best self-launcher propulsion system?

[key[_2_]]

I am curious what group members with experience with self-launchers
regard as the best propulsion system (currently) in terms of in-flight
restart reliability, maintenance, safety, and other operational
factors (e.g., vibration). Of course the electric Antares might win
on all counts except for range, but it is out of my price league.

thanks,

Key

[Dave Nadler]

Well, if the Euro keeps declining perhaps you
can afford an Antares (~1.27 today).
The range is more than you might expect,
as you don't need to climb as high before
shutdown as other machines, leaving bigger
reserve (subject to lift convenient to launch).
Good luck,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

PS: My Antares has never failed to air-start
(unlike my previous machine). ~12 seconds
from gliding to power with no fuss.

[T[_2_]]

On Jan 10, 5:21*pm, Dave Nadler > wrote:
> Well, if the Euro keeps declining perhaps you
> can afford an Antares (~1.27 today).
> The range is more than you might expect,
> as you don't need to climb as high before
> shutdown as other machines, leaving bigger
> reserve (subject to lift convenient to launch).
> Good luck,
> Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"
>
> PS: My Antares has never failed to air-start
> (unlike my previous machine). ~12 seconds
> from gliding to power with no fuss.

Don't need to climb as high?? because?
Engine stows quicker reducing time of drag exposure?
No need to keep the bay doors open for engine cooling reducing drag
exposure?

Please explain.

T

[GC[_2_]]

A 2-stroke is a 2-stroke is a 2-stroke.

I own one outright, have a share in another, have looked closely at many
others and quizzed many other owners. If you're a fellow-member of the
self-launch owners club they'll talk honestly because they think you
won't rat on them - one day you'll have to sell one too. All of the
engines, as engines, are about equally reliable. The problem with all
of them is that a 2-stroke continually tries to vibrate everything
attached to it to death. Fuel line joiners, electrical wiring,
thermocouples, temperature transmitters, starters, flywheels,
alternators, magnetos, ignition boxes, fuel pumps, carburettors, drive
trains, radiator mountings, cooling hoses, EVERYTHING - including the
aircraft.

The reliability of the engine itself is not the problem. What brings
the system undone is the vibration induced failure of essential
accessories and other components. Straight, simple engine failures do
occur but a vibration induced failure somewhere else in the chain is
much more likely to leave you in trouble - and it will do so quite
often. Won't extend, won't start, won't retract, broken drive belt, are
all just as much engine failures as a broken crankshaft and much more
common.

I'm afraid that's the dirty, little secret all of us self-launcher
owners keep to ourselves.

Of course except for Schleicher's Wankel. Mind you, when the Wankel
does go you need to have a lot of money saved up. Your local A&P will
be even more reluctant touch it than he is with a 2-stroke so you'll
have to put it in a box and post it to Poppenhausen. That's why Rotax
and Solo still find a home.

Safety - They're all safe if you keep your hand and head out of the prop.

Maintenance - never take your eyes off the wiring, the fuel lines, the
brackets, the flanges, the hose clips, the staked bolts, etc.
Accessible - none of them are accessible within the normal range of
human limb mobility. DON'T buy one that needs to have its fuel lines
changed regularly!

Don't get me started on the engineering quality that demands stainless
braided, aircraft quality fuel lines - joined by NYLON barbed fittings!

And for a normal single-seater, anything less than about 45-50HP is a
sustainer, not a self-launcher, no matter what it says on the box.

GC

On 11/01/2012 11:48, key wrote:
> I am curious what group members with experience with self-launchers
> regard as the best propulsion system (currently) in terms of in-flight
> restart reliability, maintenance, safety, and other operational
> factors (e.g., vibration). Of course the electric Antares might win
> on all counts except for range, but it is out of my price league.
>
> thanks,
>
> Key

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/10/2012 6:41 PM, GC wrote:
> A 2-stroke is a 2-stroke is a 2-stroke.
>
> I own one outright, have a share in another,

big snip of vibration related problems

>
> Of course except for Schleicher's Wankel. Mind you, when the Wankel does
> go you need to have a lot of money saved up. Your local A&P will be even
> more reluctant touch it than he is with a 2-stroke so you'll have to put
> it in a box and post it to Poppenhausen. That's why Rotax and Solo still
> find a home.

