Bonus Jet glider demo weekend [Archive]

Bob

April 24th 11, 05:10 PM

This weekend Bob Carlton brought his Bonus Jet glider to Phoenix for
Arizona Soaring Association members to demo and presented a fine
PowerPoint / video presentation after our BBQ dinner at Turf Soaring.
What a great time we all had. The weather cooperated, and although it
was a tad windy, there were abundant thermals, allowing more than a
dozen pilots to enjoy the smooth vibration free jet launch and about
45 minutes of airtime each. The whole deal was very professionally
done. Bob started with giving each pilot a thorough preflight
introduction to the glider and its panel and controls. Once the engine
is spooled up, Bob handled the takeoff, into a 1071 ft / minute
initial climb (accurately measured by Andy Durbin, one of our members,
with his EW electronic barograph), throttled back to 75% and turned
the stick over to the demo pilot in the front seat for the rest of the
flight, until landing. As soon as the demo pilot was comfortable with
a thermal the jet was turned off and retracted (a really slick
automatic system that requires nothing more from the pilot after
initiating). On my flight we consumed 2 gallons of JP-4 from start-
up, takeoff, climb to hitting a thermal, to shutting the engine down
and stowing it. Every pilot commented what a superb bit of
engineering the engine and its extraction / retraction set up is, how
enjoyable their flights were, and how interesting the evening
presentation was. Bob is a professional airshow pilot, currently
performing aerobatics with his SuperSalto jet glider at airshows
around the world with his company Vertigo Airshows. His wife, Laurie,
who is chief crewperson, was along, helping immensely with
everything. Much like NASCAR racing, having a superior crew is
paramount to being winner, and Laurie fits the bill. While hoping to
sell a few BonusJets, Bob is also looking into fitting the jets into
other gliders, with a JS-1 in progress right now. Piston engines are
complex and vibrate a lot, especially 2 cycle engines, and jets are
incredibly smooth, vibration free, and simple. I look forward to
seeing a lot more of them in self-launch gliders in the future, and
Bob is the man who will be at the vanguard of that movement. If any
other clubs out there take the opportunity to have Bob visit with his
BonusJet, any members who miss the event will really be missing out!
And, anyone out there with a fatter bank account than mine will find
the purchase of a jet glider will put them into the future of self
launching gliders (at least where noise is not a problem).

19

Walt Connelly

April 25th 11, 12:06 AM

Walt Connelly

April 25th 11, 12:29 AM

Never mind, I googled it and answered my own questions. AWESOME. Smoothness and dependability of a jet, no waiting for a tow. Who could ask for more? Wonder how much JP is going for these days.

Paul Cordell

April 25th 11, 12:38 AM

here's a link to a Bonus jet Launch at Turf Soaring

http://www.youtube.com/user/pcordellyb?feature=mhum#p/u/0/p49KHX4ksKw

Andy[_1_]

April 25th 11, 03:33 AM

On Apr 24, 4:06*pm, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> Bob;770192 Wrote:
>
>
>
> > This weekend Bob Carlton brought his Bonus Jet glider to Phoenix for
> > Arizona Soaring Association members to demo and presented a fine
> > PowerPoint / video presentation after our BBQ dinner at Turf Soaring.
> > What a great time we all had. *The weather cooperated, and although it
> > was a tad windy, there were abundant thermals, allowing more than a
> > dozen pilots to enjoy the smooth vibration free jet launch and about
> > 45 minutes of airtime each. *The whole deal was very professionally
> > done. *Bob started with giving each pilot a thorough preflight
> > introduction to the glider and its panel and controls. Once the engine
> > is spooled up, Bob handled the takeoff, into a 1071 ft */ minute
> > initial climb (accurately measured by Andy Durbin, one of our members,
> > with his EW electronic barograph), throttled back to 75% and turned
> > the stick over to the demo pilot in the front seat for the rest of the
> > flight, until landing. *As soon as the demo pilot was comfortable with
> > a thermal the jet was turned off and retracted (a really slick
> > automatic system that requires nothing more from the pilot after
> > initiating). *On my flight we consumed 2 gallons of JP-4 from start-
> > up, takeoff, climb to hitting a thermal, to shutting the engine down
> > and stowing it. *Every pilot commented what a superb bit of
> > engineering the engine and its extraction / retraction set up is, how
> > enjoyable their flights were, and how interesting the evening
> > presentation was. *Bob is a professional airshow pilot, currently
> > performing aerobatics with his SuperSalto jet glider at airshows
> > around the world with his company Vertigo Airshows. *His wife, Laurie,
> > who is chief crewperson, was along, helping immensely with
> > everything. *Much like NASCAR racing, having a superior crew is
> > paramount to being winner, and Laurie fits the bill. *While hoping to
> > sell a few BonusJets, Bob is also looking into fitting the jets into
> > other gliders, with a JS-1 in progress right now. *Piston engines are
> > complex and vibrate a lot, especially 2 cycle engines, and jets are
> > incredibly smooth, vibration free, and simple. *I look forward to
> > seeing a lot more of them in self-launch gliders in the future, and
> > Bob is the man who will be at the vanguard of that movement. *If any
> > other clubs out there take the opportunity to have Bob visit with his
> > BonusJet, any members who miss the event will really be missing out!
> > And, anyone out there with a fatter bank account than mine will find
> > the purchase of a jet glider will put them into the future of self
> > launching gliders (at least where noise is not a problem).
>
> > 19
>
> Can this jet start up on its own? *Does it require ground equipment to
> start? * Can it do an air start?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly

The jet has a starter/generator so has self contained start and in air
start no problem. About 15 seconds for extension and then a few more
for it to spool up and light off. There are only three engine
controls - the throttle, extend/retract switch, and run/stop switch.

If it was to do into production I'd like to see a single throttle
lever do everything much like the Antares. The control electronics
are almost to the point that it could be done now, but it would need a
revised throttle control with a retract/extend detent.

Andy

Bob

April 25th 11, 03:43 AM

On Apr 24, 4:06*pm, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> Bob;770192 Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This weekend Bob Carlton brought his Bonus Jet glider to Phoenix for
> > Arizona Soaring Association members to demo and presented a fine
> > PowerPoint / video presentation after our BBQ dinner at Turf Soaring.
> > What a great time we all had. *The weather cooperated, and although it
> > was a tad windy, there were abundant thermals, allowing more than a
> > dozen pilots to enjoy the smooth vibration free jet launch and about
> > 45 minutes of airtime each. *The whole deal was very professionally
> > done. *Bob started with giving each pilot a thorough preflight
> > introduction to the glider and its panel and controls. Once the engine
> > is spooled up, Bob handled the takeoff, into a 1071 ft */ minute
> > initial climb (accurately measured by Andy Durbin, one of our members,
> > with his EW electronic barograph), throttled back to 75% and turned
> > the stick over to the demo pilot in the front seat for the rest of the
> > flight, until landing. *As soon as the demo pilot was comfortable with
> > a thermal the jet was turned off and retracted (a really slick
> > automatic system that requires nothing more from the pilot after
> > initiating). *On my flight we consumed 2 gallons of JP-4 from start-
> > up, takeoff, climb to hitting a thermal, to shutting the engine down
> > and stowing it. *Every pilot commented what a superb bit of
> > engineering the engine and its extraction / retraction set up is, how
> > enjoyable their flights were, and how interesting the evening
> > presentation was. *Bob is a professional airshow pilot, currently
> > performing aerobatics with his SuperSalto jet glider at airshows
> > around the world with his company Vertigo Airshows. *His wife, Laurie,
> > who is chief crewperson, was along, helping immensely with
> > everything. *Much like NASCAR racing, having a superior crew is
> > paramount to being winner, and Laurie fits the bill. *While hoping to
> > sell a few BonusJets, Bob is also looking into fitting the jets into
> > other gliders, with a JS-1 in progress right now. *Piston engines are
> > complex and vibrate a lot, especially 2 cycle engines, and jets are
> > incredibly smooth, vibration free, and simple. *I look forward to
> > seeing a lot more of them in self-launch gliders in the future, and
> > Bob is the man who will be at the vanguard of that movement. *If any
> > other clubs out there take the opportunity to have Bob visit with his
> > BonusJet, any members who miss the event will really be missing out!
> > And, anyone out there with a fatter bank account than mine will find
> > the purchase of a jet glider will put them into the future of self
> > launching gliders (at least where noise is not a problem).
>
> > 19
>
> Can this jet start up on its own? *Does it require ground equipment to
> start? * Can it do an air start?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, No, yes.

The jet is totally self contained. Flip a switch and the engine comes
out. Flip on the master and then the run switch and it spools up.
From there, after checking engine instruments, push the throttle and
GO! Full power climb is over 1000' / min, but after about 300 ' above
the grounde we throttled back to about 75% for 600' / min for smooth
climb to thermals. Back to idle when the pilot is comfortable the
thermal is good. Flip "off" switch and automatically the engine slows
down, shuts down, cools for 2 minutes, and retracts back into the
glider body. Pilot can spend his time thermalling all the time, as
the whole sequence is automatic. Anytime in the air, just go thru the
start proceedure and you have a powerful jet at your disposal once
again. The BonusJet carries,I beleive either 24 or 28 gallons of
fuel, good for about an hour at cruise. TBO is currently 300 hours,
with certification to move up to way more as testing proceeds. I'd
expect probably 2000 hours within a year.

It appears any glider that can hold a "traditional" engine and prop
could handle this jet setup. And, the whole thing, including brackets
weighs in at only about 50 lbs. Can be removed in about 10 minutes.
Amazingly simple setup, well engineered system. An exhaust "spltter"
keeps the temperature down on the tail.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 25th 11, 03:54 AM

On 4/24/2011 4:38 PM, Paul Cordell wrote:
>
>
> here's a link to a Bonus jet Launch at Turf Soaring
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/pcordellyb?feature=mhum#p/u/0/p49KHX4ksKw

I noticed Laurie was wearing ear protectors, and a bystander had his
fingers in his ears, so I'm guessing this is much louder and/or more
annoying than the usual DG400 or DG800.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me

Bob

April 25th 11, 04:08 AM

On Apr 24, 7:54*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 4/24/2011 4:38 PM, Paul Cordell wrote:
>
>
>
> > here's a link to a Bonus jet Launch at Turf Soaring
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/user/pcordellyb?feature=mhum#p/u/0/p49KHX4ksKw
>
> I noticed Laurie was wearing ear protectors, and a bystander had his
> fingers in his ears, so I'm guessing this is much louder and/or more
> annoying than the usual DG400 or DG800.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me

Yes and no. It is very loud for a couple hundred yards as it has
passes you, then a far duller roar as it really gets moving and
farther away. Ear protectors are just common sense for anyone close
to any noises, whether it be a saw, DG400, Pawnee, or BonusJet. I
held my ears as they are noise sensative anyway (my 1/1/2 year old
grandson's screeches make my ears ring worse).

