Front Electric Sustainer

[Dan Marotta]

According to the FAA aircraft registry, there are 20 LAK-17a registered in
the USA.

I've been talking with Luca at the FES factory and he has offered what looks
to like a good deal to have the FES installed in our ships. He will come to
this country to do the installations if we will pay for expenses. His
proposal amounts to approximately $28K per installation all inclusive
provided we have a minimum of four (4) ships.

I know the price will be higher for fewer ships so I would expect that it
would be marginally less for more ships due to expenses being spread
thinner.

Is there any interest among the LAK-17 or -19 owners to have the FES factory
come to the USA to modify our ships?

Please reply to the author or post replies here.

[Ramy]

Are LAK's the only gliders which can be modified?

Ramy

[Sean F (F2)]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:24:07 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> According to the FAA aircraft registry, there are 20 LAK-17a registered in
>
> the USA.
>
>
>
> I've been talking with Luca at the FES factory and he has offered what looks
>
> to like a good deal to have the FES installed in our ships. He will come to
>
> this country to do the installations if we will pay for expenses. His
>
> proposal amounts to approximately $28K per installation all inclusive
>
> provided we have a minimum of four (4) ships.
>
>
>
> I know the price will be higher for fewer ships so I would expect that it
>
> would be marginally less for more ships due to expenses being spread
>
> thinner.
>
>
>
> Is there any interest among the LAK-17 or -19 owners to have the FES factory
>
> come to the USA to modify our ships?
>
>
>
> Please reply to the author or post replies here.

Interested! F2 Sean Fidler Ionia, MI

[Dan Marotta]

I've seen video of a self launch with the FES, however there's minimal
clearance between the propeller and the ground making that risky of a prop
strike.

In the video here, http://www.front-electric-sustainer.com/, you can see
that they use an auto tow to get the glider into the air and then release
and start the motor. That would make for inexpensive launches from
practically any large field or small airport.

My main interest is for those days when the clouds are at such a distance
from the airport that a land out is a good prospect and I don't always have
a crew available. Also safe fields are far apart in central New Mexico.


"gotovkotzepkoi" > wrote in
message ...
>
> It is my understanding that the Lak with the FES cannot really safely
> self launch. What is your view on this? There does not seem to be any
> independend assessment of this out there. The concept is so simple and
> elegant. It would be wonderful if one could get a good self launcher out
> of it.
>
>
>
>
> --
> gotovkotzepkoi

[Dan Marotta]

I'm guessing here to give you a quick response but I'll check with the
factory before being specific.

I would think that any glider with a circular cross section where the nose
is cut off for the installation would be a good candidate for a FES
installation. Without a circular cross section, the fuselage could be
reshaped in that area, but I wouldn't consider that an elegant solution.

I would also guess that the factory currently has only done this
installation on the LAK-17a and -17b and so only has installation data and
experience for those models.

What glider do you have?


"Ramy" > wrote in message
...
> Are LAK's the only gliders which can be modified?
>
> Ramy

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

They will also caution you as to Max Weight of non-lifting components. There is a battery to be added, as well as the motor. Positioned to hopefully keep the CG the same as it was before. But, when I was asking at the convention about the installation (as it would go very nicely in an HP-11. Lots of prop clearance, too!), about all I got from them was "You must be very careful about the maximum weight of non-lifting parts." This may well keep several designs from having the FES retrofitted.

Steve

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:06:03 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
> They will also caution you as to Max Weight of non-lifting components. There is a battery to be added, as well as the motor. Positioned to hopefully keep the CG the same as it was before. But, when I was asking at the convention about the installation (as it would go very nicely in an HP-11. Lots of prop clearance, too!), about all I got from them was "You must be very careful about the maximum weight of non-lifting parts." This may well keep several designs from having the FES retrofitted.
>
>
>
> Steve

They suggest on their website that the ASW-19 is suitable. However, they
point out that they add 45kg to the fuselage. For my particular plane, which
weighs 582lbs empty and is limited to a dry weight of 805lbs because of
non-lifting weight limit, that would reduce my plane down to a payload of
124lbs. The last time I was that light was in elementary school!

Nonetheless this is an outstanding achievement.

