Self-launch two-seater

[TeetJ]

Any suggestions for self-launch two-seater glider at 100 000 EUR
range?

My current list:

ASH-25M: ASH25 self launchers tend to start from EUR 160 000
unfortunately. Do you know how sophisticated is the engine operation?
Is there any flight manual available in the net? (my brief look at Duo
Discus T engine starting procedure was quite a bad surprise, is
ASH-25M the same?)

DG-1001M: looks like ideal bird, but brand new and probably very
expensive?

ASK-21 Mi: Trainer, I would like to get better XC performance. New
model and a bit expensive, too.

Nimbus 4DM: Looks quite expensive and non impressive. "No aerobatics,
even no intentional spins" in the documentation is not attractive at
all.

Janus CM: very rare species, does anybody suggest?

Grob G103 Twin III SL: Also no clue how good can it be

Stemme S10: quite expensive and I am not quite sure how good for
thermalling it really is. More for touring.


Thank you!
Teet
www.purilend.ee

[Mitch]

http://www.desertaerospace.com/bonusjet.html


'nuff said. Motor gliders with pistons are pretty much outdated these
days. This is also in your price range. Starts with the flip of a
switch and flies great!

[Ron]

On Aug 3, 7:13*am, Mitch > wrote:
> http://www.desertaerospace.com/bonusjet.html
>
> 'nuff said. *Motor gliders with pistons are pretty much outdated these
> days. *This is also in your price range. *Starts with the flip of a
> switch and flies great!

Happened to be in Moriaty and got to see the engine extention and
retraction. Nice piece of work. The ship does not
have retractable gear but that is not much of a limitation considering
the fun one would have with this thing.

[Gary Osoba[_3_]]

Here is another observation, and I'll try to make it as objectively as
I know how. Bob Carrolton did the original flight testing of this
configuration in Arkansas then brought the prototype to Moriarity. I
observed his first flight with it in New Mexico, and many subsequent
flights- all at density altitudes in the 10,000'- 12,000' range. To
give perspective, the two place glider I was flying on those occasions
would often only average a few hundred feet a minute in climb behind a
Pawnee. On a couple of flights, we spent many minutes on tow under
400' and near the airport.

On every occasion, the turbine powered prototype climbed robustly and
very impressively. Much faster than any motorglider I have even seen.
I do not think that the published climb rate of 900 fpm is an
exaggeration, but this is only from my personal observation. It would
be reasonable to assume that as Bob and Mark Mocho continue to refine
and optimize the system, performance will improve. The implementation
is elegant, simple (read that fewer problems or failures), and
efficient for a turbine. The turbine which is utilized has a very
long history, a continuous production run, and a solid service
history.

If the Test (design) glider- which is very affordable- doesn't float
your boat for whatever reason, Bob can custom engineer a turbine
implementation on something that likely would.

I don't have any connection to this group, and only owned a
motorglider for a short period of time back in the 1980's. However, I
would love to have one of these turbines on something with high
performance. And I think that Bob's group is doing important
pioneering work in this field.

Best Regards,

Gary Osoba

[Brad[_2_]]

On Aug 3, 2:02*pm, Gary Osoba > wrote:
> Here is another observation, and I'll try to make it as objectively as
> I know how. *Bob Carrolton did the original flight testing of this
> configuration in Arkansas then brought the prototype to Moriarity. I
> observed his first flight with it in New Mexico, and many subsequent
> flights- all at density altitudes in the 10,000'- 12,000' range. To
> give perspective, the two place glider I was flying on those occasions
> would often only average a few hundred feet a minute in climb behind a
> Pawnee. On a couple of flights, we spent many minutes on tow under
> 400' and near the airport.
>
> On every occasion, the turbine powered prototype climbed robustly and
> very impressively. Much faster than any motorglider I have even seen.
> I do not think that the published climb rate of 900 fpm is an
> exaggeration, but this is only from my personal observation. It would
> be reasonable to assume that as Bob and Mark Mocho continue to refine
> and optimize the system, performance will improve. The implementation
> is elegant, simple (read that fewer problems or failures), and
> efficient for a turbine. *The turbine which is utilized has a very
> long history, a continuous production run, and a solid service
> history.
>
> If the Test (design) glider- which is very affordable- doesn't float
> your boat for whatever reason, Bob can custom engineer a turbine
> implementation on something that likely would.
>
> I don't have any connection to this group, and only owned a
> motorglider for a short period of time back in the 1980's. However, I
> would love to have one of these turbines on something with high
> performance. And I think that Bob's group is doing important
> pioneering work in this field.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Gary Osoba

