Uncle Fuzzies take on Self Launchers

[Uncle Fuzzy[_2_]]

My take on self-launchers launchers

… is really pretty simple. A self launcher means you can launch whether there’s a tow plane or not. Period.
For me, that would mean I could launch from Jean, land somewhere, make camp (I love ‘ramp camping’), and launch the next day and fly back (conditions, skills, etc. permitting.)
Essentially equivalent to having a tug available for the next day at any field. If tugs were always available, I wouldn’t have any use for a self launcher.

While I’m feeling relatively coherent: FRONT LOAD FUN !!
Get the toys now, and play with them. I have been a renowned ‘cheap *******’ forever, and have managed to run myself up a great bank account, and no time to utilize it. I can’t fly any more, but I could damn well pay cash for a Stemme. I think I screwed up somehwere.
That said, my fun-meter has been pretty well pegged since joining the LVVSA IN 2001. Whether flying a 1-26, Speed Astir, or Janus, for me the result is pretty much a pegged fun-meter.
Hmmmm. Losing coherence. Hope this makes some sense to somebody

Cheers,
Uncle Fuzzy

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:35:17 PM UTC-4, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:

> While I’m feeling relatively coherent: FRONT LOAD FUN !!
>
> Get the toys now, and play with them. I have been a renowned ‘cheap *******’ forever, and have managed to run myself up a great bank account, and no time to utilize it. I can’t fly any more, but I could damn well pay cash for a Stemme.

You're making good sense Uncle Fuzzy and some of us are taking notes.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Uncle Fuzzy wrote, On 8/20/2013 7:35 PM:
> My take on self-launchers launchers
>
> … is really pretty simple. A self launcher means you can launch
> whether there’s a tow plane or not. Period. For me, that would mean
> I could launch from Jean, land somewhere, make camp (I love ‘ramp
> camping’), and launch the next day and fly back (conditions, skills,
> etc. permitting.) Essentially equivalent to having a tug available
> for the next day at any field. If tugs were always available, I
> wouldn’t have any use for a self launcher.

You understand one half of the attraction of a self-launcher, but like
many people, miss the other half: you can take risks with the lift, and
if you guess wrong and the lift isn't there, you can start the motor,
get to the next lift, and continue the flight. The ability to explore
without the consequences of a landout and a potentially long retrieve
are just as valuable as avoiding the launch line or flying from an
airport that doesn't have a towplane.

I'm sorry you will have money left over at the end of your "final
glide", a fate I am trying to avoid. It's even harder to judge that
"glide" than one in a glider, and you don't get to practice it, either.

Possibly, you could use some of the money to start a partnership in a
DG1000 or other excellent two seater, like the DG1000 that operates at
Ephrata, WA. You will have partners to fly with, they will be introduced
to cross-country flying, and will pass that on as they become
proficient. It's well equipped, kept assembled and covered so it's ready
to in moments, and seems to be fulfilling the mission envisioned by the
original owner.

--
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

[Ramy]

This is an excellent idea. Jim, get a nice 2 seater and train pilots to fly cross country. You actually been doing it all along but you can do it in a much nicer glider. And hopefully for many more years than you think.
Eric, your take on the advantages of self launchers is exactly what I would do if I had one, explore as much as I could and fly from multiple places, but from some reason only a small percentage of motorglider pilots I know fly like this. The rest constrain themselves as if it was a pure glider. Or perhaps they are so good that they hardly need to relight anyway. hmm...

Ramy

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Ramy wrote, On 8/20/2013 9:04 PM:
> This is an excellent idea. Jim, get a nice 2 seater and train pilots
> to fly cross country. You actually been doing it all along but you
> can do it in a much nicer glider. And hopefully for many more years
> than you think. Eric, your take on the advantages of self launchers
> is exactly what I would do if I had one, explore as much as I could
> and fly from multiple places, but from some reason only a small
> percentage of motorglider pilots I know fly like this. The rest
> constrain themselves as if it was a pure glider. Or perhaps they are
> so good that they hardly need to relight anyway. hmm...

Your observations are the same as mine. I average about 10 restarts
during my 40 to 50 flights a year. That's about right, I think, for
someone of my experience. Most motorglider pilots don't get near that
20% rate, however. Mostly, I think, it's because so many of them flew
towed gliders for a long time, and flew in a culture that did not
respect landouts, but usually considered landing out as evidence the
pilot failed.

I can hardly wait for someone like Tony to get a motorglider. I'm
thinking we'll see a 50% restart rate, but the times he doesn't will be
magnificent flights!

My next glider will have "The road less traveled" written on the side of
it, and I expect my restart rate will climb to 30% or more.