After 17 years, 3300 flight hours, and 170 engine hours, I can report
that vibration related problems with the Wankel (mine and other owners)
are essentially zero. I haven't any engine problems that an A&P couldn't
fix, as none of them involved opening the engine, but only replacing
external components. GC is correct that if it's internal, it goes back
to Schleicher, as no one in the USA works on the innards.

> Don't get me started on the engineering quality that demands stainless
> braided, aircraft quality fuel lines - joined by NYLON barbed fittings!

The ASH 26 E came with metal fittings from the very start in 1994, and
it's replacement, the ASH 31 Mi, continues that tradition. Another
feature is the engine does not move with the prop, as the prop is on a
mast that pivots while the engine remains bolted to the fuselage (rubber
mounts, of course). This eliminates electric cable and fuel line
flexing, and mating problems with the exhaust system, although the
radiator hoses must flex (that's not bee a problem).

--
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

[bumper[_4_]]

As Eric's post suggests, Schleicher's Wankel engine provides a very
good solution for self-launching. Probably the best available if one
considers lack of vibration, power density, and range. If range isn't
so important, then electrics are promising- - assuming the batteries
behave themselves.

Like Eric, I have a Wankel also, but with less than 40 hours.
Reliability has been excellent. The engine, with its small form
factor, allows the fuselage boom to be slim as compared to most 2-
strokes.

The Wankel is a bit less fuel effecient than a piston engine. It makes
more waste heat too, and this means a longer cool down period is
required. Depending on OAT, I use as much as 3 to 5 minutes. However,
retracting the pylon most of the way, until the prop tip just drops
out of sight in the little rear view mirror, results in minimal drag
penalty when slowed up to work even weak lift during cool down. The
sound of the engine bay doors snapping shut is music to the ear, as it
signals the motor is tucked away and your a glider!

When Eric allowed as to how the motor would be shipped back for
anything internal, I would emphasize that most anything* that might go
wrong or require maintenance is external to the rotor and engine case
itself. Most all the accessory stuff is servicable here in the US.
There are some excellent mechanics who know the Wankel well, like Rex
Mayes at Williams, CA, and others I'm sure - - so it's not at all like
owning an orphan.

I appreciate things mechanical and am happy with my 26E. That said,
the Antares pylon extend and retract sequencing is just cool to watch,
and the ship's engineering is impressive.

*Exceptions I'm aware of have involved either starving the engine of
oil or not properly storing the engine for extended periods of non
use. Both situations are easy enough to avoid, and very expensive if
ignored.

bumper
MKIV & QV
Minden

[John Clark[_2_]]

Hello Key,

While you are stirring the pot, I may as well join in.

The best self launching glider or the best self launcher propulsions
system? They're not necessarily the same thing. Some gliders are
fairly well sorted as self launchers and may not be the best glider
but may be the best self launching glider. Some propulsion systems may
be brilliant as an idea but not completely suited to the application…
at least not with the current state of the art.

And what sort of flying do you want to do? Self launch and the
occasional single or double motor run retrieve or is the main purpose
of the glider things like long distance safaris where longer range is
required and where jet fuel or battery charging facilities may not be
available at the remote airfield?

Does the region you fly in have big sink? My SLG does 800 fpm or
better climbing under motor and I have seen zero on the dial for a
minute or two when doing an in-air restart. Bear that in mind when
considering the possible height gain on an electric powered glider.
You may lose 50% of your motor run before you actually gain any
height.

How long will you keep the glider and how much money do you expect to
lose when reselling the glider? 2 stroke self launchers have held
their price remarkably well but I doubt that you'd get the same thing
with electric powered gliders, close to a battery replacement time.
Gliders like the PIK 20E and the DG-400 are 25 and more years old and
still going strong. I sold my DG-400 unseen within 3 days of
advertising it and had enquiries from Patagonia to Austria. The buyer
said, 3 months later, that the glider was "everything he dreamed it
would be".

I've seen one jet self-launcher take off and it was frankly
terrifying… both in terms of the noise and the lack of height gained.
And the massive fuel use.

Water cooled two strokes have been around for 80 years or more and the
technology is very well understood. Yes, vibration is a bit of a
problem but it's hardly a disaster. Jet and electric power plants have
not been around very long and the technology is changing every year…
or faster. Yes, the batteries may last 1000 cycles (I have NEVER known
any battery actually do that or even vaguely meet the manufacturer's
promised lifetime) but are the manufacturers of the glider going to re-
certify items like new battery technology, new speed controllers and
new electric motors every few years to replace the obsolete versions?
They don't have a great history in doing that with other items!

