts from the cruising ability and adds cost. You can
see the cost/benefit equation from the Diamond aircraft range. I think if
the owners made better decisions and didn't buy these horrid aircraft then
they would enjoy the alternatives much more.

> From: "John Mason" >
>
> To elaborate on what I meant when I say I don't see the point: Why get an
> aircraft that purports to be a glider when it isn't?

How about the case where one can only get a glider license due to inability
to pass the physical exam required for powered planes. Or perhaps the
significantly less cost/hassle of only needing a glider license with a self
launch endorsement. Mind that I am not trying to imply that the above is
necessarily a great idea, but for some it could be important and OK.

-Doug

At 12:00 31 December 2003, Doug Hoffman wrote:
>> From: 'John Mason'
>>
>> To elaborate on what I meant when I say I don't see
>>the point: Why get an
>> aircraft that purports to be a glider when it isn't?
>

What if a club needs a new towplane? (Assuming the
RV has sufficient power and climb rate to tow safely.)
Then, when it might not be towing, it could be used
for instructions in landings and cross country flying.

I think some European clubs use touring-style motor
gliders for tugs.

Just a thought.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

John Mason wrote:
> Not a great idea. Turboprops cost, even in the cheapest incarnation several
> hundred thousand $s and the lowest powered engines available are really big
> and heavy compared to what is needed. A warp drive proton engine would be
> suitable though.
>
> I don't like the idea of a touring motor glider. I don't see the point,
> they don't glide well enough to be much use as a glider except in
> exceptional conditions.

Do you count the Carat as a touring motorglider? If not, what is your
definition of "touring"?
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Perhaps there is no point for a MG in the UK which can be transversed in an
hour but here......
Oh the pleasure of flying under power for 700 NM to your destination and not
talk to a living soul. Ah ... the quiet, the peace.
The ability to fly past Mt. McKinley and shut off the motor and soar and
soar and soar. Ah ... the pleasure.
The ability to launch when nobody else is flying and capture conditions that
no others can capture on that day. Ah ... the satisfaction.
The thrill of seeing lennies and launching at 15:00 to greet the rising
air - when all others are already back. Ah ... the beauty.

Most of all, if you don't see the point, then perhaps you are one of those
mechanical pilots who can not see the beauty and excitement each time you
take to the air.

Allan
Former Katana Extreme owner and eagerly awaiting Carat 012


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> John Mason wrote:
> > Not a great idea. Turboprops cost, even in the cheapest incarnation
several
> > hundred thousand $s and the lowest powered engines available are really
big
> > and heavy compared to what is needed. A warp drive proton engine would
be
> > suitable though.
> >
> > I don't like the idea of a touring motor glider. I don't see the point,
> > they don't glide well enough to be much use as a glider except in
> > exceptional conditions.
>
> Do you count the Carat as a touring motorglider? If not, what is your
> definition of "touring"?
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

"John Mason" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Stemme is not a touring motor glider, according to the UK definition
it
> is a self launching motor glider. I don't have issue with your comments
on
> the Stemme. What I was referring to was for example the Grob 109b, the
> Dimona the Falkes and Fourniers etc. They all are pretty awful gliders,
> especially in the UK where we need good min sink figures and low
thermaling
> speeds and good glide angles.
>


What are the various UK catagories/definitions?

I'm new to soaring, having only had my glider rating since'98, so I may goof
up on this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In the US, I'm aware of the
following catagories/defenitions:

Glider - - sometimes used to describe the WWII and prior, low performance
"tow it up - glide back down" class. Term often also used to refer to high
performance sailplanes too - - this is confusing :c)

Sailplane - - still with no engine, performance is high enough that lift can
be used to stay up, gain altitude, or fly cross country.

Turbo - - as above but with a small sustainer engine not usually used for
self-launch, can be used to sustain or self-retrieve.

Self-launch sailplane - - Emphasis is on soaring. Propulsion system cleverly
designed to be strong enough to provide robust take-off and climb.
Engine/prop combination may be geared toward max climb performance. This,
and sometimes minimal fuel supply, tends to make this aircraft not so
suitable for prolonged power operation. Long distances may still be covered,
in weak or no lift conditions, using saw-tooth mode. When engine/prop is
stowed and gear retracted, drag is minimized and ship looks like other high
performace sailplanes.