Ceertainly, noisewise, the Antares, Tarus, etc are FAR less annoying
with their electric power... just prop noise.

Darryl Ramm

April 25th 11, 05:43 AM

On Apr 24, 7:43*pm, Bob > wrote:
/snip/
> The jet is totally self contained. *Flip a switch and the engine comes
> out. *Flip on the master and then the run switch and it spools up.
> From there, after checking engine instruments, push the throttle and
> GO! *Full power climb is over 1000' / min, but after about 300 ' above
> the grounde we throttled back to about 75% for 600' / min for smooth
> climb to thermals. *Back to idle when the pilot is comfortable the
> thermal is good. *Flip "off" switch and automatically the engine slows
> down, shuts down, cools for 2 minutes, and retracts back into the
> glider body. *Pilot can spend his time thermalling all the time, as
> the whole sequence is automatic. *Anytime in the air, just go thru the
> start proceedure and you have a powerful jet at your disposal once
> again. *The BonusJet carries,I beleive either 24 or 28 gallons of
> fuel, good for about an hour at cruise. *TBO is currently 300 hours,
> with certification to move up to way more as testing proceeds. *I'd
> expect probably 2000 hours within a year.
>
> It appears any glider that can hold a "traditional" engine and prop
> could handle this jet setup. *And, the whole thing, including brackets
> weighs in at only about 50 lbs. *Can be removed in about 10 minutes.
> Amazingly simple setup, well engineered system. *An exhaust "spltter"
> keeps the temperature down on the tail.

What does the take-off ground roll or 50' numbers look like?

Thanks

Darryl

Bob

April 25th 11, 12:47 PM

On Apr 24, 9:43*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Apr 24, 7:43*pm, Bob > wrote:
> /snip/
>
>
>
>
>
> > The jet is totally self contained. *Flip a switch and the engine comes
> > out. *Flip on the master and then the run switch and it spools up.
> > From there, after checking engine instruments, push the throttle and
> > GO! *Full power climb is over 1000' / min, but after about 300 ' above
> > the grounde we throttled back to about 75% for 600' / min for smooth
> > climb to thermals. *Back to idle when the pilot is comfortable the
> > thermal is good. *Flip "off" switch and automatically the engine slows
> > down, shuts down, cools for 2 minutes, and retracts back into the
> > glider body. *Pilot can spend his time thermalling all the time, as
> > the whole sequence is automatic. *Anytime in the air, just go thru the
> > start proceedure and you have a powerful jet at your disposal once
> > again. *The BonusJet carries,I beleive either 24 or 28 gallons of
> > fuel, good for about an hour at cruise. *TBO is currently 300 hours,
> > with certification to move up to way more as testing proceeds. *I'd
> > expect probably 2000 hours within a year.
>
> > It appears any glider that can hold a "traditional" engine and prop
> > could handle this jet setup. *And, the whole thing, including brackets
> > weighs in at only about 50 lbs. *Can be removed in about 10 minutes.
> > Amazingly simple setup, well engineered system. *An exhaust "spltter"
> > keeps the temperature down on the tail.
>
> What does the take-off ground roll or 50' numbers look like?
>
> Thanks
>
> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On the gravel strip at Turf the roll was slow for the first few feet,
then accelerated well. Seemed to be off the ground in about 700-800',
held in ground effect for another few hundred, gaining airspeed, then
pulled up into 1000 ft/min climb for a few hundred feet, throttle back
to 75% and around 600 ft/min climb. I suspect 50' numbers would be
around 900-1000' with the glider firmly in 1000 ft/min climb at that
point.

Andy[_1_]

April 25th 11, 02:37 PM

On Apr 24, 9:43*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> What does the take-off ground roll or 50' numbers look like?
>
> Thanks
>
> Darryl

There are some ground roll claims on the website but I didn't see any
50 ft numbers. I only had pressure altitude recording so no distance
data for my flight.

See http://www.desertaerospace.com/faq/faq_bonusjet.html

Andy

bildan

April 25th 11, 03:26 PM

On Apr 25, 2:21*am, gotovkotzepkoi <gotovkotzepkoi.
> wrote:
> This is indeed impressive. But while it may be cool to have a jet engine
> it's becoming clear that electric self launch is the future. The jet
> option is too noisy, uses too much fuel and you still have to fly around
> with a bomb at your back.
>
> --
> gotovkotzepkoi

It's not that black and white. Electrics make sense if viewed as
simply self-launch but jets offer higher XC speeds to "self-retrieve"
from 120 NM away in less than an hour in addition to self-launch.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 25th 11, 04:29 PM

On 4/25/2011 7:26 AM, bildan wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2:21 am, gotovkotzepkoi<gotovkotzepkoi.
> > wrote:
>> This is indeed impressive. But while it may be cool to have a jet engine
>> it's becoming clear that electric self launch is the future. The jet
>> option is too noisy, uses too much fuel and you still have to fly around
>> with a bomb at your back.
>>
>> --
>> gotovkotzepkoi
>
> It's not that black and white. Electrics make sense if viewed as
> simply self-launch but jets offer higher XC speeds to "self-retrieve"
> from 120 NM away in less than an hour in addition to self-launch.

The high speed could be a game changer for someone doing wave flying.
The best wave is 90 NM upwind of me, completely impractical to reach at
the 70 knot cruising speed of my ASH 26 E against a 30-40 knot headwind
- 2 1/2 hours and out of fuel to get there. A 120 knot cruise (or 150
knot like the DuckHawk could provide), would take less than an hour.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

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

airshowbob[_3_]

April 25th 11, 05:43 PM

Thanks to everyone in ASA and at Turf Soaring in Phoenix for a
wonderful weekend. Driving back to Albuquerque Sunday I was wishing
I'd just made the attempt by air. The cloud streets looked awesome
and I'd have had a hell of a tailwind!

Also, thanks to the Sylacauga Soaring Society (Birmingham, AL) for
hosting us the previous weekend. It was also a great weekend with
great folks and awesome soaring conditions - after the Friday night
tornadoes, that is ;o)

We're hoping to do some more demo weekends later this summer.

Here's the stats for the ASA weekend: We gave 14 rides, used 3.15
gallons jet-A per launch (fuel cost per launch $11.34 in Alabama,
$19.50 in Phoenix), 9 minutes engine run per launch, averaged just
over 1000 ft/min initial climb (two full sized guys and 6 - 15 gallons
fuel, density altitude about 3700' MSL). We successfully thermalled up
on every flight. The engine was usually reduced to idle by about
1500' AGL and shut down by 2500' AGL.

To answer a few of the questions and comments:

Single control - The factory-supplied throttle quadrant does have a
single lever start/throttle with a detent like Andy suggested. With
the dual cockpit, we chose to place the throttle unit between the
cockpits (with mechanical linkage to both seats) and place a start/
stop switch on the panel, as it would be difficult to design a
mechanical method for actuating the detent from either cockpit.
Integrating the pylon and throttle would be possible, just more
expensive. Lots of cost and effort to eliminate one momentary switch.

Takeoff roll - The takeoff rolls at Turf were probably extended a bit
because of the rough runway surface (we were using 23R) and (I think)
a slight uphill grade. Most launches began in the soft gravel
adjacent to the runway. At Moriarty, we've measured the takeoff roll
at around 700'. I was also going easy on the initial throttle-up. If
runway length was an issue, one could hold the brakes until the engine
spooled up to full power.

Noise - Yes, it is noisy when you're nearby, especially aft of the
engine. Once airborne, the noise diminished quickly. I've posted
comparative takeoff noise values on the website. Slightly worse than
a Pawnee, better than a Citation or Rotax powered gyrocopter. Noise
in the cockpit is comparable to other motorgliders, and less than most
airplanes. We flew with an EW logger on one flight. I'll check the
cockpit ENL reading.

Jet vs. electric - Either is, IMHO, better (and safer) than the 2
stroke lawn mower engines used by most current motorgliders. Yes, the
jet is noisier and uses about the same fuel as a towplane launch, but
it gives you the option of traveling at high speed for many miles, as
well as the option of refueling at another airport. Like electric,
the jet eliminates vibration, thus increasing reliability. As for the
unwarranted 'bomb at your back' comment, I'd ask that you check
statistics on fires caused by electrical failures before jumping to
the conclusion about comparative safety. Electric self launch systems
are capable of producing thousands of amps. Also, ask the R/C guys
about battery fires (high power density batteries are getting better,
but still a concern). I don't see electric and jets as mutually
exclusive. Both have merit in different situations. I applaud any
effort to make something more reliable than the existing motorglider
technology.

Fuel capacity - solo - 24 gallons, good for almost two hours at 80
knot cruise (faster if higher). With two normal guys, fuel capacity
is reduced to about 15 gallons.

Blue skies,

Bob Carlton
Desert Aerospace, LLC
www.desertaerospace.com

On Apr 25, 8:26*am, bildan > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2:21*am, gotovkotzepkoi <gotovkotzepkoi.
>
> > wrote:
> > This is indeed impressive. But while it may be cool to have a jet engine
> > it's becoming clear that electric self launch is the future. The jet
> > option is too noisy, uses too much fuel and you still have to fly around
> > with a bomb at your back.
>
> > --
> > gotovkotzepkoi
>
> It's not that black and white. *Electrics make sense if viewed as
> simply self-launch but jets offer higher XC speeds to "self-retrieve"
> from 120 NM away in less than an hour in addition to self-launch.

Darryl Ramm

April 25th 11, 05:55 PM

On Apr 25, 7:26*am, bildan > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2:21*am, gotovkotzepkoi <gotovkotzepkoi.
>
> > wrote:
> > This is indeed impressive. But while it may be cool to have a jet engine
> > it's becoming clear that electric self launch is the future. The jet
> > option is too noisy, uses too much fuel and you still have to fly around
> > with a bomb at your back.
>
> > --
> > gotovkotzepkoi
>
> It's not that black and white. *Electrics make sense if viewed as
> simply self-launch but jets offer higher XC speeds to "self-retrieve"
> from 120 NM away in less than an hour in addition to self-launch.

Jets (as long as they have the endurance) also offer much more
impressive capability to self-deploy. We've had some cases of SF Bay
Area motorglider pilots crossing the central valley to to go soaring
in the Sierras or on the Whites. But its a challenge given the slow XC
performance and poor high-altitude operation of typical motorgliders
(even many touring ones). Electric self launcher are a non-starter for
these type missions. Or the long self retrieve mentioned already - and
you are constantly fighting battery weight vs. capacity limits.

The issue with the jets I see is the operational issue of noise and
jet blast in many glider operations - OTOH operating any motorglider
at many typical gliderports already has some of these issues.