Regrettably, in my opinion right now, if you are not a millionaire and
you want to fly some distance away from your home strip, the best
choice is petrol or petrol.

The ASH owners are fairly vocal on this list but you don't hear much
from DG owners, so here's a bit. I have owned 2 DG gliders and believe
that they are the best sorted SLG out there. I think DG take self
launching gliders very seriously and it shows in almost everything
from the brilliant DEI-NT to the steering tailwheel, large wingtip
wheels, taxiing wingtip dolly etc. etc. as well as progressive safety
features like the Piggott hook and NOAH.

Certainly, in terms of serious problems, the DGs in our region do
very well compared with others which have a reputation for self
combusting is significant numbers!

I agree with GC in that you cannot have too much power and under
powered SLGs are terrifying, both inside and outside the cockpit. The
climb rate on take off in my glider is very impressive… I have never
watched but whenever I land, people come over and talk about it. Only
last week, two other pilots, one of whom has an Arcus on order, stated
that in his opinion, "DG make the best SLGs… period". The other wanted
to buy a share in the glider. The DG 808 is the glider of choice in
places like the Alps where climb rate and reliable engine starting
really counts.

Look at the sales figures for SLGs over the last 25 years. One
manufacturer has sold over 50% more single-seaters than the others… it
might be close to double the amount of the nearest competitor.

Like Bumper, I appreciate things mechanical… it's my job… and I have
to say that I don't see any of the current IC SLGs being perfect and
in many ways you pays your money and you takes your choice of the type
of problems you want to run into… vibration, fire, breaking belts due
to backfiring, breaking belts due to bending incorrectly when stowing
the engine… there's quite a laundry list. However, the benefits appear
to largely outweigh the drawbacks. And I bought two DGs.

You can find a fairly full run down of the options here:

http://www.keepitsoaring.com/LKSC/Downloads/Keep_Soaring/October_November_2010.pdf

D

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

My vote is FES. 2 seconds from gliding to power, imperceptible drag.

Mine is a self sustainer, not SL, but a SL is under development and
has flown successfully.

When widely available, I think it is a strong contender.

At present it would not be all things to all people – e.g. not coping
well with 800 fpm sink, and more limited range than petrol models. But
all glider choices are compromises – you have to pick what most
closely suits your priorities. FES suits mine.

Chris N.

[Dave Nadler]

On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:09:57 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
> Please explain.

Sure, many reasons:

BACKGROUND: All your planning flying any pylon-powered
toy must be around worst case: engine stuck out and not
running. Depending on the model, this can mean very
high sink rates, and badly degraded handling from
wake of pylon and radiator on tail.

The "motor out and not running" MOANR configuration
must be used to plan safety of take-off strip,
departure pattern, distance from airport, air-start
altitude and placement margins, etc.

Antares low-shutdown advantages:
- low sink rate and normal handling with MOANR
- only one control in cockpit to extend/retract
(unlike some which have VERY high workloads)
- normal handling under power makes it easy to
find and center first thermal
- no required cool-down cycle prior retraction
- ~10 second re-extension to power if I don't
climb after shutdown

All the above mean I can concentrate on finding
and centering the first thermal rather than
"engine management", with low stress. My average
shutdown is ~1000 feet, in locations where there
is lift near the launch and not too much traffic
(ie, Sterling, Hobbs, Uvalde). This leaves a very
substantial reserve for self-retrieve, though
this is certainly not a power XC cruiser.

Hope that helps !
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

PS: Someone needs to come up with a really good
and appropriately foul acronym for "motor out and
not running".
Boggs, you're on...

[Dave Nadler]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:11:29 AM UTC-5, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> My vote is FES. ...imperceptible drag.

Has anyone MEASURED the drag, especially at high speed ?

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

I know of no actual measurement of drag with the FES (i.e. with prop
folded) but there was some report of comparison flying in a comp with
a similar glider of another make (Ventus?). Can’t recall the link now,
but it would have been either in Lak’s website or Luka’s (the designer/
developer).