Motor glider - - a glider or sailplane with a larger more capable engine and
fuel supply. Configuration is usually tractor and sustained operation under
power is accomodated in the design, though this is typically at the expense
of reduced soaring performance. L/D may be compromised by cooling drag or
feathered prop drag. Usually has tricycle or conventional gear, which may be
fixed or retractable, to allow for convenient ground handling and taxiing.

Until now (?) I wasn't aware of a sub-catagory called "touring motor glider"
which would exclude other motor gliders types. Though of course I've heard
and used the term "touring motor glider" and know that both self-launchers
and motorgliders have been used for touring. The Stemme, which you say is
*not* a touring motorglider, seems to fit squarely over both the last two
catagories I listed . . . at least in terms of benefits. The S10 retains
most or all of the good soaring performance of a self-laucher while still
keeping most all the benefits of any other motor glider I can think of. As
such, the Stemme is perhaps most uniquely qualified to be the ultimate
"touring motorglider". Unfortunately, like most things that fly, there are
some compormises. In Stemme's case, it is relatively expensive and complex.

all the best,
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
ASH26E . . . self-launch
S10-VT . . . touring motor glider (?)

ADP wrote:
> Perhaps there is no point for a MG in the UK which can be transversed in an
> hour but here......
> Oh the pleasure of flying under power for 700 NM to your destination and not
> talk to a living soul. Ah ... the quiet, the peace.
> The ability to fly past Mt. McKinley and shut off the motor and soar and
> soar and soar. Ah ... the pleasure.
> The ability to launch when nobody else is flying and capture conditions that
> no others can capture on that day. Ah ... the satisfaction.
> The thrill of seeing lennies and launching at 15:00 to greet the rising
> air - when all others are already back. Ah ... the beauty.
>
> Most of all, if you don't see the point, then perhaps you are one of those
> mechanical pilots who can not see the beauty and excitement each time you
> take to the air.

The two "touring" MGs (Ximango and Taifun 17) here (eastern Washington
State, USA) make good wave explorers: good speed against a headwind to
the wave, two pilots get to go, heat from the idling motor to warm the
pilots and keep the frost off the canopy, taxi well in the wind.

They make adequate thermal soarers, too, about like a Blanik in
cross-country performance. And a good pilot will make a longer
cross-country in one of them than in a Blanik, because he isn't worried
about a retrieve.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

One of the more remarkable flights from last summer
was a 500k flight done by Dieter from Parowan, with
a passenger in a L-13.


>They make adequate thermal soarers, too, about like
>a Blanik in
>cross-country performance. And a good pilot will make
>a longer
>cross-country in one of them than in a Blanik, because
>he isn't worried
>about a retrieve.
>--
>-----
>change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>
>

In the UK a self launcher is a glider capable of storing its engine and prop
within the airframe and a touring motorglider is the same thing but without
the engine and prop storage capability. It means the Stemme is a self
launcher and all other gliders within the US definition of motorglider will
be touring motorgliders. Relevant mainly for license validation and license
privilege purposes.