-- Matt

[[email protected]]

Dear glider pilots,

FES was designed as sustainer but proved much better than expected. With some additional improvements which we performed LAK17A FES can safely selflaunch from concrete runway as there is about 17cm propeller clearance which is more than enough. We newer had a problem as it is practicly not necesery to lift tail, and there is no moment to nose, so it is very simple. Acceleration on flaps 0 or -1, at 80km/h just move flaps to +1/+2 and start climbing. Initial acceleration (with 3 bars of preasure on main whell) and climb rate at 22kW is good (more than 2,5m/s) as you can see on a few published movies!

I succesfully performed selflaunch with LAK17A FES also from grass! If grass has holes and is not long and smooth enough is better to use combination of autotow like on movie, or even better winching.

In Europe we are woking on EASA certification of LAK17 as sustainer. This is hard enough. I believe that in future with some more development and impovements 18m glider could be certified also as selflauncher.

For light sailplanes like Silent, FES is already very suitable for selflaunch. Accerelation and climb rate is better that version with combustion engine.
You can read on Alisport website about 1000km adventure flight along Italy, from North to South with only 12 minutes of motor run.

Regards,

Luka


Dne �etrtek, 20. september 2012 04:11:28 UTC+2 je oseba gotovkotzepkoi napisala:
> It is my understanding that the Lak with the FES cannot really safely
>
> self launch. What is your view on this? There does not seem to be any
>
> independend assessment of this out there. The concept is so simple and
>
> elegant. It would be wonderful if one could get a good self launcher out
>
> of it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> gotovkotzepkoi

[slbair]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:24:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> According to the FAA aircraft registry, there are 20 LAK-17a registered in
>
> the USA.
>
>
>
> I've been talking with Luca at the FES factory and he has offered what looks
>
> to like a good deal to have the FES installed in our ships. He will come to
>
> this country to do the installations if we will pay for expenses. His
>
> proposal amounts to approximately $28K per installation all inclusive
>
> provided we have a minimum of four (4) ships.
>
>
>
> I know the price will be higher for fewer ships so I would expect that it
>
> would be marginally less for more ships due to expenses being spread
>
> thinner.
>
>
>
> Is there any interest among the LAK-17 or -19 owners to have the FES factory
>
> come to the USA to modify our ships?
>
>
>
> Please reply to the author or post replies here.

If this can be done on the ASW24B, I am a definite prospect!

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Sep 20, 9:06*am, Steve Leonard > wrote:
> ...(as it would go very nicely in an HP-11. *Lots of prop clearance, too!)...

Steve you're probably aware that the HP-11 was originally designed in
1962 or so to have a small engine in the nose. You can see the hazy
outline in the three-view drawing in the original plans set where Dick
erased the propeller. Unfortunately, the idea was way ahead of its
time, and engines of the right size with the requisite horsepower did
not appear for another thirty years or so and electric power was just
a gleam in Tom Swift's eye.

But, yeah, your primary point is well taken. With both the battery and
the motor in the fuselage it is a concern that the maximum non-lifting
weight dictated by wing bending moment could be exceeded. Most
European gliders come from the factory with that value specified. For
other gliders a bit of engineering might be required to come up with a
reasonable value based on the maximum gross weight and the specified
or intended weight of the wing panels.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Ramy]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:24:10 AM UTC-7, slbair wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:24:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> > According to the FAA aircraft registry, there are 20 LAK-17a registered in
>
> >
>
> > the USA.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I've been talking with Luca at the FES factory and he has offered what looks
>
> >
>
> > to like a good deal to have the FES installed in our ships. He will come to
>
> >
>
> > this country to do the installations if we will pay for expenses. His
>
> >
>
> > proposal amounts to approximately $28K per installation all inclusive
>
> >
>
> > provided we have a minimum of four (4) ships.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I know the price will be higher for fewer ships so I would expect that it
>
> >
>
> > would be marginally less for more ships due to expenses being spread
>
> >
>
> > thinner.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Is there any interest among the LAK-17 or -19 owners to have the FES factory
>
> >
>
> > come to the USA to modify our ships?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Please reply to the author or post replies here.
>
>
>
> If this can be done on the ASW24B, I am a definite prospect!

I may be interested if it can be done on the 27. but, can it be done on a certified glider?

Ramy

[Limus]

I was interested until I saw $28K price tag. Jeez, that's more than what I paid for brand new all electric Nissan Leaf car.