For my money, any slight increase in drag is not only imperceptible
to me, but is (a tiny) part of a price I am willing to pay for its
advantages in my particular compromise – getting home without a
retrieve crew if a cross country does not pan out, and getting away
from virtually any launch if it is at all soarable, etc.

Chris N.

[kd6veb]

Hi Gang
I have had a DG800B and a Stemme S10VT for many years and currently
have a Phoenix so I have some experience with self launchers. I almost
purchased an Antares a couple of years ago but discovered a gotcha
that for me was a show stopper. And that gotcha? Lithium batteries
cannot exceed fairly modest temperatures before they have to be
shutdown meaning if I left an Antares in the hot midday sun in Nevada
for a couple of hours I might not even be able to reach 1,000 feet
before the electric system would automatically shut down. This might
be OK in cooler climates but not at Minden.
The vibration problems of the DG require almost constant monitoring
of the engine and its supports for wear and tear. The Wankel engine of
the 26 is apparently much less prone to vibration problems. Anything
using the Rotax engine is reliable. The Stemme had maintenance
problems but the Rotax 914 engine was reliable.
So if you want the highest performance single place self launcher I
would recommend the Ventus or the 26. For a 2 place self launcher the
Stemme is hard to beat with its much better ground handling compared
to a 25 although the performance of the 25 is a little better.
For a little old guy like me who has completed all the 6 hour XC
flights he ever wants to do in the DG800B and the Stemme you might
want to consider a touring motorgllider and there is one that clearly
stands above the rest and that is the Phoenix. It is the first that
allows the outer wing panels to be removed in less than a minute
reducing the wing span from 15 meters to 11 meters thereby allowing
the Phoenix to be parked in a regular hanger. In the short wing
configuration it is a superb LSA power plane and in the long wing
configuration it is a medium performance motorglider. It is registered
as a LSA glider even though in the short wing configuration it is
clearly a standard LSA power plane. The FAA had never considered this
a possibility and a registered aircraft cannot have 2 certifications.
That suits me.
Dave

[Mark Jardini[_2_]]

At the lower cost end of the spectrum, I can say that the rotax
installation of the Apis is very well thought out and has performed
for me over 4 seasons without fail for air restarts. It runs cool and
usually requires less than a minute at idle before stowing. The engine
is rev limited to about 6000 rpm and I don't always get that.

It is relatively idiot proof, (witness I am still here writing). This
particular installation is no longer available as AMS bit the dust.
The glider is still being built by Pipistrelle with a different
engine.

The Apis is not a state of the art high aspect glider but capable of
long cross country, have done 300k here in Oregon. The wing area is
large, keeping the loading down, and while I get only 5-600 fpm at sea
level, I still get a positive rate at 10k.

Vibration is unpleasant, and I am constantly looking for the smoothest
rpm range for the altitude, sometimes 100 rpm makes a huge
difference. Nothing has shaken off the bird yet and I constantly tell
myself, that it is at least as pleasant as flying around on tow.

Not sure what Pipistrelle is asking but I got in for about 1/2 what a
German machine would cost, including the trailer.

Mark

[Dave Nadler]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:24:33 PM UTC-5, kd6veb wrote:
> ... I almost
> purchased an Antares a couple of years ago but discovered a gotcha
> that for me was a show stopper. And that gotcha? Lithium batteries
> cannot exceed fairly modest temperatures before they have to be
> shutdown meaning if I left an Antares in the hot midday sun in Nevada
> for a couple of hours I might not even be able to reach 1,000 feet
> before the electric system would automatically shut down. This might
> be OK in cooler climates but not at Minden.

Huh ?

I regularly self-launch at Uvalde, Hobbs, etc.
Not exactly locations I need the Sorel boots.

Battery heating is the third power of current.
Thus, reducing from max power shortly after
take-off reduces heating enough that this has
never been an issue for me in actual operation
over many seasons (including multiple contests
at Hobbs and Uvalde, launching on HOT days with
full water ballast).

Hope that's clear !
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 11, 12:19*pm, Dave Nadler > wrote:

>Battery heating is the third power of current.