--
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

[Andrew[_13_]]

At 03:37 21 August 2013, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Uncle Fuzzy wrote, On 8/20/2013 7:35 PM:
>> My take on self-launchers launchers
>>
>> � is really pretty simple. A self launcher means you can
launch
>> whether there�s a tow plane or not. Period. For me, that
would mean
>> I could launch from Jean, land somewhere, make camp (I love
�ramp
>> camping�), and launch the next day and fly back (conditions,
skills,
>> etc. permitting.) Essentially equivalent to having a tug
available
>> for the next day at any field. If tugs were always available, I
>> wouldn�t have any use for a self launcher.
>
>You understand one half of the attraction of a self-launcher, but
like
>many people, miss the other half: you can take risks with the
lift, and
>if you guess wrong and the lift isn't there, you can start the
motor,
>get to the next lift, and continue the flight. The ability to explore
>without the consequences of a landout and a potentially long
retrieve
>are just as valuable as avoiding the launch line or flying from an
>airport that doesn't have a towplane.
>
>I'm sorry you will have money left over at the end of your "final
>glide", a fate I am trying to avoid. It's even harder to judge that
>"glide" than one in a glider, and you don't get to practice it,
either.
>
>Possibly, you could use some of the money to start a partnership
in a
>DG1000 or other excellent two seater, like the DG1000 that
operates at
>Ephrata, WA. You will have partners to fly with, they will be
introduced
>to cross-country flying, and will pass that on as they become
>proficient. It's well equipped, kept assembled and covered so it's
ready
>to in moments, and seems to be fulfilling the mission envisioned
by the
>original owner.
>
>--
>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
>

Talking about motor gliders with extending masts and gas
engines: all the advantages seem (at least partially) offset by
corresponding disadvantages, either physical or psychological. For
example, the major convenience of not needing a towplane is
partially offset by the usually-greater difficulty and risk of self
launching. When it comes to cross-country flying, a large fraction
(99%?) of field landings are eliminated with a motor glider, but the
"worry element" always remains (motors don't always start, and a
field landing in a motor glider will be more difficult and risky). Overall,
my experience is that I prefer my motor glider, however
the advantages are not as great as I had imagined.

[Mike the Strike]

A few years ago, I came across an Auxiliary Sailplane Association fly-in somewhere out west. The ramp was full of pilots working on engines - welding silencers, cleaning carburetors, fixing electronics, etc. One guy was replacing instruments in his panel that had fallen out through engine vibration!

It reminder me more of a rally of mid-century British sports cars than a glider meet. I think I'll stick with having the engine at the end of a 200-foot rope.

Mike

[Uncle Fuzzy[_2_]]

ALL the other crap aside, a self launcher allows me to fly when the tug needs an oil change, brakes, mags or whatever. That would mean I could fly more. period. No wing runner, no FOO, no tow pilot. Just go fly.
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:35:17 PM UTC-7, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
> My take on self-launchers
>
>
>
> … is really pretty simple. A self launcher means you can launch whether there’s a tow plane or not. Period.
>
> For me, that would mean I could launch from Jean, land somewhere, make camp (I love ‘ramp camping’), and launch the next day and fly back (conditions, skills, etc. permitting.)
>
> Essentially equivalent to having a tug available for the next day at any field. If tugs were always available, I wouldn’t have any use for a self launcher.
>
>
>
> While I’m feeling relatively coherent: FRONT LOAD FUN !!
>
> Get the toys now, and play with them. I have been a renowned ‘cheap *******’ forever, and have managed to run myself up a great bank account, and no time to utilize it. I can’t fly any more, but I could damn well pay cash for a Stemme. I think I screwed up somehwere.
>
> That said, my fun-meter has been pretty well pegged since joining the LVVSA IN 2001. Whether flying a 1-26, Speed Astir, or Janus, for me the result is pretty much a pegged fun-meter.
>
> Hmmmm. Losing coherence. Hope this makes some sense to somebody
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Uncle Fuzzy

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:49:54 PM UTC-4, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
> ALL the other crap aside, a self launcher allows me to fly when the tug needs an oil change, brakes, mags or whatever. That would mean I could fly more. period. No wing runner, no FOO, no tow pilot. Just go fly.

But interacting with the people that it takes to launch a bunch of gliders on a good day is at least half of the fun of the sport.

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:10:46 PM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> At 03:37 21 August 2013, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> >Uncle Fuzzy wrote, On 8/20/2013 7:35 PM:
>
> >> My take on self-launchers launchers
>
> >>
>
> >> � is really pretty simple. A self launcher means you can
>
> launch
>
> >> whether there�s a tow plane or not. Period. For me, that
>
> would mean
>
> >> I could launch from Jean, land somewhere, make camp (I love
>
> �ramp
>
> >> camping�), and launch the next day and fly back (conditions,
>
> skills,
>
> >> etc. permitting.) Essentially equivalent to having a tug
>
> available
>
> >> for the next day at any field. If tugs were always available, I
>
> >> wouldn�t have any use for a self launcher.
>
> >
>
> >You understand one half of the attraction of a self-launcher, but
>
> like
>
> >many people, miss the other half: you can take risks with the
>
> lift, and
>
> >if you guess wrong and the lift isn't there, you can start the
>
> motor,
>
> >get to the next lift, and continue the flight. The ability to explore
>
> >without the consequences of a landout and a potentially long
>
> retrieve
>
> >are just as valuable as avoiding the launch line or flying from an
>
> >airport that doesn't have a towplane.
>
> >
>
> >I'm sorry you will have money left over at the end of your "final
>
> >glide", a fate I am trying to avoid. It's even harder to judge that
>
> >"glide" than one in a glider, and you don't get to practice it,
>
> either.
>
> >
>
> >Possibly, you could use some of the money to start a partnership
>
> in a
>
> >DG1000 or other excellent two seater, like the DG1000 that
>
> operates at
>
> >Ephrata, WA. You will have partners to fly with, they will be
>
> introduced
>
> >to cross-country flying, and will pass that on as they become
>
> >proficient. It's well equipped, kept assembled and covered so it's
>
> ready
>
> >to in moments, and seems to be fulfilling the mission envisioned
>
> by the
>
> >original owner.
>
> >
>
> >--
>
> >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
>
> >
>
>
>
> Talking about motor gliders with extending masts and gas
>
> engines: all the advantages seem (at least partially) offset by
>
> corresponding disadvantages, either physical or psychological. For
>
> example, the major convenience of not needing a towplane is
>
> partially offset by the usually-greater difficulty and risk of self
>
> launching. When it comes to cross-country flying, a large fraction
>
> (99%?) of field landings are eliminated with a motor glider, but the
>
> "worry element" always remains (motors don't always start, and a
>
> field landing in a motor glider will be more difficult and risky). Overall,
>
> my experience is that I prefer my motor glider, however
>
> the advantages are not as great as I had imagined.