Limus
Lak-17AT

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 9/20/2012 2:29 PM, Limus wrote:
> I was interested until I saw $28K price tag. Jeez, that's more than
> what I paid for brand new all electric Nissan Leaf car.

Is your Leaf used for glider launching? If not, probably an irrelevant
observation :^)

Instead, try penciling out the numbers ($ amounts apply to my flying for
a year - 50 flights):

Additional costs:
$280 Interest cost of the $28K
$0 depreciation
$200 added insurance cost
$480 Total extra costs

Avoided costs:
$2000 Tow fees avoided by using auto tow, or low aero-tow
$1000 Retrieve costs avoided (by car, aerotow, etc)
$3000 Total avoided costs

That's a $2520 net savings/year, which is about a 9% return on the
purchase cost, so the financials look pretty good. Now add in how much
you think the intangible benefits are worth (again, numbers for my flying):

Added value:
$150 Avoiding 3 relights
$500 Avoiding 5 landouts
$200 Being able to fly good flights in unpredictable weather
$200 Flying more aggressively
$200 Starting earlier and/or flying later
$1250 Total added value each year

Now the return is ($2520 + $1250)/$28,000 = 13%

If I owned a LAK 17, I'd be queuing up for the FES, and that's just
using it as a sustainer! If it could really work as a self-launcher, say
in low density altitude places, it would avoid more costs and provide
greater benefits.

--
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]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:43:29 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> If it could really work as a self-launcher, say
> in low density altitude places...

Electric propulsion systems are barely affected by density
altitude. As density altitude increases, there will be a
small decrease in propeller efficiency, and you have to
accelerate to a higher true airspeed so take-off run
will be slightly longer. In practice there is very
little density altitude effect...

Hope that is clear,
Best Regards, Dave

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 9/20/2012 4:05 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:43:29 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> If it could really work as a self-launcher, say
>> in low density altitude places...
>
> Electric propulsion systems are barely affected by density
> altitude. As density altitude increases, there will be a
> small decrease in propeller efficiency, and you have to
> accelerate to a higher true airspeed so take-off run
> will be slightly longer. In practice there is very
> little density altitude effect...
>
> Hope that is clear,
> Best Regards, Dave

Well then, that makes the price seem even better! Time to send a plane
ticket to that FES installer guy and get him here! $28,000 to add
self-launch capability is really, really cheap. It cost me $30,000 to do
that on my ASH 26 E 17 years ago, so I'll bet it's double that by now.

--
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

[Peter Higgs]

Hi Eric, you have missed one 'Additional Cost'...

Most of the $28,000 will be the cost of the batteries, say $18,000.
These have a life-span of just a few years. So if
they need replacing after 3 years...

Thats an 'Additional Cost' of $6,000 per year.. !!

Pete

At 22:42 20 September 2012, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>On 9/20/2012 2:29 PM, Limus wrote:
>> I was interested until I saw $28K price tag. Jeez, that's more than
>> what I paid for brand new all electric Nissan Leaf car.
>
>Is your Leaf used for glider launching? If not, probably an irrelevant
>observation :^)
>
>Instead, try penciling out the numbers ($ amounts apply to my flying for
>a year - 50 flights):
>
>Additional costs:
>$280 Interest cost of the $28K
>$0 depreciation
>$200 added insurance cost
>$480 Total extra costs
>
>Avoided costs:
>$2000 Tow fees avoided by using auto tow, or low aero-tow
>$1000 Retrieve costs avoided (by car, aerotow, etc)
>$3000 Total avoided costs
>
>That's a $2520 net savings/year, which is about a 9% return on the
>purchase cost, so the financials look pretty good. Now add in how much
>you think the intangible benefits are worth (again, numbers for my
flying):
>
>Added value:
>$150 Avoiding 3 relights
>$500 Avoiding 5 landouts
>$200 Being able to fly good flights in unpredictable weather
>$200 Flying more aggressively
>$200 Starting earlier and/or flying later
>$1250 Total added value each year
>
>Now the return is ($2520 + $1250)/$28,000 = 13%
>
>If I owned a LAK 17, I'd be queuing up for the FES, and that's just
>using it as a sustainer! If it could really work as a self-launcher, say
>in low density altitude places, it would avoid more costs and provide
>greater benefits.
>
>--
>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
>

[[email protected]]

