Sustainers and Self-Launchers- How often and for how long do you runyour motors (after launch)?

[son_of_flubber]

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 12:31:16 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> If a pilot isn't using the FES on 10% to 20% of the flights, the pilot
> has wasted his money buying the FES. The FES can and should be used to
> increase the amount and quality of soaring the pilot does, and flying so
> conservatively it's rarely needed will not achieve that goal.

Does this hold true in practice for most pilots and most propulsion systems?

What's your theory/philosophy on motor use and to what extent does your logbook conform to your goal?

Do FES flyers use their motors more frequently than petrol-powered pilots?

Does a motor increase the number of 'good soaring days' for you?

[jfitch]

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 7:34:21 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Sunday, April 20, 2014 12:31:16 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>
>
> > If a pilot isn't using the FES on 10% to 20% of the flights, the pilot
>
> > has wasted his money buying the FES. The FES can and should be used to
>
> > increase the amount and quality of soaring the pilot does, and flying so
>
> > conservatively it's rarely needed will not achieve that goal.
>
>
>
> Does this hold true in practice for most pilots and most propulsion systems?
>
>
>
> What's your theory/philosophy on motor use and to what extent does your logbook conform to your goal?
>
>
>
> Do FES flyers use their motors more frequently than petrol-powered pilots?
>
>
>
> Does a motor increase the number of 'good soaring days' for you?

I run the (gas) motor before every flight, because I self launch every flight.

It does increase the number of 'good' days a little because I will go cross country on a more marginal day than I might have otherwise. Not because I will fly low over unlandable terrain, but because the inconvenience of a retrieve from an airport is mitigated. The 10-20% number Eric refers to seems high to me. I have started the engine for a real retrieve I think six times in 14 years. I have restarted it maybe 4 or 5 times for a relight shortly after shutdown.

[Dan Marotta]

Flub: You should get out and fly some more and not worry so much about what
other folks do with their equipment.

As to use of the engine - I was once on the far side of Pike's Peak from
Black Forest in a borrowed ASW-24E that I self-launched and was getting low.
No problem; I simply extracted and started the engine. As I established a
stable climb the engine quit due to fuel starvation (out of gas) so I stowed
it and landed at Canon City. The owner brought the trailer and I bought
dinner. A wonderful day!

"jfitch" > wrote in message
...
On Sunday, April 20, 2014 7:34:21 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Sunday, April 20, 2014 12:31:16 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>
>
> > If a pilot isn't using the FES on 10% to 20% of the flights, the pilot
>
> > has wasted his money buying the FES. The FES can and should be used to
>
> > increase the amount and quality of soaring the pilot does, and flying so
>
> > conservatively it's rarely needed will not achieve that goal.
>
>
>
> Does this hold true in practice for most pilots and most propulsion
> systems?
>
>
>
> What's your theory/philosophy on motor use and to what extent does your
> logbook conform to your goal?
>
>
>
> Do FES flyers use their motors more frequently than petrol-powered pilots?
>
>
>
> Does a motor increase the number of 'good soaring days' for you?

I run the (gas) motor before every flight, because I self launch every
flight.

It does increase the number of 'good' days a little because I will go cross
country on a more marginal day than I might have otherwise. Not because I
will fly low over unlandable terrain, but because the inconvenience of a
retrieve from an airport is mitigated. The 10-20% number Eric refers to
seems high to me. I have started the engine for a real retrieve I think six
times in 14 years. I have restarted it maybe 4 or 5 times for a relight
shortly after shutdown.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

son_of_flubber wrote, On 4/20/2014 7:34 AM:
> On Sunday, April 20, 2014 12:31:16 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> If a pilot isn't using the FES on 10% to 20% of the flights, the pilot
>> has wasted his money buying the FES. The FES can and should be used to
>> increase the amount and quality of soaring the pilot does, and flying so
>> conservatively it's rarely needed will not achieve that goal.
>
> Does this hold true in practice for most pilots and most propulsion systems?