I'm waiting for an electric sustainer that I can afford.

[jfitch]

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:10:46 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> At 03:37 21 August 2013, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> >Uncle Fuzzy wrote, On 8/20/2013 7:35 PM:
>
> >> My take on self-launchers launchers
>
> >>
>
> >> � is really pretty simple. A self launcher means you can
>
> launch
>
> >> whether there�s a tow plane or not. Period. For me, that
>
> would mean
>
> >> I could launch from Jean, land somewhere, make camp (I love
>
> �ramp
>
> >> camping�), and launch the next day and fly back (conditions,
>
> skills,
>
> >> etc. permitting.) Essentially equivalent to having a tug
>
> available
>
> >> for the next day at any field. If tugs were always available, I
>
> >> wouldn�t have any use for a self launcher.
>
> >
>
> >You understand one half of the attraction of a self-launcher, but
>
> like
>
> >many people, miss the other half: you can take risks with the
>
> lift, and
>
> >if you guess wrong and the lift isn't there, you can start the
>
> motor,
>
> >get to the next lift, and continue the flight. The ability to explore
>
> >without the consequences of a landout and a potentially long
>
> retrieve
>
> >are just as valuable as avoiding the launch line or flying from an
>
> >airport that doesn't have a towplane.
>
> >
>
> >I'm sorry you will have money left over at the end of your "final
>
> >glide", a fate I am trying to avoid. It's even harder to judge that
>
> >"glide" than one in a glider, and you don't get to practice it,
>
> either.
>
> >
>
> >Possibly, you could use some of the money to start a partnership
>
> in a
>
> >DG1000 or other excellent two seater, like the DG1000 that
>
> operates at
>
> >Ephrata, WA. You will have partners to fly with, they will be
>
> introduced
>
> >to cross-country flying, and will pass that on as they become
>
> >proficient. It's well equipped, kept assembled and covered so it's
>
> ready
>
> >to in moments, and seems to be fulfilling the mission envisioned
>
> by the
>
> >original owner.
>
> >
>
> >--
>
> >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
>
> >
>
>
>
> Talking about motor gliders with extending masts and gas
>
> engines: all the advantages seem (at least partially) offset by
>
> corresponding disadvantages, either physical or psychological. For
>
> example, the major convenience of not needing a towplane is
>
> partially offset by the usually-greater difficulty and risk of self
>
> launching. When it comes to cross-country flying, a large fraction
>
> (99%?) of field landings are eliminated with a motor glider, but the
>
> "worry element" always remains (motors don't always start, and a
>
> field landing in a motor glider will be more difficult and risky). Overall,
>
> my experience is that I prefer my motor glider, however
>
> the advantages are not as great as I had imagined.

I always self launch, and have had fewer problems doing so than using a tow plane.

The "worry" about an outlanding is completely mitigated if you use common sense. In the words of the Schleicher manual, "One must always be prepared for the possibility that the engine will not provide the hoped for propulsion." If you thermal down to 1000 ft, THEN pull out the engine, THEN look for a place to land, there is significant worry. Never been a problem for me, I fly it like a glider to a safe landing site, then power up above the pattern. If it doesn't start, do a normal pattern and landing.

Nevertheless, it does add to pilot workload, particularly on marginal final glides. Should I get out the engine now? If I do I for sure won't make it. If I don't maybe I won't make it and I will be too low to pull it out. Pull it out now or not? It's always running though my mind....

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

son_of_flubber wrote, On 8/22/2013 4:22 PM:
> On Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:49:54 PM UTC-4, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
>> ALL the other crap aside, a self launcher allows me to fly when the
>> tug needs an oil change, brakes, mags or whatever. That would mean
>> I could fly more. period. No wing runner, no FOO, no tow pilot.
>> Just go fly.
>
> But interacting with the people that it takes to launch a bunch of
> gliders on a good day is at least half of the fun of the sport.

You can still interact if you wish, and many motorglider owners do that.
Some even take tows if it's convenient, and I know a couple that tow up
their buddies using the towplane, then hop into their motorglider so
they can go flying, too. I know three pilots that fly touring
motorgliders and paid $2000 extra to get the towhook, so not only do
they fly the towplane, they also supply it!

Having a motorglider _increases_ your choices, instead of restricting them.

--
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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Mike the Strike wrote, On 8/22/2013 1:48 PM:
> A few years ago, I came across an Auxiliary Sailplane Association
> fly-in somewhere out west. The ramp was full of pilots working on
> engines - welding silencers, cleaning carburetors, fixing
> electronics, etc. One guy was replacing instruments in his panel
> that had fallen out through engine vibration!
>
> It reminder me more of a rally of mid-century British sports cars
> than a glider meet. I think I'll stick with having the engine at the
> end of a 200-foot rope.