Really? Assuming no external heater is enabled isn't the power that
heats the batteries the product of the internal resistance and the
current and the current? ( I squared R, rather than I cubed R)

Andy

[silentpilot]

On Jan 10, 7:48*pm, key > wrote:
> I am curious what group members with experience with self-launchers
> regard as the best propulsion system (currently) in terms of in-flight
> restart reliability, maintenance, safety, and other operational
> factors (e.g., vibration). *Of course the electric Antares might win
> on all counts except for range, but it is out of my price league.
>
> thanks,
>
> Key

NEW:
Silent 2 ELECTRO FESL
Front Electric Self Launch
ease of operation and peace of mind

greater reliability when compared with any internal combustion engine
secure and instant start-up; the motor requires no warm-up prior to
application of full power
absence of vibration; the only moving parts are the propeller and the
rotor
maintenance is essentially unnecessary
nose-mounted motor is on the fuselage center-line and thus has no
forward pitching moment
to create take-off difficulties as is typical of pylon mounted
propellers
no loss of motor power as a function of altitude; performance is
unvaried with respect to atmospheric conditions
motor use is extremely simple; no raising of a pylon, simply turn on
the master and apply power
absence of aerodynamic resistance (engine pylon, etc.) and
consequently better flight performance
simplicity and uncomplicated use of the entire system, when compared
to solutions with a retractable
no change to the aerodynamics when using the motor
no change to the center of gravity when changing between powered and
unpowered flight.
prop located in front of the cockpit and safely visible to the pilot
at all times
availability of extra electric energy for even the most well-equipped
instrument panel
lowest price for a new glider
can fly more then an hour level

http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent2electro.htm

I WANT ONE!!!!!

[Greg Arnold]

Seems like not much clearance between the prop and the runway. Probably
pretty expensive if you hit the runway with the prop.



On 1/11/2012 12:16 PM, silentpilot wrote:
> On Jan 10, 7:48 pm, > wrote:
>> I am curious what group members with experience with self-launchers
>> regard as the best propulsion system (currently) in terms of in-flight
>> restart reliability, maintenance, safety, and other operational
>> factors (e.g., vibration). Of course the electric Antares might win
>> on all counts except for range, but it is out of my price league.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Key
>
> NEW:
> Silent 2 ELECTRO FESL
> Front Electric Self Launch
> ease of operation and peace of mind
>
> greater reliability when compared with any internal combustion engine
> secure and instant start-up; the motor requires no warm-up prior to
> application of full power
> absence of vibration; the only moving parts are the propeller and the
> rotor
> maintenance is essentially unnecessary
> nose-mounted motor is on the fuselage center-line and thus has no
> forward pitching moment
> to create take-off difficulties as is typical of pylon mounted
> propellers
> no loss of motor power as a function of altitude; performance is
> unvaried with respect to atmospheric conditions
> motor use is extremely simple; no raising of a pylon, simply turn on
> the master and apply power
> absence of aerodynamic resistance (engine pylon, etc.) and
> consequently better flight performance
> simplicity and uncomplicated use of the entire system, when compared
> to solutions with a retractable
> no change to the aerodynamics when using the motor
> no change to the center of gravity when changing between powered and
> unpowered flight.
> prop located in front of the cockpit and safely visible to the pilot
> at all times
> availability of extra electric energy for even the most well-equipped
> instrument panel
> lowest price for a new glider
> can fly more then an hour level
>
> http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent2electro.htm
>
> I WANT ONE!!!!!
>

[BobW]

On 1/11/2012 1:33 PM, Greg Arnold wrote: (referring to the Alisport Silent 2
Electro)
> Seems like not much clearance between the prop and the runway. Probably pretty
> expensive if you hit the runway with the prop.
>

Mercy!!! Pretty much true of all self-launching prop planes with which I'm
familiar...

YMMV,
Bob W.

[Dave Nadler]

That's what I would have guessed, but its
a bit more complicated than that...

[silentpilot]

On Jan 11, 3:33*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> Seems like not much clearance between the prop and the runway. *Probably
> pretty expensive if you hit the runway with the prop.
>

new prop 2 grands????
not much clearance between the prop and the runway during the
first 11 seconds, then the Silent is off the ground..........
I would hold the stick full back..
And never taxi.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/11/2012 12:38 AM, bumper wrote:
> The Wankel is a bit less fuel effecient than a piston engine.

That is true compared to a four stroke piston engine, but the Wankel is
still more efficient than a 2 stroke piston engine. Not that it matters
in our gliders, as each is equipped with an appropriately sized fuel
tank, and fuel cost isn't going to be an issue!