Darryl

Greg Arnold[_2_]

April 25th 11, 06:13 PM

On 4/25/2011 9:55 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Apr 25, 7:26 am, > wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 2:21 am, gotovkotzepkoi<gotovkotzepkoi.
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> This is indeed impressive. But while it may be cool to have a jet engine
>>> it's becoming clear that electric self launch is the future. The jet
>>> option is too noisy, uses too much fuel and you still have to fly around
>>> with a bomb at your back.
>>
>>> --
>>> gotovkotzepkoi
>>
>> It's not that black and white. Electrics make sense if viewed as
>> simply self-launch but jets offer higher XC speeds to "self-retrieve"
>> from 120 NM away in less than an hour in addition to self-launch.
>
> Jets (as long as they have the endurance) also offer much more
> impressive capability to self-deploy. We've had some cases of SF Bay
> Area motorglider pilots crossing the central valley to to go soaring
> in the Sierras or on the Whites. But its a challenge given the slow XC
> performance and poor high-altitude operation of typical motorgliders
> (even many touring ones). Electric self launcher are a non-starter for
> these type missions. Or the long self retrieve mentioned already - and
> you are constantly fighting battery weight vs. capacity limits.
>
> The issue with the jets I see is the operational issue of noise and
> jet blast in many glider operations - OTOH operating any motorglider
> at many typical gliderports already has some of these issues.
>
> Darryl

If a towplane (or winch) is available, you could take a pattern tow,
then start the engine.

You need to carry a lot of fuel to go very far, though. That probably
means fuel in the wings. I don't know what you do if there still is
fuel in the wings when you disassemble the glider. Just leave it in the
wings?

Darryl Ramm

April 25th 11, 06:24 PM

On Apr 25, 10:13*am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 9:55 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 7:26 am, > *wrote:
> >> On Apr 25, 2:21 am, gotovkotzepkoi<gotovkotzepkoi.
>
> >> > *wrote:
> >>> This is indeed impressive. But while it may be cool to have a jet engine
> >>> it's becoming clear that electric self launch is the future. The jet
> >>> option is too noisy, uses too much fuel and you still have to fly around
> >>> with a bomb at your back.
>
> >>> --
> >>> gotovkotzepkoi
>
> >> It's not that black and white. *Electrics make sense if viewed as
> >> simply self-launch but jets offer higher XC speeds to "self-retrieve"
> >> from 120 NM away in less than an hour in addition to self-launch.
>
> > Jets (as long as they have the endurance) also offer much more
> > impressive capability to self-deploy. We've had some cases of SF Bay
> > Area motorglider pilots crossing the central valley to to go soaring
> > in the Sierras or on the Whites. But its a challenge given the slow XC
> > performance and poor high-altitude operation of typical motorgliders
> > (even many touring ones). Electric self launcher are a non-starter for
> > these type missions. Or the long self retrieve mentioned already - and
> > you are constantly fighting battery weight vs. capacity limits.
>
> > The issue with the jets I see is the operational issue of noise and
> > jet blast in many glider operations - OTOH operating any motorglider
> > at many typical gliderports already has some of these issues.
>
> > Darryl
>
> If a towplane (or winch) is available, you could take a pattern tow,
> then start the engine.
>
> You need to carry a lot of fuel to go very far, though. *That probably
> means fuel in the wings. *I don't know what you do if there still is
> fuel in the wings when you disassemble the glider. *Just leave it in the
> wings?

Roger that, when some glider ports get really busy its easier and less
disruptive to operations even with my ASH-26E to take a tow than self-
launch - even if that means getting off tow and continuing under
engine power for a long self-launch.

Don't know for the jet, but most fuel bags in the wing motorgliders
are not designed to hold fuel in the bags when the wings are removed -
you need to drain the fuel before derigging.

Darryl

airshowbob[_3_]

April 25th 11, 08:59 PM

Fuel is in the wings and should be drained before derigging. The
BonusJet has overwing fuel caps, so draining is easy with a small pump
or siphon. I would think draining fuel would be a good idea before
trailering, even if the fuel was in the fuselage.

BC

On Apr 25, 11:24*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 10:13*am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4/25/2011 9:55 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 25, 7:26 am, > *wrote:
> > >> On Apr 25, 2:21 am, gotovkotzepkoi<gotovkotzepkoi.
>
> > >> > *wrote:
> > >>> This is indeed impressive. But while it may be cool to have a jet engine
> > >>> it's becoming clear that electric self launch is the future. The jet
> > >>> option is too noisy, uses too much fuel and you still have to fly around
> > >>> with a bomb at your back.
>
> > >>> --
> > >>> gotovkotzepkoi
>
> > >> It's not that black and white. *Electrics make sense if viewed as
> > >> simply self-launch but jets offer higher XC speeds to "self-retrieve"
> > >> from 120 NM away in less than an hour in addition to self-launch.
>
> > > Jets (as long as they have the endurance) also offer much more
> > > impressive capability to self-deploy. We've had some cases of SF Bay
> > > Area motorglider pilots crossing the central valley to to go soaring
> > > in the Sierras or on the Whites. But its a challenge given the slow XC
> > > performance and poor high-altitude operation of typical motorgliders
> > > (even many touring ones). Electric self launcher are a non-starter for
> > > these type missions. Or the long self retrieve mentioned already - and
> > > you are constantly fighting battery weight vs. capacity limits.
>
> > > The issue with the jets I see is the operational issue of noise and
> > > jet blast in many glider operations - OTOH operating any motorglider
> > > at many typical gliderports already has some of these issues.
>
> > > Darryl
>
> > If a towplane (or winch) is available, you could take a pattern tow,
> > then start the engine.
>
> > You need to carry a lot of fuel to go very far, though. *That probably
> > means fuel in the wings. *I don't know what you do if there still is
> > fuel in the wings when you disassemble the glider. *Just leave it in the
> > wings?
>
> Roger that, when some glider ports get really busy its easier and less
> disruptive to operations even with my ASH-26E to take a tow than self-
> launch - even if that means getting off tow and continuing under
> engine power for a long self-launch.
>
> Don't know for the jet, but most fuel bags in the wing motorgliders
> are not designed to hold fuel in the bags when the wings are removed -
> you need to drain the fuel before derigging.
>
> Darryl

Bruce Hoult

April 26th 11, 02:06 AM

On Apr 25, 8:21*pm, gotovkotzepkoi <gotovkotzepkoi.
> wrote:
> This is indeed impressive. But while it may be cool to have a jet engine
> it's becoming clear that electric self launch is the future. The jet
> option is too noisy, uses too much fuel and you still have to fly around
> with a bomb at your back.

*Anything* that stores large amounts of energy and can release it
quickly is a potential bomb.

At the moment I'd say we know more about stopping kerosine from
inadvertently catching fire or exploding than we know about stopping
Lithium batteries doing the same.

(and kerosine is noticeably better than petrol in that regard too)

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 26th 11, 02:51 AM

On 4/25/2011 6:06 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Apr 25, 8:21 pm, gotovkotzepkoi<gotovkotzepkoi.
> > wrote:
>> This is indeed impressive. But while it may be cool to have a jet engine
>> it's becoming clear that electric self launch is the future. The jet
>> option is too noisy, uses too much fuel and you still have to fly around
>> with a bomb at your back.
>
> *Anything* that stores large amounts of energy and can release it
> quickly is a potential bomb.
>
> At the moment I'd say we know more about stopping kerosine from
> inadvertently catching fire or exploding than we know about stopping
> Lithium batteries doing the same.

He might have been talking about the engine flying apart if an impeller
wheel fails. A shield to protect the fuselage might be useful; possibly,
the engine is built to contain a failed impeller.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

Mark Jardini

April 26th 11, 04:50 AM

I think a turbo prop would be ideal for smoothness and better fuel
efficiency. I don't guess a small light turbine powered prop has been
developed.

bildan

April 26th 11, 04:59 AM

On Apr 25, 9:50*pm, Mark Jardini > wrote:
> I think a turbo prop would be ideal for smoothness and better fuel
> efficiency. I don't guess a small light turbine powered prop has been
> developed.

The model airplane guys have developed working turboprop engines
though possibly not at the scale we need.

The little turbojets have many advantages starting with their
simplicity, small size and low residual weight after the fuel is
gone. Adding a prop adds complexity and weight of a gearbox while
reducing the "self-retrieval" speed.

Darryl Ramm

April 26th 11, 05:08 AM

On Apr 25, 8:50*pm, Mark Jardini > wrote:
> I think a turbo prop would be ideal for smoothness and better fuel
> efficiency. I don't guess a small light turbine powered prop has been
> developed.

Ah I don't thinks so. The gear reduction, drive and prop retract and/
or folding mechanisms and need for a belt or high mounted jet engine
are all likely horrible complications. The sorts of current
motorglider complications we want to get away from.

BTW there are small jet turboptops in use for models etc. (e.g.
http://www.jetcatusa.com/spt5.html).

Darryl

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 26th 11, 06:13 AM

On 4/25/2011 8:50 PM, Mark Jardini wrote:
> I think a turbo prop would be ideal for smoothness and better fuel
> efficiency. I don't guess a small light turbine powered prop has been
> developed.

The company that makes the turbine used on the BonusJet makes a
turboprop version.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

ContestID67[_2_]

April 26th 11, 02:57 PM

Is there any danger to the vertical stabilizer from the exhaust heat?
I asked this of the owner of the Silent jet and they said that the
skin temperatures were "within tolerances". Hmmmm.

I just worry that given enough time the heat may affect the structure
of the tail (glass? carbon fiber?) with the potential of loosing the
tail. While I might be able to live with loosing a rudder, loosing
the elevator is a whole other matter. If this was a conventional
tail, rather than a T tail, there would be an additional safety
factor. Are there other aircraft with a configuration like this? All
I can think of are private, commercial or military jets in which
engine heat is definately not directed against an airframe member.

I believe that safety dictates adding a metal heat shield formed to
the shape of the vertical stab. This would include a thin air gap
(glued on non-metallic blocks) so no heat would transfer. Pretty
simple to create and install. This wouldn't decrease the performance
of the glider to any great degree (or any at all?) as the vertical fin
is a non-lifting surface (might affect rudder performance?) - - but
would greatly increase my comfort level.

I can hear those infamous last words now, "Don't worry, we've never
had a problem." ;-)

John "My $0.02 of Safety" DeRosa

jcarlyle

April 26th 11, 03:23 PM

On Apr 26, 9:57 am, ContestID67 > wrote:
> I just worry that given enough time the heat may affect the structure
> of the tail (glass? carbon fiber?) with the potential of loosing the
> tail. While I might be able to live with loosing a rudder, loosing
> the elevator is a whole other matter.

If you were losing the tail, rudder or elavator, it'd be a problem.
Loosing it, though, it'll probably just rattle...