It's been about 5 years now, but the last TST built glider I saw was
rather crude in many ways: The wing spar was wood, no automatic
hookups and there were other fit and finish issues that made me
somewhat adverse to owning a glider built by these folks.
Now.............don't get me wrong, if the reason they are
"affordable" is because of these issues than they are moot, but if the
reason is labor costs and a desire to offer an "affordable" glider is
part of the company philosophy then more power to them. I have not
seen the jet powered 2 seater, I hope to someday................I also
hope that the company has refined their manufacturing process to put
out a higher quality product.

I thought the concept of the TST-10 Atlas was pretty cool. A jet
powered 2 seater even cooler................and I do have an empty
engine bay in my Apis-13!

Brad

[Brian Whatcott]

On 8/3/2010 4:31 AM, TeetJ wrote:
> Any suggestions for self-launch two-seater glider at 100 000 EUR
> range?
>
> My current list:
>
> ASH-25M: ASH25 self launchers tend to start from EUR 160 000
> unfortunately. Do you know how sophisticated is the engine operation?
> Is there any flight manual available in the net? (my brief look at Duo
> Discus T engine starting procedure was quite a bad surprise, is
> ASH-25M the same?)
>
> DG-1001M: looks like ideal bird, but brand new and probably very
> expensive?
>
> ASK-21 Mi: Trainer, I would like to get better XC performance. New
> model and a bit expensive, too.
>
> Nimbus 4DM: Looks quite expensive and non impressive. "No aerobatics,
> even no intentional spins" in the documentation is not attractive at
> all.
>
> Janus CM: very rare species, does anybody suggest?
>
> Grob G103 Twin III SL: Also no clue how good can it be
>
> Stemme S10: quite expensive and I am not quite sure how good for
> thermalling it really is. More for touring.
>
>
> Thank you!
> Teet
> www.purilend.ee


A 2 year old ad for a 40 year vold Fournier RF-5.
That's my idea of a 2 seat self launch! :-)
http://tinyurl.com/2fn9k5w

Brian W

[JS]

The DG500M should also fit your requirements.
Late C- model Janii aren't bad, the CM should all be the improved
fuselage (especially rear cockpit).
I have seen a Grob Twin 3M do surprisingly well in Club Class
competition.
Jim

[Eric Greenwell]

On 8/3/2010 2:31 AM, TeetJ wrote:
> Any suggestions for self-launch two-seater glider at 100 000 EUR
> range?
>
> My current list:
>
Add the Taurus to your list:

http://www.mcp.com.au/pipistrel-usa/models/taurus.html

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[TeetJ]

On Aug 4, 8:18*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 8/3/2010 2:31 AM, TeetJ wrote:> Any suggestions for self-launch two-seater glider at 100 000 EUR
> > range?
>
> > My current list:
>
> Add the Taurus to your list:
>
> http://www.mcp.com.au/pipistrel-usa/models/taurus.html
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)
>
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
>
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

True, I forgot about Taurus.
I was a bit scared because Taurus being UL. How good speed-gliding
performance you can realistically get from relatively light glider?
Does anyone have experience how this bird behaves in thermals?

Thanks

[JC]

>
> >http://www.mcp.com.au/pipistrel-usa/models/taurus.html
>
> True, I forgot about Taurus.
> I was a bit scared because Taurus being UL. How good speed-gliding
> performance you can realistically get from relatively light glider?
> Does anyone have experience how this bird behaves in thermals?
>
> Thanks



I flew in a contest last year where there was a Taurus and it seems to
have performance similar to a Cirrus. That would be less than the 40:1
claimed by the factory but still very respectable. The owner is not
experienced in competition flying so it would be interesting to see
how it performs in the hands of a seasoned pilot. I´m pretty sure it
would do very well.
It´s a really beautiful ship, very well built and with one of the best
engine pylon systems I´ve seen so far.
The cockpit is very modern and comfortable and it also has a ballistic
parachute. Bang for buck I think it´s probably one of the best deals
around and I would love to have one if I could afford it.
Klaus Ohlman has one and seems to be happy with it..