"bumper" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Mason" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > The Stemme is not a touring motor glider, according to the UK definition
> it
> > is a self launching motor glider. I don't have issue with your comments
> on
> > the Stemme. What I was referring to was for example the Grob 109b, the
> > Dimona the Falkes and Fourniers etc. They all are pretty awful gliders,
> > especially in the UK where we need good min sink figures and low
> thermaling
> > speeds and good glide angles.
> >
>
>
> What are the various UK catagories/definitions?
>
> I'm new to soaring, having only had my glider rating since'98, so I may
goof
> up on this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In the US, I'm aware of the
> following catagories/defenitions:
>
> Glider - - sometimes used to describe the WWII and prior, low performance
> "tow it up - glide back down" class. Term often also used to refer to high
> performance sailplanes too - - this is confusing :c)
>
> Sailplane - - still with no engine, performance is high enough that lift
can
> be used to stay up, gain altitude, or fly cross country.
>
> Turbo - - as above but with a small sustainer engine not usually used for
> self-launch, can be used to sustain or self-retrieve.
>
> Self-launch sailplane - - Emphasis is on soaring. Propulsion system
cleverly
> designed to be strong enough to provide robust take-off and climb.
> Engine/prop combination may be geared toward max climb performance. This,
> and sometimes minimal fuel supply, tends to make this aircraft not so
> suitable for prolonged power operation. Long distances may still be
covered,
> in weak or no lift conditions, using saw-tooth mode. When engine/prop is
> stowed and gear retracted, drag is minimized and ship looks like other
high
> performace sailplanes.
>
> Motor glider - - a glider or sailplane with a larger more capable engine
and
> fuel supply. Configuration is usually tractor and sustained operation
under
> power is accomodated in the design, though this is typically at the
expense
> of reduced soaring performance. L/D may be compromised by cooling drag or
> feathered prop drag. Usually has tricycle or conventional gear, which may
be
> fixed or retractable, to allow for convenient ground handling and taxiing.
>
> Until now (?) I wasn't aware of a sub-catagory called "touring motor
glider"
> which would exclude other motor gliders types. Though of course I've heard
> and used the term "touring motor glider" and know that both self-launchers
> and motorgliders have been used for touring. The Stemme, which you say is
> *not* a touring motorglider, seems to fit squarely over both the last two
> catagories I listed . . . at least in terms of benefits. The S10 retains
> most or all of the good soaring performance of a self-laucher while still
> keeping most all the benefits of any other motor glider I can think of. As
> such, the Stemme is perhaps most uniquely qualified to be the ultimate
> "touring motorglider". Unfortunately, like most things that fly, there are
> some compormises. In Stemme's case, it is relatively expensive and
complex.
>
> all the best,
> --
> bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
> "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
> ASH26E . . . self-launch
> S10-VT . . . touring motor glider (?)
>
>
>
>
>
>

John Mason wrote:
> In the UK a self launcher is a glider capable of storing its engine and prop
> within the airframe and a touring motorglider is the same thing but without
> the engine and prop storage capability. It means the Stemme is a self
> launcher and all other gliders within the US definition of motorglider will
> be touring motorgliders. Relevant mainly for license validation and license
> privilege purposes.

So basically, it's on where the propeller ends up! That would make the
Carat a motorglider in the UK. The US doesn't really have a
"motorglider" category : they are all gliders, even the Stemme, Taifun,
Ximango, etc. You have to have glider license with a self-launch
endorsement to fly them. I'm not claiming this is a sensible rule, but
it is convenient for glider pilots.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

John Mason > wrote:
>
>I agree with much of what you say but fuel consumption is actually important
>to get the full utility of a self launcher. If you want to do a tour for
>example and go from place to place then you often need to relaunch without
>refuelling or you may want to cruise a while to get into wave or good
>soaring. If you go on a long task and totally misjudge the weather you may
>need forty minutes of engine time and most of your fuel in a petrol engine
>machine just to get home.

A mini-turbine glider would really be a true self-launcher. It
would not be a multi-launcher or sustainer (due to the fuel
consumption). But fuel is quite easily available, and it isn't
much of a stretch to pick airports with fuel as landouts,
or have an FBO hold on to a can of it for you, or have crew bring
you some. A mini-turbine would be very similar
to an aerotow in capabilities and limitations...

Using a motorglider the way you mention is quite useful and
practical and flexible. On the other hand, that technique
makes me consider those applications as just flying an
airplane that has a very high glide ratio and turning off
the engine sometimes. I'd be very willing to forego that
option to avoid icky pylons and props and unreliability.

Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> A mini-turbine glider would really be a true self-launcher. It
> would not be a multi-launcher or sustainer (due to the fuel
> consumption). But fuel is quite easily available, and it isn't
> much of a stretch to pick airports with fuel as landouts,
> or have an FBO hold on to a can of it for you, or have crew bring
> you some. A mini-turbine would be very similar
> to an aerotow in capabilities and limitations...
>
> Using a motorglider the way you mention is quite useful and
> practical and flexible. On the other hand, that technique
> makes me consider those applications as just flying an
> airplane that has a very high glide ratio and turning off
> the engine sometimes.

Bad analogy, because the ratio of soaring to engine time is still very
high - even my longest retrieve still had 3 hours of soaring and only 40
minutes of engine for about 140 return. No one else flew from our
airport, because the bad air had already arrived when I left.

> I'd be very willing to forego that
> option to avoid icky pylons and props and unreliability.

You don't have to wait for turbines to get this ability (simplicity and
reliability with limited duration). Go first class and get an Antares,
or kick it down a few notches and get the electric powered Silent. You
still have the pylon and prop, but those are not the unreliable parts of
the self-launching system. And they are quiet.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>
>> A mini-turbine glider would really be a true self-launcher. It
>> would not be a multi-launcher or sustainer (due to the fuel
>> consumption). But fuel is quite easily available, and it isn't
>> much of a stretch to pick airports with fuel as landouts,
>> or have an FBO hold on to a can of it for you, or have crew bring
>> you some. A mini-turbine would be very similar
>> to an aerotow in capabilities and limitations...
>>
>> Using a motorglider the way you mention is quite useful and
>> practical and flexible. On the other hand, that technique
>> makes me consider those applications as just flying an
>> airplane that has a very high glide ratio and turning off
>> the engine sometimes.
>
>Bad analogy, because the ratio of soaring to engine time is still very
>high - even my longest retrieve still had 3 hours of soaring and only 40
>minutes of engine for about 140 return. No one else flew from our
>airport, because the bad air had already arrived when I left.
>
>> I'd be very willing to forego that
>> option to avoid icky pylons and props and unreliability.
>
>You don't have to wait for turbines to get this ability (simplicity and
>reliability with limited duration). Go first class and get an Antares,
>or kick it down a few notches and get the electric powered Silent. You
>still have the pylon and prop, but those are not the unreliable parts of
>the self-launching system. And they are quiet.
>
>--
>-----
>change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>

One small issue with the electric idea is that the batteries are heavy
and can't cheaply be ejected as ballast. And the useful time of running
the engine is directly related to weight. Reliability is certainly
improved over those pesky two-strokes, and perhaps the prop vs.
hot turbine exhaust on the tail is a satisfying tradeoff.

However, a quiet engine would likely be VASTLY preferred by glider
pilots due to the much lower noise vs. turbine. Additionally, the
idea that one could design such an engine so that one could thermal
and then descend with the engine out, using the engine to RECHARGE the
batteries, seems possible. Electric cars, for braking, can use
a generator instead of dissipating all the energy as friction.
The concept in gliders could possibly be similar. I don't know
the details of such a design, but the possibility is interesting
in theory.

Mr. VanGrunsven sent me an e-mail asking about these turbines, and
I referred him to AMT and Accurate Automation Corporation. In any
case, I really hope I get to see, and perhaps fly, all
different kinds of self-launchers (pylon, retract prop, electric,
and turbine). I find EAA and gliders and the creative minds
of tinkerers makes soaring a very fun sport. After all, we just do
this for FUN, right? :)

P.S. Holly Katherine Boyd, born Dec 30, 2003, 7lbs. 7oz.
Momma and baby are perfectly healthy and want to go SOARING!!

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> P.S. Holly Katherine Boyd, born Dec 30, 2003, 7lbs. 7oz.
> Momma and baby are perfectly healthy and want to go SOARING!!

Congratulations, Mark! Not much flying for you for a while, if my
experience as the happy father of a 5 year old applies...

Marc

on 1/4/04 12:13 "Mark James Boyd" as > in
3ff865df$1@darkstar posted the following:


> After all, we just do
> this for FUN, right? :)

> P.S. Holly Katherine Boyd, born Dec 30, 2003, 7lbs. 7oz.
> Momma and baby are perfectly healthy and want to go SOARING!!

Congratulations!


--
Jack

"Warum einfach machen wenn man es so schön komplizieren kann?"

In article >,
Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> P.S. Holly Katherine Boyd, born Dec 30, 2003, 7lbs. 7oz.
>> Momma and baby are perfectly healthy and want to go SOARING!!
>
>Congratulations, Mark! Not much flying for you for a while, if my
>experience as the happy father of a 5 year old applies...
>
>Marc

Thanks to all well-wishers. My wife has relatives near
several gliderports, so I'm hoping to sneak in excuses
to visit... :)