-John

Mark628CA

April 26th 11, 04:36 PM

The BonusJet's fuselage was post cured at the TsT factory to 200
degrees F. Data from the engine manufacturer PBS show the radiant heat
at various distances from the exhaust. Using the data, Bob determined
that an exhaust splitter would be necessary. PBS manufactured a
special exhaust that split the heat plume 6 degrees per side (12
degrees total). Subsequent testing with the engine at full throttle on
a 95 degree F day, using heat sensitive tape labels on the vertical
and horizontal surfaces showed a maximum temperature of 145 degrees F,
well below the 200 degrees that would subject the tail to deformation
and/or damage.

BTW, the poster that was concerned about a "bomb" on board undoubtedly
rides his bicycle or walks to the airfield if he is concerned about
travelling in a vehicle that actually carries (gasp) fuel on board.
Like every vehicle on the road. And the aircraft that tows him up.

Cliff Hilty[_2_]

April 26th 11, 04:42 PM

At 14:23 26 April 2011, jcarlyle wrote:
>On Apr 26, 9:57 am, ContestID67 wrote:
>> I just worry that given enough time the heat may affect the structure
>> of the tail (glass? carbon fiber?) with the potential of loosing the
>> tail. While I might be able to live with loosing a rudder, loosing
>> the elevator is a whole other matter.
>
>If you were losing the tail, rudder or elavator, it'd be a problem.
>Loosing it, though, it'll probably just rattle...
>
>-John
>

I believe that Bob has that data on his website mentioned earlier but I
remember that it reached a max of 140 degrees in testing and his glider
was post cured to past 200 so should not be a factor, also it mainly seems
to hit the tail much lower than the horisontal stab and didn't effect the
controlability at all.

In fact I enjoyed the flight soooo much that if I hit the lottery tomorrow
Id have Bob working on putting one in a New Duo disci tomorrow! I truley
felt that the reliability, power and simplicity made this a nobrainer! For
most of us, we would be taking off once in the morning and flying most of
the day landing back at night without power. This would limit the noise
factor at your local or private airport. Doing Touch and go's probably
wouldn't make friends but once a day should not be much of an issue. I
took off my headset while under full power and again at reduced power and,
from inside, its a lot less noisy than I imagined and way less than a
mooney or cessna.

Now if I could only put one in my Ventus B for less than the airplane was
worth :(

CH

Dr. John

April 26th 11, 05:22 PM

I can't wait to hear about the JS-1 turbine installation. Once again
I dream of a lottery winning that would precipitate a quick order to
Jonkers and a delivery to Bob Carlton for a Turbine upgrade. Or would
it be a Duo discus XLT without the lawn mower engine. I guess the
Bonus sailplane would be fine although I would not consider it my
dream ship. Having the TBO raised from 300 hours to 2000 hours
really gives strength to the quality and capability of these turbine
engines. I wonder what the risk of a engine bird strike might be?
Since I have yet to hit any bids, it is probably pretty low. Congrats
Bob on being a trailblazer in a time of economic depression with a
weak currency. I wonder if there has been any interest from over
seas. Cheap dollars make our products a deal in Europe. I guess my
only hope now is that Bob sells a bunch of Turbines which might make
them available on the used market in 20 years at price my wife might
think is not completely insane. Something about a toy airplane
costing more than our house sours the discussion of my dream ships.
John Ackerson

Tim Mara

April 26th 11, 06:17 PM

why wait .....the 304S Jet is being built and delivered now with a proven
turbine sustainer. HpH is well ahead of the game now years ago went through
the testing similar smaller turbine engines that most other manufacturers
are just now testing only to move on...there's one here now and will very
soon be (in the next 30-60 days) be two more 304S Jets flying in the US
alone ...there are now something around 25 304S sailplanes sold.
tim

"Dr. John" > wrote in message
...
>I can't wait to hear about the JS-1 turbine installation. Once again
> I dream of a lottery winning that would precipitate a quick order to
> Jonkers and a delivery to Bob Carlton for a Turbine upgrade. Or would
> it be a Duo discus XLT without the lawn mower engine. I guess the
> Bonus sailplane would be fine although I would not consider it my
> dream ship. Having the TBO raised from 300 hours to 2000 hours
> really gives strength to the quality and capability of these turbine
> engines. I wonder what the risk of a engine bird strike might be?
> Since I have yet to hit any bids, it is probably pretty low. Congrats
> Bob on being a trailblazer in a time of economic depression with a
> weak currency. I wonder if there has been any interest from over
> seas. Cheap dollars make our products a deal in Europe. I guess my
> only hope now is that Bob sells a bunch of Turbines which might make
> them available on the used market in 20 years at price my wife might
> think is not completely insane. Something about a toy airplane
> costing more than our house sours the discussion of my dream ships.
> John Ackerson
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 6072 (20110426) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6072 (20110426) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Andy[_1_]

April 26th 11, 07:52 PM

On Apr 26, 10:17*am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> why wait .....the 304S Jet is being built and delivered now with a proven
> turbine sustainer.

Why wait - Because people that want self launch capability have no
interest is sustainers.

Andy

Tim Mara

April 26th 11, 10:41 PM

that's not at all true, the vast majority of powered gliders have
sustainers, many say they want a self launcher but not many can afford one
(there is a self launch 304 also) and few want to have to deal with the
added maintenance, extra weight and complications,Then too, waiting for a
JS1 probably isn't going to do them much good either if waiting for a self
launcher, everything I've seen says the JS1 is a sustainer Jet also, not
intended for self launch
tim

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 10:17 am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> why wait .....the 304S Jet is being built and delivered now with a proven
> turbine sustainer.

Why wait - Because people that want self launch capability have no
interest is sustainers.

Andy

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6073 (20110426) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6073 (20110426) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Andy[_1_]

April 27th 11, 12:16 AM

On Apr 26, 2:41*pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> *that's not at all true, the vast majority of powered gliders have
> sustainers, many say they want a self launcher but not many can afford one
> (there is a self launch 304 also) and few want to have to deal with the
> added maintenance, extra weight and complications,Then too, *waiting for a
> JS1 probably isn't going to do them much good either if waiting for a self
> launcher, everything I've seen says the JS1 is a sustainer Jet also, not
> intended for self launch

I don't think that the fact that the majority of powered giders are
sustainers has any bearing on the fact that people who want self
launch will not be satisfied with a sustainer.

There are perhaps many factors that make sustainers more common that
self launch. One obvious one is cost. Another, perhaps less obvious
to US residents, is that in other parts of the world a glider rating
is sufficient to fly a glider with a sustainer but is not sufficient
to fly self launch. Pilots will not buy an aircraft they are not
qualified to fly.

I'm only one pilot, and only one potential customer, but if I buy a
motorized glider I want self launch not a sustainer. Self launch
gives me the ability to fly from many airport that have no tow plane
availability. A sustainer only eliminates the inconvenience of a
retrieve.

I still think my statement was true.

Andy

Dr. John

April 27th 11, 12:28 AM

I guess most of us glider pilots have a flying bug/genetic defect
that propels us to want to fly above the earth. Most of us also have
had the desire to fly jet fighters at one point or another. I guess
that is one reason I love sailplanes, it feels kind of like a jet
fighter. I'm sure Jonkers will have a perfect jet sustainer option
someday for those that want a sustainer. I think the 304-Shark is an
excellent jet sustainer if it is only a sustainer you are looking for
and you want it right now. I sat in the jet 304 at the convention
last year and it was really really nice. I even got a tingle in my
leg! I could taste the future possibility!
Many of us were not worthy enough for the military jet program due
to bad eyes or being too tall or both. Yes, I am tall and half blind
but I can fly quite well. Bob Carlton has given us military castoffs
a small window of opportunity to fly our own jet and experience the
dream. Bob Carltons turbine engine upgrade makes your sailplane dual
purpose, a self launch sailplane, but it also becomes a jet airplane
on those very blue, windless days where you just want to go fly
somewhere and have fun. From what I have heard, EASA has made
certification of jet sustainers much easier and cheaper than a self
launch jet sailplane. Manufactures following EASA regs have little
incentive to build a jet self launch at this time, or so I have
heard. That is where Bob Carltons turbine upgrade comes in!!! All
I have to do now is save the $3000 to get my turbine sailplane
endorsement from Bob Carltons certification program. Then, I would win
the lottery to by my own Bonus jet sailplane or a JS-1/Duo Discus
upgraded . In the mean time, I should travel to New Mexico and get
checked out in Bobs Bonus Jet and get my jet sailplane endorsement and
check off one more item on my BUCKET LIST!
John Ackerson

Andy[_1_]

April 27th 11, 01:20 AM

On Apr 26, 4:28*pm, "Dr. John" > wrote:
> * *I guess most of us glider pilots have a *flying bug/genetic defect
> that propels us to want to fly above the earth. *Most of us also have
> had the desire to fly jet fighters at one point or another. *I guess
> that is one reason I love sailplanes, *it feels kind of like a jet
> fighter. * I'm sure Jonkers will have a perfect jet sustainer option
> someday for those that want a sustainer. I think the 304-Shark is an
> excellent jet sustainer if it is only a sustainer you are looking for
> and you want it right now. *I sat in the jet 304 at the convention
> last year and it was really really nice. I even got a tingle in my
> leg! *I could taste the future possibility!
> * * Many of us were not worthy enough for the military jet program due
> to bad eyes or being too tall or both. Yes, I am tall and half blind
> but I can fly quite well. *Bob Carlton has given us military castoffs
> a small window of opportunity to fly our own jet and experience the
> dream. *Bob Carltons turbine engine upgrade makes your sailplane dual
> purpose, a self launch sailplane, but it also becomes a jet airplane
> on those very blue, windless days where you just want to go fly
> somewhere and have fun. * *From what I have heard, EASA has made
> certification of jet sustainers much easier and cheaper than a self
> launch jet sailplane. *Manufactures following EASA regs have little
> incentive to build a jet self launch at this time, or so I have
> heard. *That is where Bob Carltons turbine upgrade comes in!!! * * All
> I have to do now is save the $3000 to get my turbine sailplane
> endorsement from Bob Carltons certification program. Then, I would win
> the lottery to by my own Bonus jet sailplane or a JS-1/Duo Discus
> upgraded . *In the mean time, I should travel to New Mexico and get
> checked out in Bobs Bonus Jet and get my jet sailplane endorsement and
> check off one more item on my BUCKET LIST!
> John Ackerson

John,

I logged my time in the Bonus Jet as glider pilot in command as I am
"grandfathered" to act as pilot in command of motor gliders. Since you
raised the issue of special training I checked how the Bonus Jet is
registered. There were two surprises:

1. The aircraft is registered as Type - Fixed Wing Single-Engine (Not
glider)
2. Type Engine is specified as Reciprocating.

Looks like I need to change my log entry since I'm also qualified to
fly fixed wing aircraft with one or more reciprocating engines.

Also noted the experimental category is racing, with no mention of
exhibition or development which also seems strange.