On Friday, September 21, 2012 6:00:04 AM UTC-6, Peter Higgs wrote:
> Hi Eric, you have missed one 'Additional Cost'...
>
>
>
> Most of the $28,000 will be the cost of the batteries, say $18,000.
>
> These have a life-span of just a few years. So if
>
> they need replacing after 3 years...
>
>
>
> Thats an 'Additional Cost' of $6,000 per year.. !!
>
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> At 22:42 20 September 2012, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> >On 9/20/2012 2:29 PM, Limus wrote:
>
> >> I was interested until I saw $28K price tag. Jeez, that's more than
>
> >> what I paid for brand new all electric Nissan Leaf car.
>
> >
>
> >Is your Leaf used for glider launching? If not, probably an irrelevant
>
> >observation :^)
>
> >
>
> >Instead, try penciling out the numbers ($ amounts apply to my flying for
>
> >a year - 50 flights):
>
> >
>
> >Additional costs:
>
> >$280 Interest cost of the $28K
>
> >$0 depreciation
>
> >$200 added insurance cost
>
> >$480 Total extra costs
>
> >
>
> >Avoided costs:
>
> >$2000 Tow fees avoided by using auto tow, or low aero-tow
>
> >$1000 Retrieve costs avoided (by car, aerotow, etc)
>
> >$3000 Total avoided costs
>
> >
>
> >That's a $2520 net savings/year, which is about a 9% return on the
>
> >purchase cost, so the financials look pretty good. Now add in how much
>
> >you think the intangible benefits are worth (again, numbers for my
>
> flying):
>
> >
>
> >Added value:
>
> >$150 Avoiding 3 relights
>
> >$500 Avoiding 5 landouts
>
> >$200 Being able to fly good flights in unpredictable weather
>
> >$200 Flying more aggressively
>
> >$200 Starting earlier and/or flying later
>
> >$1250 Total added value each year
>
> >
>
> >Now the return is ($2520 + $1250)/$28,000 = 13%
>
> >
>
> >If I owned a LAK 17, I'd be queuing up for the FES, and that's just
>
> >using it as a sustainer! If it could really work as a self-launcher, say
>
> >in low density altitude places, it would avoid more costs and provide
>
> >greater benefits.
>
> >
>
> >--
>
> >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
>
> >

I would recommend that anyone interested in the FES to visit the FES website to be able to read up on the technology, design and performance. You can also sign up for a FES newsletter. The site is:

http://www.front-electric-sustainer.com/index.php

Regarding the batteries they should be good for up to 1,500 full cycles. Per the website:

"Cell manufacturer claims that at discharging with 1C rating (horizontal flight) life expectancy of batteries is around 1500 cycles. After that the battery will still have 80% of the original capacity."

If you think about it, for most flights you will never need to use the sustainer (unless you are using the sustainer for launch after an auto tow), so in a soaring season, where one is using aero tows, you may only need to start it a few times. For example, during the WGC in Uvalde, the two Lithuanian pilots flying two LAK-17B FES gliders only used the FES on 3 flights out of their total of 26 competition days.

As a result, 1,500 cycles should last you many, many years. In addition, battery technology is quickly advancing, and if one is so inclined and wants to spend the $$$, newer, more powerful batteries will undoubtedly be developed in future years and an owner can upgrade as these newer batteries become available.

Thanks,
Renny
Owner LAK-17B FES

[Dan Marotta]

Regarding a certificated aircraft, I can only suggest that you talk with
your FSDO and the glider's manufacturer. I would think this modification
could be done with a FAA Form 337, but I'd be very careful to make sure the
manufacturer will approve the modification and the FAA will allow it.


"Dan Marotta" > wrote in message
...
> I'm guessing here to give you a quick response but I'll check with the
> factory before being specific.
>
> I would think that any glider with a circular cross section where the nose
> is cut off for the installation would be a good candidate for a FES
> installation. Without a circular cross section, the fuselage could be
> reshaped in that area, but I wouldn't consider that an elegant solution.
>
> I would also guess that the factory currently has only done this
> installation on the LAK-17a and -17b and so only has installation data and
> experience for those models.
>
> What glider do you have?
>
>
> "Ramy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Are LAK's the only gliders which can be modified?
>>
>> Ramy
>

[[email protected]]

Dear Peter,

For your info actuall price for new batterie pack is about $8,000, which I think is not so high!

Regards,

Luka

Dne petek, 21. september 2012 14:00:04 UTC+2 je oseba Peter Higgs napisala:
> Hi Eric, you have missed one 'Additional Cost'...
>
>
>
> Most of the $28,000 will be the cost of the batteries, say $18,000.
>
> These have a life-span of just a few years. So if
>
> they need replacing after 3 years...
>
>
>
> Thats an 'Additional Cost' of $6,000 per year.. !!
>
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> At 22:42 20 September 2012, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> >On 9/20/2012 2:29 PM, Limus wrote:
>
> >> I was interested until I saw $28K price tag. Jeez, that's more than
>
> >> what I paid for brand new all electric Nissan Leaf car.
>
> >
>
> >Is your Leaf used for glider launching? If not, probably an irrelevant
>
> >observation :^)
>
> >
>
> >Instead, try penciling out the numbers ($ amounts apply to my flying for
>
> >a year - 50 flights):
>
> >
>
> >Additional costs:
>
> >$280 Interest cost of the $28K
>
> >$0 depreciation
>
> >$200 added insurance cost
>
> >$480 Total extra costs
>
> >
>
> >Avoided costs:
>
> >$2000 Tow fees avoided by using auto tow, or low aero-tow
>
> >$1000 Retrieve costs avoided (by car, aerotow, etc)
>
> >$3000 Total avoided costs
>
> >
>
> >That's a $2520 net savings/year, which is about a 9% return on the
>
> >purchase cost, so the financials look pretty good. Now add in how much
>
> >you think the intangible benefits are worth (again, numbers for my
>
> flying):
>
> >
>
> >Added value:
>
> >$150 Avoiding 3 relights
>
> >$500 Avoiding 5 landouts
>
> >$200 Being able to fly good flights in unpredictable weather
>
> >$200 Flying more aggressively
>
> >$200 Starting earlier and/or flying later
>
> >$1250 Total added value each year
>
> >
>
> >Now the return is ($2520 + $1250)/$28,000 = 13%
>
> >
>
> >If I owned a LAK 17, I'd be queuing up for the FES, and that's just
>
> >using it as a sustainer! If it could really work as a self-launcher, say
>
> >in low density altitude places, it would avoid more costs and provide
>
> >greater benefits.
>
> >
>
> >--
>
> >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
>
> >

[slbair]

On Friday, September 21, 2012 11:22:52 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
>
>
> For your info actuall price for new batterie pack is about $8,000, which I think is not so high!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Luka
>
>
>
> Dne petek, 21. september 2012 14:00:04 UTC+2 je oseba Peter Higgs napisala:
>
> > Hi Eric, you have missed one 'Additional Cost'...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Most of the $28,000 will be the cost of the batteries, say $18,000.
>
> >
>
> > These have a life-span of just a few years. So if
>
> >
>
> > they need replacing after 3 years...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thats an 'Additional Cost' of $6,000 per year.. !!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Pete
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > At 22:42 20 September 2012, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >On 9/20/2012 2:29 PM, Limus wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >> I was interested until I saw $28K price tag. Jeez, that's more than
>
> >
>
> > >> what I paid for brand new all electric Nissan Leaf car.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >Is your Leaf used for glider launching? If not, probably an irrelevant
>
> >
>
> > >observation :^)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >Instead, try penciling out the numbers ($ amounts apply to my flying for
>
> >
>
> > >a year - 50 flights):
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >Additional costs:
>
> >
>
> > >$280 Interest cost of the $28K
>
> >
>
> > >$0 depreciation
>
> >
>
> > >$200 added insurance cost
>
> >
>
> > >$480 Total extra costs
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >Avoided costs:
>
> >
>
> > >$2000 Tow fees avoided by using auto tow, or low aero-tow
>
> >
>
> > >$1000 Retrieve costs avoided (by car, aerotow, etc)
>
> >
>
> > >$3000 Total avoided costs
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >That's a $2520 net savings/year, which is about a 9% return on the
>
> >
>
> > >purchase cost, so the financials look pretty good. Now add in how much
>
> >
>
> > >you think the intangible benefits are worth (again, numbers for my
>
> >
>
> > flying):
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >Added value:
>
> >
>
> > >$150 Avoiding 3 relights
>
> >
>
> > >$500 Avoiding 5 landouts
>
> >
>
> > >$200 Being able to fly good flights in unpredictable weather
>
> >
>
> > >$200 Flying more aggressively
>
> >
>
> > >$200 Starting earlier and/or flying later
>
> >
>
> > >$1250 Total added value each year
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >Now the return is ($2520 + $1250)/$28,000 = 13%
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >If I owned a LAK 17, I'd be queuing up for the FES, and that's just
>
> >
>
> > >using it as a sustainer! If it could really work as a self-launcher, say
>
> >
>
> > >in low density altitude places, it would avoid more costs and provide
>
> >
>
> > >greater benefits.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >--
>
> >
>
> > >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
>
> >
>
> > >

Luka,

Is the price yoo quoted for both batteries?

[Ramy]

Luka, can it be installed on certified gliders? Can it be installed on a 27?

Ramy

[[email protected]]

One of those 17's that the Lituanian team flew at Uvalde is now with it's new owner in my club. He's tested the motor a couple of times but hasn't really needed it yet (We started getting decent soaring conditions on the weekends for the first time this season right after he got the glider!). It seems an impressive installation, there's only a couple of things I think would improve it:

1: The blades pretty much float free when they're not turning. I assume this is to prevent the blades from touching the fuselage unless completely stopped (of course centrifugal force pulls them clear the moment they start turning and airflow folds them against the nose when completely stopped). I can see a possibility of someone walking around the nose of the glider when it's parked catching a blade on their leg as it's hanging a foot clear of the fuselage and potentially damaging the blade. I don't know if this is worth correcting as it would require a fair bit of complication of the system to hold the blades tight to the fuselage when not turning but also move them clear of the fuselage before they start turning.

2: An automatic system to stop the blades in the 3 and 9 o'clock position whenever the motor is stopped. The owner has found that it's a little inconvenient to do this manually and when he lent the glider to another pilot to try, he used the motor a bit, landed with the blades in the 5 and 11 position, overbraked, put the nose on the ground and momentarily dragged a prop blade. Fortunately our field is fairly lush grass and no damage was done.

[[email protected]]

Dne petek, 21. september 2012 19:55:52 UTC+2 je oseba slbair napisala:
> On Friday, September 21, 2012 11:22:52 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > Dear Peter,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > For your info actuall price for new batterie pack is about $8,000, which I think is not so high!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Regards,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Luka
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Dne petek, 21. september 2012 14:00:04 UTC+2 je oseba Peter Higgs napisala:
>
> >
>
> > > Hi Eric, you have missed one 'Additional Cost'...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Most of the $28,000 will be the cost of the batteries, say $18,000.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > These have a life-span of just a few years. So if
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > they need replacing after 3 years...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Thats an 'Additional Cost' of $6,000 per year.. !!
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Pete
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > At 22:42 20 September 2012, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >On 9/20/2012 2:29 PM, Limus wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> I was interested until I saw $28K price tag. Jeez, that's more than
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> what I paid for brand new all electric Nissan Leaf car.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >Is your Leaf used for glider launching? If not, probably an irrelevant
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >observation :^)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >Instead, try penciling out the numbers ($ amounts apply to my flying for
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >a year - 50 flights):
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >Additional costs:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >$280 Interest cost of the $28K
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >$0 depreciation
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >$200 added insurance cost
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >$480 Total extra costs
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >Avoided costs:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >$2000 Tow fees avoided by using auto tow, or low aero-tow
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >$1000 Retrieve costs avoided (by car, aerotow, etc)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >$3000 Total avoided costs
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >That's a $2520 net savings/year, which is about a 9% return on the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >purchase cost, so the financials look pretty good. Now add in how much
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >you think the intangible benefits are worth (again, numbers for my
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > flying):
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >Added value:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >$150 Avoiding 3 relights
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >$500 Avoiding 5 landouts
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >$200 Being able to fly good flights in unpredictable weather
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >$200 Flying more aggressively
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >$200 Starting earlier and/or flying later
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >$1250 Total added value each year
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >Now the return is ($2520 + $1250)/$28,000 = 13%
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >If I owned a LAK 17, I'd be queuing up for the FES, and that's just
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >using it as a sustainer! If it could really work as a self-launcher, say
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >in low density altitude places, it would avoid more costs and provide
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >greater benefits.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >--
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >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
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
>
>
> Luka,
>
>
>
> Is the price yoo quoted for both batteries?

Yes for both batteries of course!

[[email protected]]

Dne sobota, 22. september 2012 07:21:16 UTC+2 je oseba (neznano) napisala:
> One of those 17's that the Lituanian team flew at Uvalde is now with it's new owner in my club. He's tested the motor a couple of times but hasn't really needed it yet (We started getting decent soaring conditions on the weekends for the first time this season right after he got the glider!). It seems an impressive installation, there's only a couple of things I think would improve it:
>
>
>
> 1: The blades pretty much float free when they're not turning. I assume this is to prevent the blades from touching the fuselage unless completely stopped (of course centrifugal force pulls them clear the moment they start turning and airflow folds them against the nose when completely stopped). I can see a possibility of someone walking around the nose of the glider when it's parked catching a blade on their leg as it's hanging a foot clear of the fuselage and potentially damaging the blade. I don't know if this is worth correcting as it would require a fair bit of complication of the system to hold the blades tight to the fuselage when not turning but also move them clear of the fuselage before they start turning.
>
>
>
> 2: An automatic system to stop the blades in the 3 and 9 o'clock position whenever the motor is stopped. The owner has found that it's a little inconvenient to do this manually and when he lent the glider to another pilot to try, he used the motor a bit, landed with the blades in the 5 and 11 position, overbraked, put the nose on the ground and momentarily dragged a prop blade. Fortunately our field is fairly lush grass and no damage was done.


I would like to comment this two points:
1. If propeller is in exactly horizontal position, than it is true that blade on right side want to open due to special construction of propeller holder. But if you rotate it for one step forward than both bladed stays folded..
But it is true that when is a lot of people around there is a possibility that someone catch the blade with a leg. To avoid this at Alisport found simple solution with elastic:
http://www.alisport.com/eu/images/img_news/alisport_news2_4b.JPG
We have now available similar solution with propeller blades covers connected with elestic.

2. During summer we introduced automatic prop positioning, as you can see on newest video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTeNKM2cXQk&feature=player_embedded

It is pretty obvious that you need to land with blades in aproximately horizontal position, which is not really an issue even with random stop.

regards,

Luka

[Ramy]

On Saturday, September 22, 2012 12:52:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Dne sobota, 22. september 2012 07:21:16 UTC+2 je oseba (neznano) napisala:
>
> > One of those 17's that the Lituanian team flew at Uvalde is now with it's new owner in my club. He's tested the motor a couple of times but hasn't really needed it yet (We started getting decent soaring conditions on the weekends for the first time this season right after he got the glider!). It seems an impressive installation, there's only a couple of things I think would improve it:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 1: The blades pretty much float free when they're not turning. I assume this is to prevent the blades from touching the fuselage unless completely stopped (of course centrifugal force pulls them clear the moment they start turning and airflow folds them against the nose when completely stopped). I can see a possibility of someone walking around the nose of the glider when it's parked catching a blade on their leg as it's hanging a foot clear of the fuselage and potentially damaging the blade. I don't know if this is worth correcting as it would require a fair bit of complication of the system to hold the blades tight to the fuselage when not turning but also move them clear of the fuselage before they start turning.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2: An automatic system to stop the blades in the 3 and 9 o'clock position whenever the motor is stopped. The owner has found that it's a little inconvenient to do this manually and when he lent the glider to another pilot to try, he used the motor a bit, landed with the blades in the 5 and 11 position, overbraked, put the nose on the ground and momentarily dragged a prop blade. Fortunately our field is fairly lush grass and no damage was done..
>
>
>
>
>
> I would like to comment this two points:
>
> 1. If propeller is in exactly horizontal position, than it is true that blade on right side want to open due to special construction of propeller holder. But if you rotate it for one step forward than both bladed stays folded.
>
> But it is true that when is a lot of people around there is a possibility that someone catch the blade with a leg. To avoid this at Alisport found simple solution with elastic:
>
> http://www.alisport.com/eu/images/img_news/alisport_news2_4b.JPG
>
> We have now available similar solution with propeller blades covers connected with elestic.
>
>
>
> 2. During summer we introduced automatic prop positioning, as you can see on newest video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTeNKM2cXQk&feature=player_embedded
>
>
>
> It is pretty obvious that you need to land with blades in aproximately horizontal position, which is not really an issue even with random stop.
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> Luka

So what is the status with installation of FES in the US? And any plans to install in other gliders as well?

[Dan Marotta]

I put out feelers last year to have a group of installations done at
Moriarty, NM. The enthusiasm was, in a word, underwhelming. I received
only one reply that expressed "definitely interested" while the others
showed only minor interest.

On consideration, the $24,000 (approx) group discounted cost was just more
than people were willing to pay in this economy.

"Ramy" > wrote in message
...
On Saturday, September 22, 2012 12:52:56 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
> Dne sobota, 22. september 2012 07:21:16 UTC+2 je oseba (neznano) napisala:
>
> > One of those 17's that the Lituanian team flew at Uvalde is now with
> > it's new owner in my club. He's tested the motor a couple of times but
> > hasn't really needed it yet (We started getting decent soaring
> > conditions on the weekends for the first time this season right after he
> > got the glider!). It seems an impressive installation, there's only a
> > couple of things I think would improve it:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 1: The blades pretty much float free when they're not turning. I assume
> > this is to prevent the blades from touching the fuselage unless
> > completely stopped (of course centrifugal force pulls them clear the
> > moment they start turning and airflow folds them against the nose when
> > completely stopped). I can see a possibility of someone walking around
> > the nose of the glider when it's parked catching a blade on their leg as
> > it's hanging a foot clear of the fuselage and potentially damaging the
> > blade. I don't know if this is worth correcting as it would require a
> > fair bit of complication of the system to hold the blades tight to the
> > fuselage when not turning but also move them clear of the fuselage
> > before they start turning.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2: An automatic system to stop the blades in the 3 and 9 o'clock
> > position whenever the motor is stopped. The owner has found that it's a
> > little inconvenient to do this manually and when he lent the glider to
> > another pilot to try, he used the motor a bit, landed with the blades in
> > the 5 and 11 position, overbraked, put the nose on the ground and
> > momentarily dragged a prop blade. Fortunately our field is fairly lush
> > grass and no damage was done.
>
>
>
>
>
> I would like to comment this two points:
>
> 1. If propeller is in exactly horizontal position, than it is true that
> blade on right side want to open due to special construction of propeller
> holder. But if you rotate it for one step forward than both bladed stays
> folded.
>
> But it is true that when is a lot of people around there is a possibility
> that someone catch the blade with a leg. To avoid this at Alisport found
> simple solution with elastic:
>
> http://www.alisport.com/eu/images/img_news/alisport_news2_4b.JPG
>
> We have now available similar solution with propeller blades covers
> connected with elestic.
>
>
>
> 2. During summer we introduced automatic prop positioning, as you can see
> on newest video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTeNKM2cXQk&feature=player_embedded
>
>
>
> It is pretty obvious that you need to land with blades in aproximately
> horizontal position, which is not really an issue even with random stop.
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> Luka

So what is the status with installation of FES in the US? And any plans to
install in other gliders as well?

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:46:45 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I put out feelers last year to have a group of installations done at
> Moriarty, NM. The enthusiasm was, in a word, underwhelming.

Sentiment will change quickly when something like this escapes the lab:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/510311/battery-material-prevents-fires-stores-five-times-the-energy/

[glidergeek]

Hmmm, what do you think it costs to keep that coal fired glider charged up Eric?

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:31:57 AM UTC, Glidergeek wrote:
> Hmmm, what do you think it costs to keep that coal fired glider charged up Eric?

My FES is an earlier conversion with maximum 18kw output. It lasts for just under an hour at level cruise power, so I guess at maximum it would only last say 30 minutes, therefore recharge of batteries must take about 9kwh plus a bit of loss (not much, as nothing gets very hot when recharging).

Dunno about USA, but my UK marginal cost of electricity is less than £0.1 Sterling per kwh, so say 10 kwh is less than £1 – say $1.50.

Most flights the FES is used little or none, so the average cost per flight is much less than that.

Self Launch is not an option on my FES, but I save some launch costs by usually using winch/ground tow, or low aerotow.

Using Luka’s original estimated figures for battery replacement, and $8000 for the cost, 1000 cycles would cost about $8 per flight if fully discharged every flight. For the few times I fully discharge the batteries, that is affordable.

The biggest advantages for me, however, are the convenience, the confidence in going cross-country with no need for a retrieve crew arranged, and entering a comp with no crew, etc. etc. You can see articles I wrote on Luka’s website.

Chris N