Regards,

Juan Carlos

[sisu1a]

> I was a bit scared because Taurus being UL. How good speed-gliding
> performance you can realistically get from relatively light glider?
> Does anyone have experience how this bird behaves in thermals?

In USA it is not even close to an Ultralight, but can be registered
Light Sport (>1000lb difference), and of courser one can also register
it as a normal motorglider as well. It's not light per se', just not
as heavy as most 2 seaters since it only has 15m of wing. The fuselage
shape contributes lift to make up for lack of wing area. I read a
review sometime back that spoke very favorably in it's flight
characteristics, including thermaling.

-Paul

[nimbus]

There is also the LAK-20 M....

[Kevin]

The Taurus is "ultralight" in the sense of meeting certain European
licensing classifications. I believe that 4 of the 5 now in the US
are licensed as experimental and the 5th one as an LSA glider. I
understand that the factory is preparing a new manual for countries
like US, in which the gross weight and max payload will be
substantially greater than for the ships licensed in Europe. Empty
weight on my ship is 309 kg / 618 lbs. (including the engine &
ballistic parachute).

The informal consensus seems to be that it has a real world L/D in the
high 30s, which is consistent with my experience.

Thermals nicely. Relatively short wings make for very nice handling,
but of course, you're losing the benefits of longer wings in pure L/D.

I've been very happy with mine so far, other than not flying it
enough....

- Kevin

On Aug 6, 11:02*am, sisu1a > wrote:
> > I was a bit scared because Taurus being UL. How good speed-gliding
> > performance you can realistically get from relatively light glider?
> > Does anyone have experience how this bird behaves in thermals?
>
> In USA it is not even close to an Ultralight, but can be registered
> Light Sport (>1000lb difference), and of courser one can also register
> it as a normal motorglider as well. It's not light per se', just not
> as heavy as most 2 seaters since it only has 15m of wing. The fuselage
> shape contributes lift to make up for lack of wing area. I read a
> review sometime back that spoke very favorably in it's flight
> characteristics, including thermaling.
>
> -Paul

[brianDG303[_2_]]

On Aug 6, 2:22*pm, Kevin > wrote:
> The Taurus is "ultralight" in the sense of meeting certain European
> licensing classifications. *I believe that 4 of the 5 now in the US
> are licensed as experimental and the 5th one as an LSA glider. *I
> understand that the factory is preparing a new manual for countries
> like US, in which the gross weight and max payload will be
> substantially greater than for the ships licensed in Europe. *Empty
> weight on my ship is 309 kg / 618 lbs. (including the engine &
> ballistic parachute).
>
> The informal consensus seems to be that it has a real world L/D in the
> high 30s, which is consistent with my experience.
>
> Thermals nicely. *Relatively short wings make for very nice handling,
> but of course, you're losing the benefits of longer wings in pure L/D.
>
> I've been very happy with mine so far, other than not flying it
> enough....
>
> - Kevin
>
> On Aug 6, 11:02*am, sisu1a > wrote:
>
> > > I was a bit scared because Taurus being UL. How good speed-gliding
> > > performance you can realistically get from relatively light glider?
> > > Does anyone have experience how this bird behaves in thermals?
>
> > In USA it is not even close to an Ultralight, but can be registered
> > Light Sport (>1000lb difference), and of courser one can also register
> > it as a normal motorglider as well. It's not light per se', just not
> > as heavy as most 2 seaters since it only has 15m of wing. The fuselage
> > shape contributes lift to make up for lack of wing area. I read a
> > review sometime back that spoke very favorably in it's flight
> > characteristics, including thermaling.
>
> > -Paul

Here is an write-up of the Taurus-

http://flightlog.seven-alpha.com/taurus.html

[sisu1a]

> Here is an write-up of the Taurus-
>
> http://flightlog.seven-alpha.com/taurus.html

....and in Klaus's words:

http://www.pipistrel.si/news/klaus-ohlmann-reviews-the-taurus

....and in case your not drooling yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Iu4EKpmFjA -Taurus over Greece (bad
music. 1:18 :D )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIAe8ZFn_yg -Electro Taurus