== I have no idea about "most" pilots, but I know self-launching pilots
that do an in-flight restart only every two or three years; I typically
use the engine for self-retrieving or saving a flight 15% to 20% a year,
quite consistently over the 19 years I've owned my ASH 26 E.
>
> What's your theory/philosophy on motor use and to what extent does your logbook conform to your goal?

== Because I don't have to worry about a retrieve, I often linger in
distant (but good) soaring conditions rather than running for home when
the soaring starts to die there; sometimes I'll launch (too) early and
use the motor a time or two until things firm up; or check out some odd
but interesting weather situation that may not have enough lift. My
"Guide" (see the link below) goes into more detail.
>
> Do FES flyers use their motors more frequently than petrol-powered pilots?

== I'd expect so, given the ease and reliability of the FES, but I don't
think there are enough of the FES to conclude anything.

> Does a motor increase the number of 'good soaring days' for you?

== Absolutely! With a self-launcher, I can fly when and where I want,
and I've flown areas in Florida, in Alaska, and most places in between.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

As well as my response in the Ventus FES thread, I might add that in other flights in 2011 and 2012 I used the FES to do cross country flights that I would otherwise not have attempted but instead stayed local - just because the risk of outlanding would have been too high with small, weak thermals and probably dead areas or periods. I did stay within "motor home" distance of the airfield, say 30 miles to be on the safe side, but it is all practice.

During another flight on a barely soarable day, in hilly country I was visiting rather than my usual flat home area, I used the FES to explore local hills to see if any gave useful ridge lift (they didn't - not enough wind - but it all experience, and enjoyment).

Chris N

[waremark]

I have been flying a self-launcher for 7 seasons - I am based in the flattish South-East of the UK. Previously I flew a pure glider, and used to land 'out' at other airfields maybe four or five times a year, and to land in a field on average over several years once a year.

Now I start over landable terrain a comparable number of times, which is maybe about 15% of my cross country flights. In two different self-launchers I have always started over somewhere which I thought to be safely landable (although I have not been tested) and I have been lucky enough that the engine has always started first time and I have been able to climb away with the loss of only about 100 foot from starting to raise the prop (which I do at 1,000 foot on downwind).

Benefits for me are:

I am not an early riser; I can get to the airfield when I want, and not have to worry about being at the back of the launch queue.

I can launch to a part of the sky which I choose - I am more relaxed about whether it is soarable when I launch, and more ready to take a high launch because of not having to pay for the aerotow.

I can fly cross country on a day when I absolutely need to be home in the evening. I continue with my planned task when without an engine I might have turned home early, if I think there is the slightest chance of success.

I have no doubt that I do more soaring as a result of having an engine. For me the independence from the launch queue is such a significant part of what I was looking for that I would not consider an FES or jet sustainer. An electric self-launcher is interesting, but at the moment the endurance is very limiting. (I have an Arcus M - available as an electric self launcher but for more money with a total climb potential of 2,000 m. I was interested to read here about the EB29 electric self-launcher - does anyone know what endurance that has?).

Mark Burton, London Gliding Club, UK


On Sunday, 20 April 2014 15:34:21 UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Sunday, April 20, 2014 12:31:16 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>
>
> > If a pilot isn't using the FES on 10% to 20% of the flights, the pilot
>
> > has wasted his money buying the FES. The FES can and should be used to
>
> > increase the amount and quality of soaring the pilot does, and flying so
>
> > conservatively it's rarely needed will not achieve that goal.
>
>
>
> Does this hold true in practice for most pilots and most propulsion systems?
>
>
>
> What's your theory/philosophy on motor use and to what extent does your logbook conform to your goal?
>
>
>
> Do FES flyers use their motors more frequently than petrol-powered pilots?
>
>
>
> Does a motor increase the number of 'good soaring days' for you?