Anyone else confused??

Andy

Ron Gleason

April 27th 11, 04:56 AM

On Apr 26, 10:22*am, "Dr. John" > wrote:
> I can't wait to hear about the JS-1 turbine installation. *Once again
> I dream of a lottery winning that would precipitate a quick order to
> Jonkers and a delivery to Bob Carlton for a Turbine upgrade. *Or would
> it be a Duo discus XLT without the lawn mower engine. * I guess the
> Bonus sailplane would be fine although I would not consider it my
> dream ship. * Having the TBO raised from 300 hours to 2000 hours
> really gives strength to the quality and capability of these turbine
> engines. *I wonder what the risk of a engine bird strike might be?
> Since I have yet to hit any bids, it is probably pretty low. Congrats
> Bob on being a trailblazer in a time of economic depression with a
> weak currency. *I wonder if there has been any interest from over
> seas. *Cheap dollars make our products a deal in Europe. *I guess my
> only hope now is that Bob sells a bunch of Turbines which might make
> them available on the used market in 20 years at price my wife might
> think is not completely insane. *Something about a toy airplane
> costing more than our house sours the discussion of my dream ships.
> John Ackerson

John the answer is simple: Buy a more expensive house!

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 27th 11, 02:50 PM

On 4/26/2011 7:31 PM, gotovkotzepkoi wrote:
> Mark628CA;770355 Wrote:
>> The BonusJet's fuselage was post cured at the TsT factory to 200
>> degrees F. Data from the engine manufacturer PBS show the radiant heat
>> at various distances from the exhaust. Using the data, Bob determined
>> that an exhaust splitter would be necessary. PBS manufactured a
>> special exhaust that split the heat plume 6 degrees per side (12
>> degrees total). Subsequent testing with the engine at full throttle on
>> a 95 degree F day, using heat sensitive tape labels on the vertical
>> and horizontal surfaces showed a maximum temperature of 145 degrees F,
>> well below the 200 degrees that would subject the tail to deformation
>> and/or damage.
>>
>> BTW, the poster that was concerned about a "bomb" on board undoubtedly
>> rides his bicycle or walks to the airfield if he is concerned about
>> travelling in a vehicle that actually carries (gasp) fuel on board.
>> Like every vehicle on the road. And the aircraft that tows him up.
>
> How did you guess? Actually, I do ride my bike to the airfield. Prior to
> sitting in the coffin like glider cockpit I need to get some exercise!

I'm aware of very few fuel related accidents in self-launched
sailplanes. The only one that I can recall right now was in Australia,
on the ground, with the likely cause that a fuel line was torn loose
during the engine extension. I can recall a couple canopy caused fires,
suggesting canopies may be a greater risk :^)

A jet powered self-launcher will surely carry much more fuel than the
equivalent two or four stroke engine powered self-launcher, but it's not
clear this makes it more dangerous. Owners will have to handle greater
quantities of fuel, perhaps increasing risk, but the fuel is less
volatile than gasoline, decreasing risk; however, the ignition
temperature is lower, increasing risk; and so on.

Based on our experience with automobiles fueled with diesel, and
kerosene's widespread use as a heating fuel in rural areas, I don't
think the fuel handling risk is a significant problem. Gasoline hasn't
significantly increased the accident risk in current two and four stroke
powered gliders. Overall, the promise of jet power is more reliable and
simpler operation leading to fewer accidents.

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

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

airshowbob[_3_]

April 27th 11, 03:19 PM

Interesting that FAA registration shows fixed wing, recip engine and
racing (only). The airworthiness certificate says Glider, exhibition
& racing. The operating limitations specifically address the turbine
engine. My guess is whoever typed it in just couldn't fathom the idea
of turbine engine and glider on the same form. I'd say the FAA is
confused...imagine...Thanks for pointing it out, Andy. I'll see about
getting the FAA records corrected.

As for logging PIC time, because my BonusJet has been approved for
training for hire under a Letter Of Deviation Authority or LODA
(91.319h, for those who like to look up interesting regs), I agreed to
an operating limitation requiring an LOA to be PIC. So, technically,
you can't be PIC of this particular aircraft without the specific
rating. Not so with my Salto or with my twin jet Silent (also didn't
require a multi-engine rating).

BTW, the jet Silent was de-engined and sold as a non-powered glider
last year.

BC

On Apr 26, 6:20*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Apr 26, 4:28*pm, "Dr. John" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > * *I guess most of us glider pilots have a *flying bug/genetic defect
> > that propels us to want to fly above the earth. *Most of us also have
> > had the desire to fly jet fighters at one point or another. *I guess
> > that is one reason I love sailplanes, *it feels kind of like a jet
> > fighter. * I'm sure Jonkers will have a perfect jet sustainer option
> > someday for those that want a sustainer. I think the 304-Shark is an
> > excellent jet sustainer if it is only a sustainer you are looking for
> > and you want it right now. *I sat in the jet 304 at the convention
> > last year and it was really really nice. I even got a tingle in my
> > leg! *I could taste the future possibility!
> > * * Many of us were not worthy enough for the military jet program due
> > to bad eyes or being too tall or both. Yes, I am tall and half blind
> > but I can fly quite well. *Bob Carlton has given us military castoffs
> > a small window of opportunity to fly our own jet and experience the
> > dream. *Bob Carltons turbine engine upgrade makes your sailplane dual
> > purpose, a self launch sailplane, but it also becomes a jet airplane
> > on those very blue, windless days where you just want to go fly
> > somewhere and have fun. * *From what I have heard, EASA has made
> > certification of jet sustainers much easier and cheaper than a self
> > launch jet sailplane. *Manufactures following EASA regs have little
> > incentive to build a jet self launch at this time, or so I have
> > heard. *That is where Bob Carltons turbine upgrade comes in!!! * * All
> > I have to do now is save the $3000 to get my turbine sailplane
> > endorsement from Bob Carltons certification program. Then, I would win
> > the lottery to by my own Bonus jet sailplane or a JS-1/Duo Discus
> > upgraded . *In the mean time, I should travel to New Mexico and get
> > checked out in Bobs Bonus Jet and get my jet sailplane endorsement and
> > check off one more item on my BUCKET LIST!
> > John Ackerson
>
> John,
>
> I logged my time in the Bonus Jet as glider pilot in command as I am
> "grandfathered" to act as pilot in command of motor gliders. Since you
> raised the issue of special training I checked how the Bonus Jet is
> registered. There were two surprises:
>
> 1. The aircraft is registered as Type - Fixed Wing Single-Engine (Not
> glider)
> 2. Type Engine is specified as Reciprocating.
>
> Looks like I need to change my log entry since I'm also qualified to
> fly fixed wing aircraft with one or more reciprocating engines.
>
> Also noted the experimental category is racing, with no mention of
> exhibition or development which also seems strange.
>
> Anyone else confused??
>
> Andy

airshowbob[_3_]

April 27th 11, 03:39 PM

It is true that in Europe (where the vast majority of gliders are
sold), there are more sustainers than self-launchers being sold. Two
reasons - there are many winch launch operations where an inexpensive
winch launch, followed by a sustainer search for lift makes sense.
Also, the EASA requirements for sustainers are far less stringent than
for self-launchers (no takeoff distance or noise requirements).
Neither of these is true of the US market.

Jonker is well along on a sustainer jet (I have very little
information on the engine other than it is a European manufacturer).
I have provided them with a design for the TJ-100 engine and retract
mechanism that will fit the JS-1 fuselage. Still very preliminary,
but there is interest in the idea. Performance would be unbelievable!

I've visited the HpH factory a couple of times. I wish Jaroslav and
the guys at HpH all the best with their latest jet engine. They are
great guys and their craftsmanship is the best in the industry. The
304S is a beautiful ship.

BC

ContestID67[_2_]

April 27th 11, 05:36 PM

On Apr 26, 10:42*am, Cliff Hilty
> wrote:
> At 14:23 26 April 2011, jcarlyle wrote:
>
> >On Apr 26, 9:57 am, ContestID67 *wrote:
> >> I just worry that given enough time the heat may affect the structure
> >> of the tail (glass? carbon fiber?) with the potential of loosing the
> >> tail. *While I might be able to live with loosing a rudder, loosing
> >> the elevator is a whole other matter.
>
> >If you were losing the tail, rudder or elavator, it'd be a problem.
> >Loosing it, though, it'll probably just rattle...
>
> >-John
>
> I believe that Bob has that data on his website mentioned earlier but I
> remember that it reached a max of 140 degrees in testing and his glider
> was post cured to past 200 so should not be a factor, also it mainly seems
> to hit the tail much lower than the horisontal stab and didn't effect the
> controlability at all.
>
> CH

I understand what you are saying about the post curing being higher
than the max temperature during flight. My contention is that a one
off 200 degree cure temperature is distinctly different than the long
term reoccurring 140 degree ambient temperatures on the vertical fin
from jet exhaust over the 30+ year lifespan of the glider. A very
simplistic example are the corregated fiberglass panels often used for
carport roofs. Right out of the factory they are very strong. But
put them in the sun for several years and they become quite brittle.
Ask me how I know. I know that UV is different than infrared heat but
the degredation concept is applicable. I just would really hate to
read in a few years about a glider's tail coming off during flight due
to the long term degredation of the glass/fiber from jet exhaust
heat.

About the controlability - my question was about adding a heat shield
on the vertical fine (with gap) might affect the rudder
effectiveness. Sure seems like simple safety fix for a potentially
deadly problem.

Maybe I am all wet on this. But hey, this is EXPERIMENTAL! Life on
the thin red line!

As always, my $0.02. - John "Mr Conservative" DeRosa

Westbender

April 27th 11, 05:42 PM

On Apr 26, 8:57*am, ContestID67 > wrote:
> Is there any danger to the vertical stabilizer from the exhaust heat?
> I asked this of the owner of the Silent jet and they said that the
> skin temperatures were "within tolerances". *Hmmmm.
>

Why can't the engine be situated where it extends out the side of the
fuselage instead of the top? Angle it slightly so the thrust angles
away from the vertical stab. Is that too far outside the "box"?

