What's the defination of a motorglider?

John

Morgans wrote:
> OK, here's a question. Does a seaplane motoglider exist?
>
> If someone were to make one, would it be eligible to be flown as a
> motoglider, and therefore be able to have a pilot (without a medical) fly it
> legally as a motoglider?
>
> And yes, I did Google, first. <g>

John Ammeter wrote:

> What's the defination of a motorglider?
>
> John
>
My GUESS would be any airplane that is designed to be taken off under power
and intentionally powered down. Oh and yes, most important, registered that
way!
I supposed you could built a 747 look alike (remember the post about the 747
plans?) and register it as a glider (with what about a 5 to 1 glide
ratio!). Now that would be interesting!
John

Dick Schreder started a self-launched seaplane glider project back in the
1970s. I believe he was going to call it a HP-21. The project was never
finished and was donated to Penn State University (PSU) prior to his death.

The HP-21 was to be a two-place, side-by-side, self-launching, amphibious
sailplane with automatic extending and retracting engine. Design specs
called for a foam and fiberglass hull, retractable gear and wings
constructed of metal and foam (like the HP-16, RS-15 and HP-18).

Dick flew seaplanes in WW-II and was the first sinking of a U-Boat by a US
aircraft. (It is a great story. It and others can be found in the book
"10,000 Feet and Climbing - The Aviation Adventures of Richard E Schreder.)
The HP-21 was going to be an attempt to combine his love of soaring with his
love of "flying boats."

The PSU Soaring Club has what remains of the project listed in the "Trading
Post" section of http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder.

An article about the HP-21 appeared in "Soaring" many years ago. I have a
copy and will posted on the "Schreder Designs" web site when time is
available.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> OK, here's a question. Does a seaplane motoglider exist?
>
> If someone were to make one, would it be eligible to be flown as a
> motoglider, and therefore be able to have a pilot (without a medical) fly
it
> legally as a motoglider?
>
> And yes, I did Google, first. <g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>

OK, here's a question. Does a seaplane motoglider exist?

If someone were to make one, would it be eligible to be flown as a
motoglider, and therefore be able to have a pilot (without a medical) fly it
legally as a motoglider?

And yes, I did Google, first. <g>
--
Jim in NC

"Wayne Paul" > wrote

> An article about the HP-21 appeared in "Soaring" many years ago. I have a
> copy and will posted on the "Schreder Designs" web site when time is
> available.
>
> Wayne

Thanks. When you do, give a shout back here, if you have the time?
--
Jim in NC

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
> What's the defination of a motorglider?

There are some pretty strict definitions, as I recall, having to do with
weight to area, or span, and glide performance, IIRC. I'll try to see what
I can find.
--
Jim in NC

UltraJohn wrote:

>I supposed you could built a 747 look alike (remember the post about the 747
>plans?) and register it as a glider (with what about a 5 to 1 glide
>ratio!). Now that would be interesting!
>
>
I bet it would have a LOT better glide ration than that! I seem to
remember a story about some airliner that ran out of fuel due to a mix
up with metric vs English units, I think they had a malfunctioning fuel
computer which made it necessary to do the calculations manually.
Anyway, if I remember right, it glided around 85 miles from an altitude
of 35,000 ft. If it landed at sea level, which I doubt, the glide ratio
was nearly 13 to 1.

--
Chris W

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
http://thewishzone.com

"Morgans" > wrote

> There are some pretty strict definitions, as I recall, having to do with
> weight to area, or span, and glide performance, IIRC. I'll try to see
what
> I can find.

After more than an hour of searching, I found the motor glider specs here:
http://www.sonex-ltd.com/motorglider_definition.html

It could glide like a dog, but it has to carry no more than two, not exceed
1874 pounds, and the maximum weight to wing span squared can not exceed .62
lb. / ft squared.

So that means that at maximum weight, you would need a wingspan of about 55
feet.

Doable? I think so. For a seaplane, or amphibian, it would have to have
some type of pontoons or floats on the tips, or it would hit the tips, on
the slightest bit of rocking. Not a problem.