--
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

[Dave Nadler]

Also I should have mentioned:

There are two Antares 20E and one Arcus E for rent
in Namibia. No problems with temperature !
You often see these gliders on the front page of OLC.

[GARY BOGGS]

>
> PS: Someone needs to come up with a really good
> and appropriately foul acronym for "motor out and
> not running".
> Boggs, you're on...

PUNT?
Pylon Up Not Turning

PULP
Pylon up Lost Power

PENIS
Pylon Extended No Ignition... ****

???
Boggs

[GARY BOGGS]

Pylon Up Nothing Turning?

[key[_2_]]

Guys

Many thanks for your thoughtful comments and insight. I had read most
of the literature of every type of self-launcher and touring
motorglider, but your first hand experience is what i needed to hear
about. Clearly there are substantial tradeoffs and advantages and
disadvantages for every type of motorglider (not even considering
cost!). I will keep monitoring manufacturing developments, especially
for less expensive electrics. Unfortunately i am too tall (6'4") for
the Silent electric (assuming the cockpit is the same size as the
Silent petrol).

Key

[Tony[_5_]]

>
> PENIS
> Pylon Extended No Ignition... ****
>
> ???
> Boggs

DINGDINGDING WE HAVE A WINNER!

[Dave Nadler]

Nah, he'll do better than that...

[T8]

On Jan 12, 2:39*pm, Dave Nadler > wrote:
> Nah, he'll do better than that...

Turbo Ignition TroubleS

Sorry... slow work day

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[T8]

On Jan 12, 3:17*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2:39*pm, Dave Nadler > wrote:
>
> > Nah, he'll do better than that...
>
> Turbo Ignition TroubleS
>
> Sorry... slow work day
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Duh. Should have been...

Turbo Ignition TroubleS while motor UP = TITSUP

Any military guy will tell you that means baaaaad news.

-T8

[Peter von Tresckow]

Failed unturning climb killer. Mandatory Emergency!

Pete

"T8" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 12, 2:39 pm, Dave Nadler > wrote:
> Nah, he'll do better than that...

Turbo Ignition TroubleS

Sorry... slow work day

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[db_sonic[_2_]]

On Jan 10, 4:48*pm, key > wrote:
> I am curious what group members with experience with self-launchers
> regard as the best propulsion system (currently) in terms of in-flight
> restart reliability, maintenance, safety, and other operational
> factors (e.g., vibration). *Of course the electric Antares might win
> on all counts except for range, but it is out of my price league.
>
> thanks,
>
> Key

Another vote for DG800B
restart reliability - it has always started for me. Very predictable
starting behavior.

maintenance - usually something to address each annual. SLG are
complicated things and you have to know the machine and what to look
for. In the case of the DG it is a good one for those who have dealt
with engines before. just my 2 cents.

safety - safe.. sure. Meaning, take good care of it and it will take
care of you. Dont take care of it and dont follow good MG
practices(see books on subject like Eric's/Pete Williams) and you are
likely to get in trouble.

operational factors - great self launch climb performance even loaded
with water at high altitude. Watch out on high crosswind takeoffs but
I think that is true of other similarly configured SLGs.

[Dave Nadler]

On Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:24:20 PM UTC-5, db_sonic wrote:
> ... Watch out on high crosswind takeoffs but
> I think that is true of other similarly configured SLGs.

Nope, Antares has no springs in tailwheel linkage and
heavy tail weight - this keeps tail firmly on ground
with very positive steering. Gliders with light tail
weight can be VERY challenging in cross-wind, and you
will need to advance throttle very slowly lest you
lift the tail and immediately turn into wind (and
thereby careen off the runway). Those gliders do keep
the repair shops busy tho...

IIRC 26 has heavy tail but does have springs; not
sure about xwind performance ?

Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/12/2012 3:28 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:24:20 PM UTC-5, db_sonic wrote:
>> ... Watch out on high crosswind takeoffs but
>> I think that is true of other similarly configured SLGs.
>
> Nope, Antares has no springs in tailwheel linkage and
> heavy tail weight - this keeps tail firmly on ground
> with very positive steering. Gliders with light tail
> weight can be VERY challenging in cross-wind, and you
> will need to advance throttle very slowly lest you
> lift the tail and immediately turn into wind (and
> thereby careen off the runway). Those gliders do keep
> the repair shops busy tho...
>
> IIRC 26 has heavy tail but does have springs; not
> sure about xwind performance ?