Andy[_1_]

April 27th 11, 06:40 PM

On Apr 27, 7:19*am, airshowbob > wrote:
> Interesting that FAA registration shows fixed wing, recip engine and
> racing (only). *The airworthiness certificate says Glider, exhibition
> & racing. *The operating limitations specifically address the turbine
> engine. *My guess is whoever typed it in just couldn't fathom the idea
> of turbine engine and glider on the same form. *I'd say the FAA is
> confused...imagine...Thanks for pointing it out, Andy. *I'll see about
> getting the FAA records corrected.
>
> As for logging PIC time, because my BonusJet has been approved for
> training for hire under a Letter Of Deviation Authority or LODA
> (91.319h, for those who like to look up interesting regs), I agreed to
> an operating limitation requiring an LOA to be PIC. *So, technically,
> you can't be PIC of this particular aircraft without the specific
> rating. *Not so with my Salto or with my twin jet Silent (also didn't
> require a multi-engine rating).
>
> BTW, the jet Silent was de-engined and sold as a non-powered glider
> last year.
>
> BC
>
> On Apr 26, 6:20*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 4:28*pm, "Dr. John" > wrote:
>
> > > * *I guess most of us glider pilots have a *flying bug/genetic defect
> > > that propels us to want to fly above the earth. *Most of us also have
> > > had the desire to fly jet fighters at one point or another. *I guess
> > > that is one reason I love sailplanes, *it feels kind of like a jet
> > > fighter. * I'm sure Jonkers will have a perfect jet sustainer option
> > > someday for those that want a sustainer. I think the 304-Shark is an
> > > excellent jet sustainer if it is only a sustainer you are looking for
> > > and you want it right now. *I sat in the jet 304 at the convention
> > > last year and it was really really nice. I even got a tingle in my
> > > leg! *I could taste the future possibility!
> > > * * Many of us were not worthy enough for the military jet program due
> > > to bad eyes or being too tall or both. Yes, I am tall and half blind
> > > but I can fly quite well. *Bob Carlton has given us military castoffs
> > > a small window of opportunity to fly our own jet and experience the
> > > dream. *Bob Carltons turbine engine upgrade makes your sailplane dual
> > > purpose, a self launch sailplane, but it also becomes a jet airplane
> > > on those very blue, windless days where you just want to go fly
> > > somewhere and have fun. * *From what I have heard, EASA has made
> > > certification of jet sustainers much easier and cheaper than a self
> > > launch jet sailplane. *Manufactures following EASA regs have little
> > > incentive to build a jet self launch at this time, or so I have
> > > heard. *That is where Bob Carltons turbine upgrade comes in!!! * * All
> > > I have to do now is save the $3000 to get my turbine sailplane
> > > endorsement from Bob Carltons certification program. Then, I would win
> > > the lottery to by my own Bonus jet sailplane or a JS-1/Duo Discus
> > > upgraded . *In the mean time, I should travel to New Mexico and get
> > > checked out in Bobs Bonus Jet and get my jet sailplane endorsement and
> > > check off one more item on my BUCKET LIST!
> > > John Ackerson
>
> > John,
>
> > I logged my time in the Bonus Jet as glider pilot in command as I am
> > "grandfathered" to act as pilot in command of motor gliders. Since you
> > raised the issue of special training I checked how the Bonus Jet is
> > registered. There were two surprises:
>
> > 1. The aircraft is registered as Type - Fixed Wing Single-Engine (Not
> > glider)
> > 2. Type Engine is specified as Reciprocating.
>
> > Looks like I need to change my log entry since I'm also qualified to
> > fly fixed wing aircraft with one or more reciprocating engines.
>
> > Also noted the experimental category is racing, with no mention of
> > exhibition or development which also seems strange.
>
> > Anyone else confused??
>
> > Andy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not trying to be difficult, but I'd like to understand this better as
it may have a direct influence on whether turbo jet self launchers
will be viable in USA.

First of all, surely the LODA related to training for hire is required
because the aircraft is Experimental. Wouldn't it be required even if
there was no power plant?

Second if the aircraft is really registered as a glider there is no
requirement under Part 61 for a type rating or any special training,
other than an endorsement to fly self lunch if not grandfathered. Why
does any LOA you have negotiated with FAA, as part of your training
deviation, impact other pilots who are not parties to that training
agreement? Is the LOA restriction on PIC a condition of the aircraft
airworthiness certification rather than a condition of training for
hire?

What special training is required and what rating or endorsement is
issued when that training is completed?

Still dreaming of that jet powered JS-1.

thanks

Andy

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 27th 11, 06:51 PM

On 4/27/2011 9:36 AM, ContestID67 wrote:
> On Apr 26, 10:42 am, Cliff Hilty
> > wrote:
>> At 14:23 26 April 2011, jcarlyle wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 26, 9:57 am, ContestID67 wrote:
>>>> I just worry that given enough time the heat may affect the structure
>>>> of the tail (glass? carbon fiber?) with the potential of loosing the
>>>> tail. While I might be able to live with loosing a rudder, loosing
>>>> the elevator is a whole other matter.
>>
>>> If you were losing the tail, rudder or elavator, it'd be a problem.
>>> Loosing it, though, it'll probably just rattle...
>>
>>> -John
>>
>> I believe that Bob has that data on his website mentioned earlier but I
>> remember that it reached a max of 140 degrees in testing and his glider
>> was post cured to past 200 so should not be a factor, also it mainly seems
>> to hit the tail much lower than the horisontal stab and didn't effect the
>> controlability at all.
>>
>> CH
>
> I understand what you are saying about the post curing being higher
> than the max temperature during flight. My contention is that a one
> off 200 degree cure temperature is distinctly different than the long
> term reoccurring 140 degree ambient temperatures on the vertical fin
> from jet exhaust over the 30+ year lifespan of the glider. A very
> simplistic example are the corregated fiberglass panels often used for
> carport roofs. Right out of the factory they are very strong. But
> put them in the sun for several years and they become quite brittle.
> Ask me how I know. I know that UV is different than infrared heat but
> the degredation concept is applicable. I just would really hate to
> read in a few years about a glider's tail coming off during flight due
> to the long term degredation of the glass/fiber from jet exhaust
> heat.
>
> About the controlability - my question was about adding a heat shield
> on the vertical fine (with gap) might affect the rudder
> effectiveness. Sure seems like simple safety fix for a potentially
> deadly problem.
>
> Maybe I am all wet on this. But hey, this is EXPERIMENTAL! Life on
> the thin red line!

Your comparison of UV damage to low temperature damage is seriously
flawed, as the mechanisms are very different.

Where is your documentation that epoxy resin cured to 200 deg F exposed
to 145 deg F for 10 hours, intermittently, a year for 30 years will
degrade? Would you believe this exposure will make the resin STRONGER
over time, instead of weaker, which is my understanding?

Time for a chemist to speak up!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" 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

Tim Mara

April 27th 11, 07:54 PM

Most gliders are flown from active clubs and commercial operations where an
aero tow or ground launch is available. Self launching takes away from
supporting clubs and commercial operations and even so no one will ever make
up for the added cost of a self launch system itself or the simple cost of
maintaining and operating the self launch power plant regardless of it's
type.
I prefer like many to see clubs and commercial operators continue to
succeed, they are all part of our social network, they need us and we need
them to succeed as well..
Sustainers are most popular since they do allow pilots to go somewhere that
"might" and "might not" be working since they are pretty sure if it's not
working they can still get back home.....which is a drawback in itself, it
changes the way we approach soaring, just because you didn't start the
engine doesn't mean that you couldn't....But they can reduce the landouts
and for this they have gained popularity.
The Jet is still by far the best sustainer option, as in the 304S the Jet
engine actually has less drag than the down landing gear, the jet engine
doesn't require compression release, priming, choking, diving to start and
doesn't produce the huge amount of drag of any propeller driven system.
essentially, if you're still above the ground with the Jet you can continue
on your way and climb or cruise for nearly an hour ....nothing else has all
these added bonus points.
Also, as heating the tail seems to be on everyone's worry list the Jet
exhaust is actually very high speed air (lots of air) moving at high speed
while in cruise flight so temperatures are not much worse than the heat
coming off that infernal combustion engine...a Self Launch Jet however will
have plenty of heat early on, sitting on the pad, and running up to get the
initial thrust and movement needed for launch....
The 304S Jet was not an overnight add-on, this has gone through many years
of testing and developing to the point it's at today, you will see jet
sustainers from other manufacturers, guaranteed! but most of them are still
in the learning stages and many are just not attempting Jet tests today that
HpH did already years ago..
tim

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 2:41 pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> that's not at all true, the vast majority of powered gliders have
> sustainers, many say they want a self launcher but not many can afford one
> (there is a self launch 304 also) and few want to have to deal with the
> added maintenance, extra weight and complications,Then too, waiting for a
> JS1 probably isn't going to do them much good either if waiting for a self
> launcher, everything I've seen says the JS1 is a sustainer Jet also, not
> intended for self launch

I don't think that the fact that the majority of powered giders are
sustainers has any bearing on the fact that people who want self
launch will not be satisfied with a sustainer.

There are perhaps many factors that make sustainers more common that
self launch. One obvious one is cost. Another, perhaps less obvious
to US residents, is that in other parts of the world a glider rating
is sufficient to fly a glider with a sustainer but is not sufficient
to fly self launch. Pilots will not buy an aircraft they are not
qualified to fly.

I'm only one pilot, and only one potential customer, but if I buy a
motorized glider I want self launch not a sustainer. Self launch
gives me the ability to fly from many airport that have no tow plane
availability. A sustainer only eliminates the inconvenience of a
retrieve.

I still think my statement was true.

Andy

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6076 (20110427) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6076 (20110427) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 27th 11, 10:11 PM

On 4/27/2011 11:54 AM, Tim Mara wrote:
> Most gliders are flown from active clubs and commercial operations where an
> aero tow or ground launch is available. Self launching takes away from
> supporting clubs and commercial operations

Not necessarily so. I know a lot self-launchers (SLers) that continue to
fly at and support their club, including towing (then self-launching
when everyone is in the air), and serving as club officers. Some SLers
would not even be in the sport if they had to use a tow operation
because of the long drive to or limited hours of the operation.

And, of course, the SLers are supporting the glider dealers by buying an
expensive glider, and supporting people like you and Paul by buying a
lot of goodies - you rarely see a motorglider that isn't "fully loaded".

> and even so no one will ever make
> up for the added cost of a self launch system itself or the simple cost of
> maintaining and operating the self launch power plant regardless of it's
> type.

This both irrelevant and untrue.

It's irrelevant because it's a hobby, it's a sport, it's not a savings
plan. You could say nobody ever makes up the cost of a new 304S compared
to owning and flying a 1-26, so you're nutty to buy one! Whether it has
a motor or not, you can always find something cheaper to do.

It's untrue because it is possible to _operate_ a self-launcher more
cheaply than a similar glider taking tows. I've owned my ASH 26 E for 15
seasons, averaging 50 flights a year. At a current price of $40/tow,
that's $30,000! I've spent less than $10,000 operating and maintaining
it. What tips the scale the other way is the additional cost of the
motor and the insurance due to that extra hull value.

Someone that can fly from near their home instead trekking a couple
hundred miles to the gliderport, saving on driving time and gas, motels,
meals, plus retrieves, might actually make up even the added expense of
buying and owning the motor.

> I prefer like many to see clubs and commercial operators continue to
> succeed, they are all part of our social network, they need us and we need
> them to succeed as well..

And that is why most SLers cluster around these places.