I've been to 6 or 7 of those ASA events at Parowan, and "full" is a
misleading overstatement. It's very few at most, and hardly anyone
misses a day of flying for those reasons. You can always take a tow and
work the problem later, if nothing else. There are usually more
irritated people in line for the towplane waiting their turn as the day
slips by. Six or seven motorgliders can launch in the time it takes to
put one towed glider in the air.

It is true a motorglider requires much more maintenance than an
unpowered glider, but most of it can be done when there is no soaring to
do. As a former partner in a towplane for our club, I know I spent more
time working on that towplane than I have on my motorglider, even though
there were 5 partners and a mechanic involved. Keeping it going was as
hard as the British sports cars I used to own.

--
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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Andrew wrote, On 8/22/2013 9:10 AM:

> Talking about motor gliders with extending masts and gas
> engines: all the advantages seem (at least partially) offset by
> corresponding disadvantages, either physical or psychological. For
> example, the major convenience of not needing a towplane is
> partially offset by the usually-greater difficulty and risk of self
> launching.

That is a curious statement. All the motorglider pilots I know think
self-launching is easier than towing:

- you can taxi to the runway instead of pushing the glider there
- the steerable tail wheel means you go where you want to instead of
being ballistic during the start of the takeoff roll, and even cross
winds are more easily handled
- no dropped or mishandled wings due to the wing runner, because you
start with a wing tip on the ground, and raise it when you have
aerodynamic control
- it's easier to fly by yourself instead of following a towplane,
especially in turbulent conditions, and you get to go exactly where you
want to

> When it comes to cross-country flying, a large fraction
> (99%?) of field landings are eliminated with a motor glider, but the
> "worry element" always remains (motors don't always start, and a
> field landing in a motor glider will be more difficult and risky). Overall,
> my experience is that I prefer my motor glider, however
> the advantages are not as great as I had imagined.

If you haven't read my free "Guide to Self-launching Sailplanes" (56
pages), now would be a good time:

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

There should be no more "worry element" than flying an unpowered glider.
As fellow motorglider put it: "Plan A is to land in that field/airport;
Plan B is the motor starts and I get to go back to soaring.

--
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

[GC[_2_]]

On 23/08/2013 06:48, Mike the Strike wrote:
> A few years ago, I came across an Auxiliary Sailplane Association
> fly-in somewhere out west. The ramp was full of pilots working on
> engines - welding silencers, cleaning carburetors, fixing
> electronics, etc. One guy was replacing instruments in his panel
> that had fallen out through engine vibration!
>
> It reminder me more of a rally of mid-century British sports cars
> than a glider meet. I think I'll stick with having the engine at the
> end of a 200-foot rope.
>
> Mike

That's a very good analogy. The level of engineering involved is about
the same and for the same reason. Better would be too expensive to
sell. They both have to adapt stuff designed for a different use. MG
tail lights and back axles, for example. A pump in my refuelling system
is from a VW Polo windscreen washer.

Further, all 2-stroke self-launcher engines are the same. They're
reliable engines as engines - but vibration kills everything attached to
it. Electrical systems, fuel systems, instrument sensors, instruments,
wiring, airframes, everything.

Mine even had an AD because vibration was rattling apart the crankshaft
from the starter ring. Why wasn't it a single piece design? That would
have been too expensive.

Like SOF, I look forward to the battery technology which will make
electric viable - unless I buy a Schleicher Wankel first.

GC

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:33:40 PM UTC-4, GC wrote:

> Like SOF, I look forward to the battery technology which will make
> electric viable - unless I buy a Schleicher Wankel first.

There was a prototype hybrid self-launcher shown last summer in Europe (reported in Gliding International). The prop and electric motor is in the nose, a diesel generator is mounted near the CG. No mast. Smaller battery pack. Less volatile fuel.

Do any self-launchers have the option to dump fuel before "landing rough"?

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

son_of_flubber wrote, On 8/22/2013 6:57 PM:
> On Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:33:40 PM UTC-4, GC wrote:
>
>> Like SOF, I look forward to the battery technology which will make
>> electric viable - unless I buy a Schleicher Wankel first.
>
> There was a prototype hybrid self-launcher shown last summer in
> Europe (reported in Gliding International). The prop and electric
> motor is in the nose, a diesel generator is mounted near the CG. No
> mast. Smaller battery pack. Less volatile fuel.
>
> Do any self-launchers have the option to dump fuel before "landing
> rough"?

I don't know of any. I carry 4 gallons at most, and that's only 25
pounds, so weight isn't an issue; further, it's tucked up in the gear
well, about as safe as it can get. I'm not aware of any incidents
involving the fuel in an accident.

--
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

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Tthere has been at least one fire incident in the UK of a self-launcher. See https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/KxCxPHmzGh6QLWpwNxzO-89qFTGEW4n0nzOv7VfjGwM?

There are also reports of 2 fires on the ground, in Australia. I have no more details. There have been no fires yet of battery-driven motors in gliders (AFAIK), but that does not mean there won’t be. Mine has thermal sensors in the battery packs (and motor) so I hope (a) it won’t happen and (b) if it does I have time to get out, but only time will tell. The glider in the picture above did not give warning sufficient if any at all, to the pilot of the fire. He was lucky that it happened when approaching to land.

I am very happy with my FES (self sustainer, not launcher). The decision height for using the motor can be much lower (no added drag if it does not fire up), the workload is minimal, the response is a matter of 3 seconds or less if it works (and if not, as said above, plan A is to land safely and only plan B is to use the motor if it works),.

IMHO, a better solution for hassle-free preparation and avoiding outlandings, in spite of the limited range with present batteries.

Chris N

[GC[_2_]]

On 23/08/2013 14:21, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> Tthere has been at least one fire incident in the UK of a
> self-launcher. See
> https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/KxCxPHmzGh6QLWpwNxzO-89qFTGEW4n0nzOv7VfjGwM?
>
> There are also reports of 2 fires on the ground, in Australia. I

There was also a Stemme in Australia which crashed disastrously after a
fire developed in the air.

GC



> have no more details. There have been no fires yet of battery-driven
> motors in gliders (AFAIK), but that does not mean there won’t be.
> Mine has thermal sensors in the battery packs (and motor) so I hope
> (a) it won’t happen and (b) if it does I have time to get out, but
> only time will tell. The glider in the picture above did not give
> warning sufficient if any at all, to the pilot of the fire. He was
> lucky that it happened when approaching to land.
>
> I am very happy with my FES (self sustainer, not launcher). The
> decision height for using the motor can be much lower (no added drag
> if it does not fire up), the workload is minimal, the response is a
> matter of 3 seconds or less if it works (and if not, as said above,
> plan A is to land safely and only plan B is to use the motor if it
> works),.
>
> IMHO, a better solution for hassle-free preparation and avoiding
> outlandings, in spite of the limited range with present batteries.
>
> Chris N
>
>

[Andrew[_13_]]

At 00:34 23 August 2013, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Andrew wrote, On 8/22/2013 9:10 AM:
>
>> Talking about motor gliders with extending masts and gas
>> engines: all the advantages seem (at least partially) offset by
>> corresponding disadvantages, either physical or psychological.
For
>> example, the major convenience of not needing a towplane is
>> partially offset by the usually-greater difficulty and risk of self
>> launching.
>
>That is a curious statement. All the motorglider pilots I know
think
>self-launching is easier than towing:
>
>- you can taxi to the runway instead of pushing the glider there
>- the steerable tail wheel means you go where you want to
instead of
>being ballistic during the start of the takeoff roll, and even cross
>winds are more easily handled
>- no dropped or mishandled wings due to the wing runner,
because you
>start with a wing tip on the ground, and raise it when you have
>aerodynamic control
>- it's easier to fly by yourself instead of following a towplane,
>especially in turbulent conditions, and you get to go exactly
where you
>want to
>
>> When it comes to cross-country flying, a large fraction
>> (99%?) of field landings are eliminated with a motor glider, but
the
>> "worry element" always remains (motors don't always start,
and a
>> field landing in a motor glider will be more difficult and risky).
>Overall,
>> my experience is that I prefer my motor glider, however
>> the advantages are not as great as I had imagined.
>
>If you haven't read my free "Guide to Self-launching Sailplanes"
(56
>pages), now would be a good time:
>
>https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download
-the-guide-1
>
>There should be no more "worry element" than flying an
unpowered glider.
>As fellow motorglider put it: "Plan A is to land in that
field/airport;
>Plan B is the motor starts and I get to go back to soaring.
>
>--
>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
>


Hi Eric,

thanks for your comments. I have read your Self-Launching
Guidebook many times, and it's invaluable. I'll add my brief
comments here towards the points in your message:

1. My experience with my steerable tailwheel is that its a great
help at low power settings, taxying out and getting aligned on the
runway, but once the tailwheel gets light on the grass, as it always
does with full power, I am back to rudder control of heading, and
it takes a LOT of rudder in a XW to provide as good a directional
control as the pull from a towrope. Maybe it would be better on
tarmac, I don't know. My MG manual quotes a demonstrated XW
of 11kts.

2. Compared to aerotows, the ease of the stick-and-rudder part of
self-launching is clearly little different, but self launching is more
difficult in that it requires the MG pilot to additionally perform
engine monitoring, management, shutdown. I also use a right-
turnout as soon as possible, to remain close to the airport while
low. Regarding launch risk, I suspect engine failure is more likely
in a MG, and faster reactions would be needed in the event of a
low-level power loss.

3. About the 'worry' of field landings. As you say, there are
completely logical procedures for staying safe in a MG if a field
landing becomes imminent. However I also think it would be very
easy to fail to get an extending-mast gas engine up and running,
and the unknown risks of any field landing always worry me. The
result, for me, is that my MG does not produce the worry-free XC
flying I had imagined it would.

Overall, I do prefer my MG to a pure glider, mostly because of the
freedom from scheduling or waiting for an aerotow. That's a pure
advantage that I get every flight, and is very enjoyable.

regards
andrew

[Andrew[_13_]]

At 00:34 23 August 2013, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Andrew wrote, On 8/22/2013 9:10 AM:
>
>> Talking about motor gliders with extending masts and gas
>> engines: all the advantages seem (at least partially) offset by
>> corresponding disadvantages, either physical or psychological.
For
>> example, the major convenience of not needing a towplane is
>> partially offset by the usually-greater difficulty and risk of self
>> launching.
>
>That is a curious statement. All the motorglider pilots I know
think
>self-launching is easier than towing:
>
>- you can taxi to the runway instead of pushing the glider there
>- the steerable tail wheel means you go where you want to
instead of
>being ballistic during the start of the takeoff roll, and even cross
>winds are more easily handled
>- no dropped or mishandled wings due to the wing runner,
because you
>start with a wing tip on the ground, and raise it when you have
>aerodynamic control
>- it's easier to fly by yourself instead of following a towplane,
>especially in turbulent conditions, and you get to go exactly
where you
>want to
>
>> When it comes to cross-country flying, a large fraction
>> (99%?) of field landings are eliminated with a motor glider, but
the
>> "worry element" always remains (motors don't always start,
and a
>> field landing in a motor glider will be more difficult and risky).
>Overall,
>> my experience is that I prefer my motor glider, however
>> the advantages are not as great as I had imagined.
>
>If you haven't read my free "Guide to Self-launching Sailplanes"
(56
>pages), now would be a good time:
>
>https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download
-the-guide-1
>
>There should be no more "worry element" than flying an
unpowered glider.
>As fellow motorglider put it: "Plan A is to land in that
field/airport;
>Plan B is the motor starts and I get to go back to soaring.
>
>--
>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
>


Hi Eric,

thanks for your comments. I have read your Self-Launching
Guidebook many times, and it's invaluable. I'll add my brief
comments here towards the points in your message:

1. My experience with my steerable tailwheel is that its a great
help at low power settings, taxying out and getting aligned on the
runway, but once the tailwheel gets light on the grass, as it always
does with full power, I am back to rudder control of heading, and
it takes a LOT of rudder in a XW to provide as good a directional
control as the pull from a towrope. Maybe it would be better on
tarmac, I don't know. My MG manual quotes a demonstrated XW
of 11kts.

2. Compared to aerotows, the ease of the stick-and-rudder part of
self-launching is clearly little different, but self launching is more
difficult in that it requires the MG pilot to additionally perform
engine monitoring, management, shutdown. I also use a right-
turnout as soon as possible, to remain close to the airport while
low. Regarding launch risk, I suspect engine failure is more likely
in a MG, and faster reactions would be needed in the event of a
low-level power loss.

3. About the 'worry' of field landings. As you say, there are
completely logical procedures for staying safe in a MG if a field
landing becomes imminent. However I also think it would be very
easy to fail to get an extending-mast gas engine up and running,
and the unknown risks of any field landing always worry me. The
result, for me, is that my MG does not produce the worry-free XC
flying I had imagined it would.

Overall, I do prefer my MG to a pure glider, mostly because of the
freedom from scheduling or waiting for an aerotow. That's a pure
advantage that I get every flight, and is very enjoyable.

regards
andrew

[waremark]

I have been flying a 26E for 6 seasons and am completely committed to having a self-launcher for reasons all of which have probably been mentioned - independence of launch queue, put yourself where you want to in the sky, ease of taxying out and back on the airfield, you don't need a crew, if you need to self-retrieve you know the engine has already run today, you lose virtually no height in the start process, and onece the engine is going you start to climb at a better rate than the engine out sink rate - so you always remain within engine out glide of where you started the engine. For the record, I have kept to starting the engine at 1,000 foot above a landable field, and so far the engine has always started on the first push of the button for air starts. On many non-competition days I have continued with my flight when others without engines have given up, and I have always been able to fly on days when I have commitments in the evening, so I have enjoyed more gliding as a result of having the engine.

This season I have been flying an Arcus M, which is a superb glider (excellent handling, about the same performance as a Ventus 2cxt). However, at the moment I am in the middle of a competition. In this context, the engine is probably a handicap. Firstly the take-off process - competition rules say I have to follow the normal tow out route, so I cannot remain within engine out glide of the airfield (the Arcus has a lower climb rate than the ASH 26 and a higher prop out sink rate). Then the switch off - the Arcus manual asks you to cool on 20% throttle for a minute, during which you may descend, or if you are in a thermal you may climb, but the competition rules say you must switch off the engine not above 2,100 feet - after which since you cannot be in a thermal or you will have gone over 2,100 feet you may lose another couple of hundred feet before the prop is away. All this while milling around with 30 or 40 other gliders. This makes the switch-off very high workload and rather fraught.

On Wednesday we were sent off for a comp flight in low, weak, blue conditions. I knew those were terrible conditions for my glider - high wing loading, floor of 1,000 feet over a landable field. Sure enough I had to start the engine much too soon (I was in second overall after three comp days, I dropped to 7th overall so far as a result of that flight). Many of those who got round the task had been below 1,000 feet during their flights, and 4 out of 6 engine equipped gliders in my class did not finish (one which did was a Nimbus 4 DM which flew with only one on board and with no water). So for those who think having an engine is a help in a competition, I find exactly the opposite.

Mark Burton, flying an ASH26E and an Arcus M from London Gliding Club, UK

On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 03:35:17 UTC+1, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
> My take on self-launchers launchers
>
>
>
> … is really pretty simple. A self launcher means you can launch whether there’s a tow plane or not. Period.
>
> For me, that would mean I could launch from Jean, land somewhere, make camp (I love ‘ramp camping’), and launch the next day and fly back (conditions, skills, etc. permitting.)
>
> Essentially equivalent to having a tug available for the next day at any field. If tugs were always available, I wouldn’t have any use for a self launcher.
>
>
>
> While I’m feeling relatively coherent: FRONT LOAD FUN !!
>
> Get the toys now, and play with them. I have been a renowned ‘cheap *******’ forever, and have managed to run myself up a great bank account, and no time to utilize it. I can’t fly any more, but I could damn well pay cash for a Stemme. I think I screwed up somehwere.
>
> That said, my fun-meter has been pretty well pegged since joining the LVVSA IN 2001. Whether flying a 1-26, Speed Astir, or Janus, for me the result is pretty much a pegged fun-meter.
>
> Hmmmm. Losing coherence. Hope this makes some sense to somebody
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Uncle Fuzzy