The 26 does have a heavy tail, which provides very good directional
control with a cross-wind, even with plenty of throttle. The later
versions have a propeller with more static thrust, so a bit more care is
required than with the earlier ones like mine. The gain is a shorter
takeoff run and a better climb rate.

--
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

[John Firth]

After three years ofoperatinmg a PIK 20E, I have some
varied experience to relate.

Pro:
the wing develops the tunnel tested Cl; with gap covers
and winglets, the stall is under 40 kts, thermaling in smooth air
at 45kts, and sink less than 1.3 kts at 50kts. ( vs ASW 24)
Takeoff less than 200yds and climb about 5kts at 10/1 .
Respect the book crosswind limit.
Noise and vibration are fairly bad but the engine can be 80%
retracted right after shutdown allowing immediate climb.
The flywheel detent and claw with doors open, allow prop
alignment without a mirror or brake. ( this is a retrofit item)
Handling is very good with the usual caveats about rough thermals
, bugs and RAIN. If you really provoke a spin, it goes vertical
before recovery at 80-90 kts.
Air starts have been reliable except for an early case where the
door control jammed due to a rod misaligment. Forced outlanding
in the worst field of my 50yr career was too exciting.

Con.
the 16 deg flap hardly decreases the stall speed and degrades
the aileron response to poor.
The engine has provided a lot of entertainment and
occupational therapy.
Several incidents of power loss or failure.
Causes: 2 yr old fuel hose wentsoggy and internally restricted.
Old (original ?) ignition wire corroded at the coil.
Oil on the plug insulator caused short.
Blocked breather on fuel cap ( insect mud inside, invisible)
Stuck choke, choked it at full throttle!
Mikuni pump diaphragm aging ; low fuel pressure.

Ground starting a bit uncertain; if you flood it, the plugs have to
be removed.
Tailwheel steering inadequate; taxiing wing down impossible.
Corrected by installing extra coupling spring, rudder to castor.

Failures and defects.
Tank filler neck seperated from tank
Prop shaft locking nut , very important AD.
Cable retracting spring broke (corrosion )
Fuel leak at carb inlet; intractable. carb removal needed.

If you rely on an AME to fix things, you will need a deep pocket!

John F
PS:
I am now happy with my PIK 20E!

[silentpilot]

On Jan 12, 2:07*pm, key > wrote:
> Guys
>
>..........Unfortunately i am too tall (6'4") for
> the Silent electric (assuming the cockpit is the same size as the
> Silent petrol).
>
> Key

Hi Key,
did you sit in a silent cockpit?
6'4" or 193 centimeter........... too tall...........
MAYBE YES, MAYBE NOT:
depends on the size of torso vs legs,
I've seen a pilot 187 cm tall trying the cockpit of pure silent and
fitting well with rudder
pedals in the before the last notch adjustable position.
Happy Landings..........

[db_sonic[_2_]]

On Jan 12, 3:28*pm, Dave Nadler > wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:24:20 PM UTC-5, db_sonic wrote:
> > ... Watch out on high crosswind takeoffs but
> > I think that is true of other similarly configured SLGs.
>
> Nope, Antares has no springs in tailwheel linkage and
> heavy tail weight - this keeps tail firmly on ground
> with very positive steering. Gliders with light tail
> weight can be VERY challenging in cross-wind, and you
> will need to advance throttle very slowly lest you
> lift the tail and immediately turn into wind (and
> thereby careen off the runway). Those gliders do keep
> the repair shops busy tho...
>
> IIRC 26 has heavy tail but does have springs; not
> sure about xwind performance ?
>
> Hope that helps,
> Bmest Regards, Dave "YO electric"

mm, sort of. Tail is light, yes(which is good for moving the ship
manually) but springs are not really the issue.
The power is so much it lifts the tail if you jam the throttle and
then the subsequent wind vaning but only if the crosswind is around
10kts or more.
Seems to be more of any issue at higher altitudes and much less near
sea level.
But I dont think I need to advance the throttle any slower than I
would in a 172.
Anyways, the reason I said other gliders is because it was F8 that
taught me how to improve my technique(for which I am grateful) based
on his experiences.