> Sustainers are most popular since they do allow pilots to go somewhere that
> "might" and "might not" be working since they are pretty sure if it's not
> working they can still get back home.....which is a drawback in itself, it
> changes the way we approach soaring,

It is ABSOLUTELY NOT A DRAWBACK! It's feature, and one that many people
find extremely valuable. Hell, yes, it changes the way you approach
soaring - that's the WHOLE point of it! You can also say a Nimbus 4
changes the way you approach soaring if you are a 1-26 pilot (and vice
versa). Do you want to argue that the Nimbus 4 and the 1-26 are "drawbacks"?

> just because you didn't start the
> engine doesn't mean that you couldn't....But they can reduce the landouts
> and for this they have gained popularity.

It's more than that - it allows you to explore instead of flying so
cautiously you don't attempt anything new; it allows you to fly on days
the towed gliders sit on the ground because things are too uncertain; it
allows you learn what you and the weather can do faster and more easily.
It's not just about "avoiding landouts", just as a self-launcher isn't
just about "avoiding tows".

> The Jet is still by far the best sustainer option, as in the 304S the Jet
> engine actually has less drag than the down landing gear, the jet engine
> doesn't require compression release, priming, choking, diving to start and
> doesn't produce the huge amount of drag of any propeller driven system.
> essentially, if you're still above the ground with the Jet you can continue
> on your way and climb or cruise for nearly an hour ....nothing else has all
> these added bonus points.

Now you're making sense!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" 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

bildan

April 27th 11, 11:37 PM

On Apr 27, 8:39*am, airshowbob > wrote:
> It is true that in Europe (where the vast majority of gliders are
> sold), there are more sustainers than self-launchers being sold. *Two
> reasons - there are many winch launch operations where an inexpensive
> winch launch, followed by a sustainer search for lift makes sense.

Makes just as much sense in the US.

Andy[_1_]

April 28th 11, 01:56 PM

On Apr 27, 3:37*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Apr 27, 8:39*am, airshowbob > wrote:
>
> > It is true that in Europe (where the vast majority of gliders are
> > sold), there are more sustainers than self-launchers being sold. *Two
> > reasons - there are many winch launch operations where an inexpensive
> > winch launch, followed by a sustainer search for lift makes sense.
>
> Makes just as much sense in the US.

Show me a map of USA with all the winch launch sites I can launch the
sustainer I won't be buying. Then look at a similar map of Europe and
UK.

Then forget about restricting the map to winch sites and include
anywhere I can get a launch.

Then please explain how it makes as much sense in US.

Andy

airshowbob[_3_]

April 28th 11, 02:23 PM

Reply to Andy, re: Training, LODA, LOA and endorsements

> Not trying to be difficult, but I'd like to understand this better as
> it may have a direct influence on whether turbo jet self launchers
> will be viable in USA.
>
> First of all, surely the LODA related to training for hire is required
> because the aircraft is Experimental.

You are correct. The LODA is required to allow training for hire in
an experimental aircraft. To paraphrase the guidelines, FAA
recognizes that there are certain unique aircraft for which training
should be allowed, but no certified equivalent is available. They
also recognize that training should be compensated. So they allow it
on a case-by-case basis. The document is called a Letter Of Deviation
Authority (LODA). I have this document for N3JJ.

>Wouldn't it be required even if
> there was no power plant?

Since certified non-powered equivalent sailplanes are available for
training, I doubt FAA would give a LODA for a non-powered sailplane
unless it had some other really unique characteristics.

> Second if the aircraft is really registered as a glider there is no
> requirement under Part 61 for a type rating or any special training,
> other than an endorsement to fly self lunch if not grandfathered. *Why
> does any LOA you have negotiated with FAA, as part of your training
> deviation, impact other pilots who are not parties to that training
> agreement? *Is the LOA restriction on PIC a condition of the aircraft
> airworthiness certification rather than a condition of training for
> hire?

You are correct, there are currently no regulatory requirements for
type rating for turbine gliders. Since the LODA training process is
unique to each aircraft, the issuance is a bit of a negotiation
process. FAA was concerned about 'buddy' training, whereby we do a
'wink & nod' training program for our friends (all too common in
certain circles of aviation). So, as part of the negotiation for the
LODA privilege, I accepted inclusion of an LOA requirement in the
BonusJet's operating limitations. Thus, it is binding on anyone who
flies the BonusJet. This also provides some CYA to FAA by showing
documented training (with an FAA-approved training syllabus) for both
student & instructor. We may re-negotiate this in the future.

> What special training is required and what rating or endorsement is
> issued when that training is completed?

Our training program has been reviewed and approved by FAA. Two of us
(me & Bill Hill) are approved to give the training. After completion
of the training program, and a brief checkride (currently provided by
one of the guys at our FSDO), you will be issued a new pilot
certificate with the BonusJet listed. This also counts as a BFR under
61.56d.

> Still dreaming of that jet powered JS-1.

I might add that our training program has also been approved by our
insurance carrier, to include transition to other jet motorgliders.
So, if you get something else, our training should suffice to get
insurance coverage.

Basically, we are still in the early stages of an entirely new
aircraft type. While I'll be the first to fight FAA over-control, I
also understand that we are being closely scrutinized by everyone
(FAA, insurance, sailplane community). Greg Poe (airshow pilot who
flies an ethanol powered MX2) stated it best. "Everyone is watching
us. If I blow a tire, it will get blamed on ethanol". If any jet
sailplane has an accident, the rumor mill (and other manufacturers,
insurance companies and FAA) will immediately jump to the conclusion
that the jet engine caused it. Until jets become more 'normal', we
have to be extremely cautious. If this 'temporarily' includes some
extra dialogue with FAA, so be it.

BC

Andy[_1_]

April 28th 11, 05:02 PM

On Apr 28, 6:23*am, airshowbob > wrote:
> Reply to Andy, re: Training, LODA, LOA and endorsements
>
> > Not trying to be difficult, but I'd like to understand this better as
> > it may have a direct influence on whether turbo jet self launchers
> > will be viable in USA.
>
> > First of all, surely the LODA related to training for hire is required
> > because the aircraft is Experimental.
>
> You are correct. *The LODA is required to allow training for hire in
> an experimental aircraft. *To paraphrase the guidelines, FAA
> recognizes that there are certain unique aircraft for which training
> should be allowed, but no certified equivalent is available. *They
> also recognize that training should be compensated. *So they allow it
> on a case-by-case basis. *The document is called a Letter Of Deviation
> Authority (LODA). *I have this document for N3JJ.
>
> >Wouldn't it be required even if
> > there was no power plant?
>
> Since certified non-powered equivalent sailplanes are available for
> training, I doubt FAA would give a LODA for a non-powered sailplane
> unless it had some other really unique characteristics.
>
> > Second if the aircraft is really registered as a glider there is no
> > requirement under Part 61 for a type rating or any special training,
> > other than an endorsement to fly self lunch if not grandfathered. *Why
> > does any LOA you have negotiated with FAA, as part of your training
> > deviation, impact other pilots who are not parties to that training
> > agreement? *Is the LOA restriction on PIC a condition of the aircraft
> > airworthiness certification rather than a condition of training for
> > hire?
>
> You are correct, there are currently no regulatory requirements for
> type rating for turbine gliders. *Since the LODA training process is
> unique to each aircraft, the issuance is a bit of a negotiation
> process. *FAA was concerned about 'buddy' training, whereby we do a
> 'wink & nod' training program for our friends (all too common in
> certain circles of aviation). *So, as part of the negotiation for the
> LODA privilege, I accepted inclusion of an LOA requirement in the
> BonusJet's operating limitations. *Thus, it is binding on anyone who
> flies the BonusJet. *This also provides some CYA to FAA by showing
> documented training (with an FAA-approved training syllabus) for both
> student & instructor. *We may re-negotiate this in the future.
>
> > What special training is required and what rating or endorsement is
> > issued when that training is completed?
>
> Our training program has been reviewed and approved by FAA. *Two of us
> (me & Bill Hill) are approved to give the training. *After completion
> of the training program, and a brief checkride (currently provided by
> one of the guys at our FSDO), you will be issued a new pilot
> certificate with the BonusJet listed. *This also counts as a BFR under
> 61.56d.
>
> > Still dreaming of that jet powered JS-1.
>
> I might add that our training program has also been approved by our
> insurance carrier, to include transition to other jet motorgliders.
> So, if you get something else, our training should suffice to get
> insurance coverage.
>
> Basically, we are still in the early stages of an entirely new
> aircraft type. *While I'll be the first to fight FAA over-control, I
> also understand that we are being closely scrutinized by everyone
> (FAA, insurance, sailplane community). *Greg Poe (airshow pilot who
> flies an ethanol powered MX2) stated it best. *"Everyone is watching
> us. *If I blow a tire, it will get blamed on ethanol". *If any jet
> sailplane has an accident, the rumor mill (and other manufacturers,
> insurance companies and FAA) will immediately jump to the conclusion
> that the jet engine caused it. *Until jets become more 'normal', we
> have to be extremely cautious. *If this 'temporarily' includes some
> extra dialogue with FAA, so be it.
>
> BC

Thanks Bob for taking the time for the detailed reply. What bothers
me most about this is that the airworthiness certificate for an new
experimental jet powered glider will be issued by the pilot's local
FSDO. There have been examples of significantly different operating
limitations being required depending on the local FSDO policies.

I hope that your trail blazing will eventually result in a documented
FAA national policy on how such aircraft wil be certificated and what
pilot qualifications are required.

It all rather silly since operating the jet is far simpler than
operating most existing pylon self launchers.

Since I'm not rated in the Bonus Jet and a rating is required to act
as pilot in command I agree that I cannot log PIC time even if you
were acting a pilot in command. Bummer.