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:21:01 -0700, Chris Nicholas wrote:

> Tthere has been at least one fire incident in the UK of a self-launcher.
> See
> https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/
KxCxPHmzGh6QLWpwNxzO-89qFTGEW4n0nzOv7VfjGwM?
>
> There are also reports of 2 fires on the ground, in Australia.
>
I know of one ground fire in the UK. A Duo: thought to be a slightly
binding wheel brake causing dry grass in the wheelbox to catch, which lit
the plastic fuel tube on the other side of the wheelbox side wall.


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

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:24:47 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote: I'm waiting for an electric sustainer that I can afford.

Dear Son of Flubber, What is the price target for you?
Realistically what can you afford to buy now in an electric sustainer?

Robert Mudd
Moriarty, NM

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, August 23, 2013 11:31:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:

> Dear Son of Flubber, What is the price target for you?
>
> Realistically what can you afford to buy now in an electric sustainer?

Besides my expectation of cheaper and better batteries in my flying lifetime, I've not caught the XC bug yet. Plus I have 7 day a week tow availability and landable valley fields.

If I were flying XC over tiger country, a FES would be more compelling.

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Robert, FWIW, the price I paid for my FES retrofit was about the same as a conventional turbo would have cost. For that I got more convenience but less range.

I don’t know current prices.

It needs some sort of step change in battery technology to improve FES range significantly. Maybe the fuel cell/hybrid will get there first, at a cost..

Chris N

[[email protected]]

Current systems allow a 700 meter launch and about 45 min cruise. Of course if you find a thermal a bit lower than 700M then you can climb in that and save battery by either shuting the motor off or just throttling back to rebuce the sink rate. Doing a car tow or a airplane tow to 300 meters then motoring away is also a big saverer of the battery.

The present systems are really pretty good. And of course as battery technology gets better the performance in a self launch glider gets better.

Robert Mudd
Moriarty, NM

On Saturday, August 24, 2013 4:06:46 AM UTC-6, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> Robert, FWIW, the price I paid for my FES retrofit was about the same as a conventional turbo would have cost. For that I got more convenience but less range. I don’t know current prices. It needs some sort of step change in battery technology to improve FES range significantly. Maybe the fuel cell/hybrid will get there first, at a cost. Chris N

[Bill[_21_]]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:35:17 PM UTC-4, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
> My take on self-launchers launchers
>
>
>
> … is really pretty simple. A self launcher means you can launch whether there’s a tow plane or not. Period.
>
> For me, that would mean I could launch from Jean, land somewhere, make camp (I love ‘ramp camping’), and launch the next day and fly back (conditions, skills, etc. permitting.)
>
> Essentially equivalent to having a tug available for the next day at any field. If tugs were always available, I wouldn’t have any use for a self launcher.
>
>
>
> While I’m feeling relatively coherent: FRONT LOAD FUN !!
>
> Get the toys now, and play with them. I have been a renowned ‘cheap *******’ forever, and have managed to run myself up a great bank account, and no time to utilize it. I can’t fly any more, but I could damn well pay cash for a Stemme. I think I screwed up somehwere.
>
> That said, my fun-meter has been pretty well pegged since joining the LVVSA IN 2001. Whether flying a 1-26, Speed Astir, or Janus, for me the result is pretty much a pegged fun-meter.
>
> Hmmmm. Losing coherence. Hope this makes some sense to somebody
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Uncle Fuzzy

For me my single-seat Carat motorglider is the solution. Great sailplane, great cruising motorglider. It has a motorglider niche which is fly to and from any airport. I love the sunrise wave flights the best and I remain popular with the other glider pilots after I tow them up with the Pawnee and then launch myself in the Carat (the program is called "no pilot left behind").

As Uncle Fuzzy wrote which has a lot of truth for many..."Get the toys now, and play with them. I have been a renowned ‘cheap *******’ forever, and have managed to run myself up a great bank account, and no time to utilize it."

I can't agree more....have fun out there. Bill

[Andrew[_13_]]

I found this website with an interesting commentary on motor
gliders.

http://www.trb.8m.com/index.html

>

[2G]

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:48:04 PM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
> A few years ago, I came across an Auxiliary Sailplane Association fly-in somewhere out west. The ramp was full of pilots working on engines - welding silencers, cleaning carburetors, fixing electronics, etc. One guy was replacing instruments in his panel that had fallen out through engine vibration!
>
>
>
> It reminder me more of a rally of mid-century British sports cars than a glider meet. I think I'll stick with having the engine at the end of a 200-foot rope.
>
>
>
> Mike

I have attended most of the Parowan meets and that is a gross overstatement of actual maintenance record of motorgliders. And one needs to compare that to not being able to get a tow either because the tow plane has its own mechanical breakdown or no tow pilots are available that weekend or there is a 2-3 hour wait in the tow line on a great day.
When you have a MG you can decide when and where you are going to launch (yes, you don't have to go to an airport that has tows!).

Tom

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, September 20, 2013 4:36:34 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:

> When you have a MG you can decide when and where you are going to launch (yes, you don't have to go to an airport that has tows!).

A pilot with first rate MG landed for lunch at the airport where I normally launch. He took an aerotow to relaunch (after lunch) because he said that he felt nervous about the possibility of an engine failure when launching from our "short" 2600 foot runway. He is very familiar with the airport. (Admitedly, off runway landing sites are limited.)

Is it a common (and prudent) precaution to take an aerotow with a motorglider if you have that option?

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

son_of_flubber wrote, On 9/20/2013 8:42 PM:
> On Friday, September 20, 2013 4:36:34 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
>
>> When you have a MG you can decide when and where you are going to
>> launch (yes, you don't have to go to an airport that has tows!).
>
> A pilot with first rate MG landed for lunch at the airport where I
> normally launch. He took an aerotow to relaunch (after lunch)
> because he said that he felt nervous about the possibility of an
> engine failure when launching from our "short" 2600 foot runway. He
> is very familiar with the airport. (Admitedly, off runway landing
> sites are limited.)
>
> Is it a common (and prudent) precaution to take an aerotow with a
> motorglider if you have that option?

It's definitely not common, but sometimes is advisable. There are a
number of reasons to choose a tow:

- If the tow plane will give a markedly better climb at an airport with
limited emergency options (the one you mentioned)
- As long as the towplane can provide the same or better climb rate, you
have more margin because you don't have the drag of the extended engine
to deal with in an emergency
- You have all of your fuel to use for a retrieve, extending the flight,
or for the next day's flying (safari mode)
- Some motorgliders handle a cross-wind better when towed than when
self-launching
- in some (rare) situations, it's easier to integrate the motorgliders
with the towed gliders during the launch if everybody takes a tow

Personally, I've never thought it worth doing in the 500-600 flights
I've made.

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

[2G]

On Monday, August 26, 2013 10:38:05 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> I found this website with an interesting commentary on motor
>
> gliders.
>
>
>
> http://www.trb.8m.com/index.html
>
>
>
> >

Real has some important insights about the issues of flying MGs, but has reached a couple of very wrong conclusions.

First:

"The more complicated the motor the more dangerous. SLS is more problem than a sustainers, which in turns is more than an electric."

An self-launcher just has a larger motor than a sustainer; the complexity is very comparable. SLS will be heavier, which increases wing loading, but the start sequence is pretty much the same. In fact, I was surprised at the issue of getting all of the petal blades deployed - this is definitely not an issue with an SLS. Electrics are the clear winners on simplicity, but they are also the clear losers on range, which, flying 1000 k tasks over Nevada, is a big issue for me.

"Flying a motor glider could force you to more land out then having a pure glider."

If this actually happens, you are doing something seriously wrong. In Real's case this is his mystifying decision to carry ONLY 4 l of fuel. Fuel translates directly to range. If he had carried a full fuel tank he probably would not have had any landouts. The 13 l tank capacity only adds another 15 lbs of weight - this will have a negligible affect on wing loading (less than 2%).

The circumstances that give pure gliders a SLIGHT edge over MGs so emphasized by Real happens very rarely in reality. It happened to me a couple of times in 16 years. One was in a contest that had a weak day. I ended up landing at an airport (to get a landing card signed) and self-retrieved. Another pure glider also landed at the same airport. After I launched, a bystander asked the other pilot if he also was going to do the same thing! Not a single MG made it around that day w/o restarting, but pure gliders did (albeit by doing numerous low saves). I concluded that MGs were at a definite disadvantage in contests and stopped flying them.

Personally, I will only own an SLS (we don't have a tow plane here!). Pure glider owners must look at the short list of commercial operators and a few of the larger clubs if they want to tour the country - I only have to find an airport (of which there are 1000s)!

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

2G wrote, On 9/21/2013 9:04 AM:
> Real has some important insights about the issues of flying MGs, but
> has reached a couple of very wrong conclusions.

snip

>
> "Flying a motor glider could force you to more land out then having a
> pure glider."
>
> If this actually happens, you are doing something seriously wrong.

I have to agree with Tom - this a really odd statement. Before I got my
motorglider, I'd land away from home about 3 or 4 times a year in my ASW
20 B; since getting my ASH 26 E 18 years ago, I've never had to land
away from except for one weather related situation. I've restarted in
the air over 160 times to avoid landing out. My wife thinks it's the
best glider we've ever had (it's my 5th one), because "it always gets back".

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

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, August 26, 2013 1:38:05 PM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> I found this website with an interesting commentary on motor
> gliders.
> http://www.trb.8m.com/index.html
>

Caution: Clicking on this link may infect your computer with a virus. My virus protection program (Avast) warned me that the site was spreading Infection: JS:Redirector-AJB [Trj]

If your virus protection program did not catch this, you might consider upgrading to Avast (I run the free version). On the other hand, this could be a false alarm.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

son_of_flubber wrote, On 9/21/2013 10:21 AM:
> On Monday, August 26, 2013 1:38:05 PM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
>> I found this website with an interesting commentary on motor
>> gliders. http://www.trb.8m.com/index.html
>>
>
> Caution: Clicking on this link may infect your computer with a virus.
> My virus protection program (Avast) warned me that the site was
> spreading Infection: JS:Redirector-AJB [Trj]
>
> If your virus protection program did not catch this, you might
> consider upgrading to Avast (I run the free version). On the other
> hand, this could be a false alarm.

Norton Internet Security on my Windows XP machine didn't find anything.

--
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