How about the rating needed? For a powered glider, a glider rating, with an
endorsement for self launch, I think, is all you need. What about launching
from water? More endorsements, or is there one for water to add to glider?
Would you have to have a single engine fixed wing land/seaplane?

One thing I can say, is that I have never seen _this_ question here, (or
anywhere) before! <g>
--
Jim in NC

>So that means that at maximum weight, you would need a wingspan of about 55
>feet.
>--
>Jim in NC
>
>
gee that'd be fun to dock ; (

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> >After more than an hour of searching, I found the motor glider specs
here:
> >http://www.sonex-ltd.com/motorglider_definition.html
> >
> >It could glide like a dog, but it has to carry no more than two, not
exceed
> >1874 pounds, and the maximum weight to wing span squared can not exceed
..62
> >lb. / ft squared.
>
> These limits were adopted to prevent people from registering
> everything under the sun as a glider. :-) I've seen some
> designs with removable wingtips, allegedly for hangaring
> ease, but which made it far more like a typical airplane
> than a glider if flown with the tips off. I have no idea if
> they'd get the design actually registered as a glider.
>
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

If my memory serves me correctly, the above requirement of wingspan ^2
divided by gross wt not to exceed 0.62 lbs is stated in the "Certification"
limitations. It has been argued that this requirement doesn't apply to
experimental air craft. If it did, "Space Ship One" would not be registered
with the FAA as a glider. On the other side of the coin, the Windrose meets
the requirement; however, you find cases where it has been registered as an
"airplane". Communications with the owners revealed that this was done to
avoid having to spend the time and money to get a glider rating.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>
> If my memory serves me correctly, the above requirement of wingspan ^2
> divided by gross wt not to exceed 0.62 lbs is stated in the
"Certification"
> limitations. It has been argued that this requirement doesn't apply to
> experimental air craft. If it did, "Space Ship One" would not be
registered
> with the FAA as a glider. On the other side of the coin, the Windrose
meets
> the requirement; however, you find cases where it has been registered as
an
> "airplane". Communications with the owners revealed that this was done to
> avoid having to spend the time and money to get a glider rating.
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 N990 "6F"
> http://www.soaridaho.com/
>
>

I just notice that I have the numerator and denominator switched in the
above post.

Sorry about that!

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

One tiny correction to Wayne's writeup: Dick Schreder's amphibious
motorglider was to be the HP-22, not the HP-21. Here are scans of the
original spec sheets for this aircraft:

http://www.hpaircraft.com/info/hp-22/hp-22_1.jpg
http://www.hpaircraft.com/info/hp-22/hp-22_2.jpg
http://www.hpaircraft.com/info/hp-22/hp-22_3.jpg

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

("T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote)
>>OK, here's a question. Does a seaplane motoglider exist?

> I'm reasonably familiar with motorgliders, and I' don't know
> of any. There were some seaplane pure gliders, and I recall
> at least one plan to build one, but don't know what ever
> happened.

>> After more than an hour of searching, I found the motor glider specs
>> here: http://www.sonex-ltd.com/motorglider_definition.html


1. What are the restrictions on a motorglider vs. LSA?
2. What are the advantages of motorgliders vs. LSP? ...555#'s more MTOW is
one.


Found this interesting. (Maybe it's out of date already - 2000)
http://www.ultraflight.com/difference.htm


I'm going to Google rec.aviation.soaring for motorglider info:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M3C732ACB
Well, this was sure an interesting discussion over in RA(S)oaring ;;;Can a
glider rated pilot fly a non-"self launched" 152/172/Warrior according to
the FAR's? Plow through all 36 posts. - interesting.


Montblack

"Drew Dalgleish" > wrote in message
...
>
> >So that means that at maximum weight, you would need a wingspan of about
55
> >feet.
> >--
> >Jim in NC
> >
> >
> gee that'd be fun to dock ; (

Yeah, it would bring a new meaning to "give it a wide berth" wouldn't it?
<g>
--
Jim in NC

"Wayne Paul" > wrote

> If my memory serves me correctly, the above requirement of wingspan ^2
> divided by gross wt not to exceed 0.62 lbs is stated in the
"Certification"
> limitations. It has been argued that this requirement doesn't apply to
> experimental air craft.

While that is true, I would think that if you wanted to fly with a glider
ticket, you would only be allowed to do it in a glider that meets certified
specs, no?
--
Jim in NC

"Montblack" > wrote

> 1. What are the restrictions on a motorglider vs. LSA?

None, that I am aware of.

> 2. What are the advantages of motorgliders vs. LSP? ...555#'s more MTOW is
> one.

Night flight seems to be allowed, and also, no limit on maximum speeds, or
minimum speeds. Repositionable props would also be allowed, I believe.

If the asinine LSA rule does not get straightened out to allow for
repositioning gear in flight, (for amphibians) it would be a way around
that.

As a possible LS pilot, I have no problem with all of the restrictions of
weight and speed, but I'm not certain I can live with no night flight. If
they will let you sign off for complex airspace, why not also for night
flight?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wayne Paul" > wrote
>
> > If my memory serves me correctly, the above requirement of wingspan ^2
> > divided by gross wt not to exceed 0.62 lbs is stated in the
> "Certification"
> > limitations. It has been argued that this requirement doesn't apply to
> > experimental air craft.
>
> While that is true, I would think that if you wanted to fly with a glider
> ticket, you would only be allowed to do it in a glider that meets
certified
> specs, no?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Jim,

There are many single engine experimental airplanes that don't meet
certification requirements that are flown by licensed pilots. Please
remember that by FAA definition, a glider is a heavier-than-air aircraft
supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its' lifting
surfaces and whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine.
Meet this definition and you can call the thing you built a glider.

Gliders are launched in one of three methods; aero-tow, ground launch
(behind an car/truck, or using a winch) and self-launch. A pilot's log book
will contain endorsements of each type of launch that the pilot is qualified
to perform. What is commonly called a "motor-glider" in reality is a
self-launched glider.

Gliders with engines come in two types. One has an engine powerful enough
to launch the glider. The other has a small engine that will only sustain
flight. The latter type are usually found on gliders with a large wing span
(20+ meters) that could easily be damage in an off-field landing.

If you fly over half the time with your engine on, it would be hard to argue
that you are meeting the FAA's basic definition of a glider. Be careful if
you are think of calling something a glider simply to avoid the FAA Physical
requirements.

Respectfully,
Wayne

P.S. Last post on this subject.

"Wayne Paul" > wrote

> There are many single engine experimental airplanes that don't meet
> certification requirements that are flown by licensed pilots.

Agreed.

But how about a glider rated pilot flying something that is an experimental,
that is supposed to be capable of being a glider? I would think that as a
glider only pilot, what I fly, better be a glider.

> Please remember that by FAA definition, a glider is a heavier-than-air
aircraft
> supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its'
lifting
> surfaces and whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine.
> Meet this definition and you can call the thing you built a glider.

You would have a lot better chance of calling it a glider, if it met the
certified definition of a glider, no?

> Gliders are launched in one of three methods; <snip following>

Yes, I am aware of the methods.

> If you fly over half the time with your engine on, it would be hard to
argue
> that you are meeting the FAA's basic definition of a glider. Be careful
if
> you are think of calling something a glider simply to avoid the FAA
Physical
> requirements.

If I go this route, have no doubt that I will not be *just* calling it a
glider, but it will meet every definition of a glider, and might even act
like one, too. That is why the interest in the definition of a certified
glider. I also would like to be able to operate from a boat ramp, or lake,
since I really like the water, and my folks live at a lake.

The FAA isn't up there with me, is it? <g> Besides, I might just be really
crappy at finding lift, right? <g>

Really, I have not done any soaring, but it sounds fun to me. I love
sailing, and it seems the two would be have many familiarities, I would
think.

I would like to punch holes in the sky, sometimes, and go places, sometimes.
There are people out there everywhere, picking carefully at the FAA regs,
finding what they want to find in them, and avoiding what they want.
>
> Respectfully,
> Wayne
>
> P.S. Last post on this subject.

Thanks for your insights on the subject, and from you posts, I see you do a
bit of soaring, also?

I think the only real answer I will get, will be the "opinion" I get from
the local FSDO. After all, if it is an experimental, they will be the final
word of record.
--
Jim in NC

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>
> There are many single engine experimental airplanes that don't meet
> certification requirements that are flown by licensed pilots. Please
> remember that by FAA definition, a glider is a heavier-than-air aircraft
> supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its'
> lifting
> surfaces and whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine.
> Meet this definition and you can call the thing you built a glider.

Hmm...... By that definition, (or close) I think a Taylorcraft BC-12D is
very close.

I have several logged flights, in a Taylorcraft, of 4 hours or more where
the engine only ran for a half-hour or so. We would take off from Pearson
Airpark near Vancouver, Wa and head for Mt. Hood. As soon as we would hit
the wave, we'd shut the Cont. 65 down and pull up into a stall to stop the
prop.

Then we'd soar as high as 12,000' IIRC, enjoying the view and the fun of
using a peanut butter jar as a biffy. When we'd get tired enough, it was an
easy glide back to the airport. We'd coast off the runway where one of us
would get out and prop the engine to taxi back.

Oh! wait a minute, I forgot. Disregard all the previous polemic. Both Cliff
and I only had student tickets, so we couldn't have flown with each other.
Heh, heh. :))

Rich "I know nothing!" S.

"Rich S." > wrote
>
> Hmm...... By that definition, (or close) I think a Taylorcraft BC-12D is
> very close.
>
> I have several logged flights, in a Taylorcraft, of 4 hours or more where
> the engine only ran for a half-hour or so. We would take off from Pearson
> Airpark near Vancouver, Wa and head for Mt. Hood. As soon as we would hit
> the wave, we'd shut the Cont. 65 down and pull up into a stall to stop the
> prop.

I think that would not be typical of all flights, in all areas, right? <g>

Still, I wish I had been on one of those flights. (only figuratively
speaking, of course)
--
Jim in NC

>"Morgans" wrote in message > Yeah, it would bring a new meaning to "give it
a wide berth" >wouldn't it?

Does the Sonex motorglider require a medical to be flown? Put some floats on
it and there's your answer.

D.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:52:11 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
wrote:

>>"Morgans" wrote in message > Yeah, it would bring a new meaning to "give it
>a wide berth" >wouldn't it?
>
>Does the Sonex motorglider require a medical to be flown? Put some floats on
>it and there's your answer.

The Xenos (the motorglider by Sonex) has a 45'-8" wingspan. It is
low-wing. I've not seen pictures of height above water in their
prototype Sonex airplane (22' wingspan) with floats, but doubt one
could hold level enough with that glider span.

Now to your medical question ... same old, same old. If licensed as
glider-self-launched, only PPG (or SPG, but why get that one, PPG is
reported as easier) with self launch endorsement can fly it. No
medical by FFA, but supposedly some insurance carriers require one.

If licensed as airplane, PPSEL who has not failed medical can fly with
signoff. PPG cannot, as I understand it, independent of endorsements
they have. PPG could PROBALBY get a SPSE pretty easily, I would
think.

Just my thoughts ...

Once an aircraft is licensed as an airplane, it cannot be registered as a
glider. Some motorgliders were licensed as airplanes and the owner sadly
found out that it could not later be converted to a motorglider (at least
easily). So, the motorgliders with short and long wings would have to be
licensed as an airplane, then when the long wings were installed, it would
simply be a long winged airplane requiring a medical.

Motorgliders can often be cumbersome at airports. When you have 54 foot
wings and are landing at a 50 foot wide runway with lights on each side, and
one landing wheel allowing a wing to fall, you have an invitation for
excitement. Most motorglider damage occurs on the ground. Many taxiways
are simply built to test the frustration level of pilots. That being said,
I do not think that docking an amphib would be too much worse.

And, how do you get an amphib motorglider into a 35' boat slip? Same way
you get one into a 35' hangar - not easily.

Colin

"COLIN LAMB" > wrote

> And, how do you get an amphib motorglider into a 35' boat slip? Same way
> you get one into a 35' hangar - not easily.

With hydraulics, folding the wings, ala navy aircraft carrier planes! How
silly for me to have to tell you that! <g>
--
Jim in NC