Andy

Dr. John

April 28th 11, 06:56 PM

I think it is time for a Jet Sailplane Racing League. Here me out
and I promise this is not heresy and might even be a boom to the
sailplane community. The Rocket Racing League was planning a racing
league similar to the Red Bull races using a fiberglass Canard Long-EZ
type airframe at a Million Dollars a ship. Severe financial
difficulty due to lack of funding and only a few sponsors seems to be
dooming the venture. The Red Bull races have appeared to do better
financially actually having races flying the aerobatic style Edge 540
airframes and racing around a 3 mile Pylon courses. It still has
still not risen to a national level of awareness but proves air racing
has potential! Unfortunately I just read that the 2011 Red Bull races
have been canceled after only 6 years of racing.
Soaring has a big problem. We are shrinking in popularity and not
competing very well for new participants. Less pilot numbers means
less development, less soaring sites, less glider development, and
less tow availability. Shrinking numbers does nothing good for the
long term health of our sport. The challenge for us is that we are
not very spectator friendly like most other sports. Even golf is
blows us by, a very silly sport I might add. Hit a little ball in a
little hole. WOW! I attended my first sailplane race last year in
Logan, Utah and had a great time. Even with the Google earth/Spot
Tracking projected on a large screen in the hanger, spectators miss
most of the action and thrill of the race. It was fun for me but my
wife has no interest at all. Even my wife as uninterested as possible
in watching sports can watch a little football or car racing and feel
a little entertained, but glider racing, NADA!
Just imagine 12 Turbine powered sailplanes racing around a small 3
mile air circuit, slow and low enough for spectators to watch and
enjoy and loud enough to scream FUN! I can't imagine how difficult it
is to move all the airplanes for the Red Bull races but the sailplanes
naturally travel quite easily as they are designed to. The perfect
airframe platform is highly debatable but I propose the DuckHawk by
Windward Performance. Yes, I know it has not flown yet but its all
carbon airframe makes it the only one we could paint different colors
with sponsor logos and designs. Yes, I want the blue Viagra ship!
The DuckHawk has a high 200 kts VNE and a +11.0 / -9.0 g’s structural
design which bods well for a racing ship. We then mount one of Bob
Carltons TBS-100 turbines on the top for a pure racing machine. The
Duckhawk also has a large water ballast capacity which would lend
itself well to holding enough Jet A fuel for the race. The race could
even have pit stops for more fuel just like NASCAR. Airframe mounted
cameras would broadcast live video back for an in flight feel just
like NASCAR. The ground crew on a pit stop would race to fill up the
Jet A, top off the wingtip smoke and and quickly wipe the bugs off the
windscreen. Yes I know bug wipers are not as glamorous as tire
changers, but work with me here, it has possibility
Imagine little boys watching sailplane looking jets race around a
closed circuit, smoke streams off the wingtips, feeling the roar of
the turbines as they passed by going 150 kts. The sailplane jets
would be highly maneuverable with only a 15 Meter wings being able to
weave in and out of pylons. I know that 150 kts is really not that
fast in airplane speeds but when you consider how small a 15 meter
sailplane is in the air, it will look like 300 kts. Yes, I know these
racing ships would really not be sailplanes for all tense and
purpose. Our fans would fall in love with the shape and the idea of
racing airplanes with skinny wings and then realize they too have the
opportunity to learn to fly and even race traditional sailplanes at a
price that is somewhat affordable.
The jet sailplanes would cost less than $250K a ship which is only
a quarter of what the Rocket Racing League was proposing with their
million dollar jet airplanes. They would be highly portable from race
site to race site. I'm sure that the TBS-100 would only use a
fraction of the fuel that the Long-EZ racers were going to use.
Engine changes could take only minutes. The glide ratio of a DuckHawk
at 50 to 1 would greatly enhance safety with an in flight engine
failure over a tradition aerobatic airplane and its 6 to 1 glide
ratio.
I know to many glider pilots this sounds like sailplane apostasy.
Yes, I am proposing a *******ization of our sport, but for good
cause. Yes, it is not soaring in a thermal or a wave, but it could
be a shinning beacon of light showing new young minds the excitement
and fun of flying a sailplane in a 10 knot thermal surrounded by half
a dozen other gliders all ready to do battle. Air racing in this
country was once a national sport. Back in the golden age of the
airplane, air races were all the national rage. Many little boys
dreamed of someday becoming pilots. I can assure you now, the youth
of today are not dreaming of becoming pilots. Flying has lost its
magic some how.
I know this is probably a wild fantasy, a little heresy, and some
craziness, but it is sure fun to procrastinate piles of work around me
to dream about flying. Thanks for reading my day dream of the day.
John Ackerson

Jim Beckman[_2_]

April 28th 11, 08:35 PM

At 17:56 28 April 2011, Dr. John wrote:
> I think it is time for a Jet Sailplane Racing League. Here me out
>and I promise this is not heresy and might even be a boom to the
>sailplane community.

That's just what we're afraid of.

Jim Beckman

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

April 29th 11, 03:03 AM

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:56:19 -0700, Dr. John wrote:

> I think it is time for a Jet Sailplane Racing League. Here me out and I
> promise this is not heresy and might even be a boom to the sailplane
> community.
>
Isn't this ass-backward?

The idea of calling a bunch of pilots driving jet-powered aircraft round
a tiny three-mile circuit 'sailplane racing' is just a travesty. We have
a hard enough time convincing the general public that a glider can do
more than fly round the airfield for a few minutes as it is without
something like this being called 'sailplane racing'.

To me a soaring community[1] requires mass participation. It is never a
few sport celebs making big bucks entertaining all the Joe Sixpacks
slumped in front of their goggleboxes.

[1] Soaring community, PLEASE. We are, or should be, a group of actively
involved pilots up there and doing it because we want to, not to
entertain a bunch of couch potatoes while making some promoter rich.
'Sailplane community' makes as much sense as 'Cricket bat community'. The
sailplanes are inanimate for chrissakes, so no way can they form a
community.

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

Walt Connelly

April 29th 11, 11:44 AM

;770562']On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:56:19 -0700, Dr. John wrote:

I think it is time for a Jet Sailplane Racing League. Here me out and I
promise this is not heresy and might even be a boom to the sailplane
community.

Isn't this ass-backward?

The idea of calling a bunch of pilots driving jet-powered aircraft round
a tiny three-mile circuit 'sailplane racing' is just a travesty. We have
a hard enough time convincing the general public that a glider can do
more than fly round the airfield for a few minutes as it is without
something like this being called 'sailplane racing'.

To me a soaring community[1] requires mass participation. It is never a
few sport celebs making big bucks entertaining all the Joe Sixpacks
slumped in front of their goggleboxes.

[1] Soaring community, PLEASE. We are, or should be, a group of actively
involved pilots up there and doing it because we want to, not to
entertain a bunch of couch potatoes while making some promoter rich.
'Sailplane community' makes as much sense as 'Cricket bat community'. The
sailplanes are inanimate for chrissakes, so no way can they form a
community.

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

I thought there was a bit of tongue in cheek in the idea, it gave me a chuckle but I would actually like to see something like this evolve. It can't hurt the sport. Lighten up Martin.

Walt

Bob

April 29th 11, 01:22 PM

On Apr 28, 7:03*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:56:19 -0700, Dr. John wrote:
> > I think it is time for a Jet Sailplane Racing League. *Here me out and I
> > promise this is not heresy and might even be a boom to the sailplane
> > community.
>
> Isn't this ass-backward?
>
> The idea of calling a bunch of pilots driving jet-powered aircraft round
> a tiny three-mile circuit 'sailplane racing' is just a travesty. We have
> a hard enough time convincing the general public that a glider can do
> more than fly round the airfield for a few minutes as it is without
> something like this being called 'sailplane racing'.
>
> To me a soaring community[1] requires mass participation. It is never a
> few sport celebs making big bucks entertaining all the Joe Sixpacks
> slumped in front of their goggleboxes.
>
> [1] Soaring community, PLEASE. We are, or should be, a group of actively
> involved pilots up there and doing it because we want to, not to
> entertain a bunch of couch potatoes while making some promoter rich.
> 'Sailplane community' makes as much sense as 'Cricket bat community'. The
> sailplanes are inanimate for chrissakes, so no way can they form a
> community.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

A common psychological experience just happened to this thread. So
many RAS threads get “off course” and crash, and this one just did.
The FAA has a term for when aircraft do this…. CFIT (controlled flight
into terrain). Pilots get distracted by something “important” and
lose track of where they were in relationship to the surrounding
terrain, and crash, which NTSB statistics show is 20 times more likely
to occur than mid-air collisions. Pilots have good intentions, but
sometimes forget the most important rule of flying, “Fly the airplane
first.”

This thread is all about a non-traditional way of getting GLIDERS into
the air… with the use of an on-board jet turbine engine. It has been
a fascinating thread. Suddenly, something else “important” to
GLIDING, the drop in popularity / lack of public interest in the
sport, has gotten the thread off course… because someone lost rack of
where they were in relationship to the sport. We do have powerful
need to attract people to our sport. BUT, one has to remember that
our sport is all about UNPOWERED flight….. GLIDING, also called
SOARING. A jet, or a lawnmower engine, or an electric engine, or a
Pawnee are all just means of getting GLIDERS airborne so they may
spend their day GLIDING / SOARING. Jet plane racing is NOT gliding or
soaring.

I was glad to see that a separate thread was started on the “jet
racing” concept. I hope it stays a separate thread, because this
thread has been so informative and interesting…. bringing up all sorts
of things I had not thought of, including a jet providing a way of
getting a glider to a distant wave, and all the FAA intricacies, to
mention a few.

GLIDING is at a fascinating point right now. For years the primary
ways of getting GLIDERS aloft has been either from a ground tow with a
wire or rope, towed behind another aircraft, or self launched by a
relatively unreliable (compared to other power sources) engine. Now,
today, we have huge advances in electric motors and batteries, making
electric self-launching gliders a realistic possibility, and we have
Bob Carlton blazing the way with the application of small jet turbine
engines for self launching gliders because of huge advances with small
jet engines. Both have their advantages and dis-advantageous. As
this thread is about the application of jet power for GLIDERS, I hope
it continues in that path.

Bob T.
19

Dr. John

April 29th 11, 04:49 PM

Guys, Yes the jet sailplane Racing League is a spoof/Joke. Some of
you take this way too serious. There is ZERO chance of a Jet Racing
League. All I want is a JS-1 pure sailplane when I race in the 18M
nationals someday. I'm a soaring bird at heart but love to dream the
impossible. Congrats to Bob Carlton for giving us one more option
that might attract a few new pilots. Anything new is better than
nothing.
John

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 29th 11, 06:29 PM

On 4/29/2011 5:22 AM, Bob wrote:

> GLIDING is at a fascinating point right now. For years the primary
> ways of getting GLIDERS aloft has been either from a ground tow with a
> wire or rope, towed behind another aircraft, or self launched by a
> relatively unreliable (compared to other power sources) engine. Now,
> today, we have huge advances in electric motors and batteries, making
> electric self-launching gliders a realistic possibility, and we have
> Bob Carlton blazing the way with the application of small jet turbine
> engines for self launching gliders because of huge advances with small
> jet engines. Both have their advantages and dis-advantageous. As
> this thread is about the application of jet power for GLIDERS, I hope
> it continues in that path.

Mostly I agree with Bob, but I'm going to pick a couple nits, anyway ;^)

"making electric self-launching gliders a realistic possibility"? Good
news - they already exist and have been in production for several years!
Maybe "viable alternative" should be substituted for "realistic
possibility". I expect Dave N. to also point this out.

Bob Carlton is blazing the way, but I think it's very important to note
he is NOT doing it with "huge advances in small jet engines", but is
using a proven, conservatively designed, commercial engine that has been
around for years. This is not an exotic or "upgraded model" engine, like
he used on the Silent glider, but a real aircraft engine for aircraft
that carry people.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz