Sustainer/turbo gliders

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Was hoping to get comments regarding a glider with a sustainer engine. Would you buy another one, are you happy with the sustainer, do you wish you had gotten a motor glider, a pure glider, how do you fly differently, do you actually get more soaring in or less because of the extra weight......

do you use headsets for hearing protection with engine running... engine can achieve a positive rate of climb to what density altitude....? Am considering purchasing a glider with a sustainer and am looking for all information I can get. i am a Western USA pilot, but have flown in many parts of the country.

[[email protected]]

I'll never buy a non sustainer glider again. Show it a little maintenance love (change the plugs periodically) and be sure to run it for 30-60 seconds every flight. You'll want some earplugs but you'll probably only use them if you're tunning it for longer than the 30 second "daily check"

The SH sustem with the multi blade folding prop is a tad nicer since you never have to worry about prop position.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 1:08:53 AM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was hoping to get comments regarding a glider with a sustainer engine. Would you buy another one, are you happy with the sustainer, do you wish you had gotten a motor glider, a pure glider, how do you fly differently, do you actually get more soaring in or less because of the extra weight......
>
> do you use headsets for hearing protection with engine running... engine can achieve a positive rate of climb to what density altitude....? Am considering purchasing a glider with a sustainer and am looking for all information I can get. i am a Western USA pilot, but have flown in many parts of the country.

If you are in Western USA be sure your turbo has any climb rate left at the density altitude you operate. For eastern USA Turbo would be great.
Schleicher is working on electric sustainer. That would be your best bet!

If you consider buying a turbo I would consider the Antares from W&W instead. That glider will be able to climb over mountain ranges, which is what you need and it already depreciated.

[David Salmon[_3_]]

At 05:08 04 April 2015, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>Was hoping to get comments regarding a glider with a sustainer engine.
>Wou=
>ld you buy another one, are you happy with the sustainer, do you wish you
>h=
>ad gotten a motor glider, a pure glider, how do you fly differently, do
>yo=
>u actually get more soaring in or less because of the extra weight......
>
>do you use headsets for hearing protection with engine running... engine
>ca=
>n achieve a positive rate of climb to what density altitude....? Am
>consid=
>ering purchasing a glider with a sustainer and am looking for all
>informati=
>on I can get. i am a Western USA pilot, but have flown in many parts of
>th=
>e country.

Bought a Discus Turbo 7/8 years ago. Never regretted it. You do get more
out of it, certainly at a winch only site. No need for ear protection, in
fact if there was someone else with you, you could hold a conversation.
Never failed to start except by pilot error (don't ask). You do have to
make earlier decisions to start the engine, than for a genuine field
landing. We get about 2.5 kts average climb, and I haven't noticed being
left behind in thermals by pure gliders.
Dave

[Z Goudie[_2_]]

At 16:29 04 April 2015, David Salmon wrote:

>Bought a Discus Turbo 7/8 years ago. Never regretted it. You do get mor
>out of it, certainly at a winch only site. No need for ear protection, i
>fact if there was someone else with you, you could hold a conversation
>Never failed to start except by pilot error (don't ask). You do have t
>make earlier decisions to start the engine, than for a genuine fiel
>landing. We get about 2.5 kts average climb, and I haven't noticed bein
>left behind in thermals by pure gliders.

Echo Dave's comments. Solo 2350 with 5 blade fan never (never say never)
fails to start readily (apart from finger trouble, again don't ask)
providing you prime the fuel system to get any air out before launching.

Even if you don't need an engine run to climb away after launching, give it
a test run for 30 seconds before setting out into the wild blue yonder (if
you forget that you'll find your sphincter muscles tightening if you get
low later) and occasionally practice a close in circuit with the engine
out/blades extended (when it does come down quickly).

Drill out the exhaust restrictors and put bigger jets in the carbs and
you'll get 3.5 kts with a Discus in still air.
You'll need ear defenders for a longish climb then though.

Z

[Dave Nadler]

As with all motorized gliders, plan for the engine not
to start, be delighted if it does, and land stress-free
if it does not. "Plan" means be in the pattern, very
high, with plenty of time to mess with the engine
and land when it does not start.

At the Seniors, three times a motor-glider failed to
air-start and the pilot landed SAFELY in a field.
In all cases the pilot had carefully planned their
pattern prior messing with the engine.

Be safe out there,
Best Regards, Dave

http://www.nadler.com/papers/2014_So_You_Think_You_Want_A_Motorglider_MS_PPT_up dated_with_speaker_notes.pdf

[Renny[_2_]]

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 11:08:53 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was hoping to get comments regarding a glider with a sustainer engine. Would you buy another one, are you happy with the sustainer, do you wish you had gotten a motor glider, a pure glider, how do you fly differently, do you actually get more soaring in or less because of the extra weight......
>
> do you use headsets for hearing protection with engine running... engine can achieve a positive rate of climb to what density altitude....? Am considering purchasing a glider with a sustainer and am looking for all information I can get. i am a Western USA pilot, but have flown in many parts of the country.

My choice for sustainer is the FES (Front Electric Sustainer) for the following reasons:

1. It is extremely simple to operate.
2. It is very, very reliable.
3. It is very quiet.
4. It does a fine job at high elevation airports like Moriarty which is at 6,200 feet.
5. The "range" of 60 miles (or so depending on battery charge) is enough to get me back to Moriarty or to another airport.
5. If it were not to start, there is absolutely no additional drag penalty.

I will, most likely, never own another glider without one!
Thanks - Renny

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 3:52:24 PM UTC-7, Renny wrote:
> My choice for sustainer is the FES (Front Electric Sustainer) for the following reasons:
>
> 1. It is extremely simple to operate.
> 2. It is very, very reliable.
> 3. It is very quiet.
> 4. It does a fine job at high elevation airports like Moriarty which is at 6,200 feet.
> 5. The "range" of 60 miles (or so depending on battery charge) is enough to get me back to Moriarty or to another airport.
> 5. If it were not to start, there is absolutely no additional drag penalty.
>
> I will, most likely, never own another glider without one!
> Thanks - Renny

I was really impressed with the FES system when I saw it at the SSA Convention a while back. Flip one switch, twist a knob, and you get instant thrust. We're currently developing an FES installation for the HP-24 kit sailplane.

Thanks, Bob K.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/HP-24-Sailplane-Project/200931354951

[[email protected]]

The LAK-17 FES seems like a great glider and the FES really works nicely according to a friend of mine who owns one. Too bad Transport Canada, for some BS reason, has decided they aren't allowed to fly here.

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 08:22 05 April 2015, wrote:
>The LAK-17 FES seems like a great glider and the FES really works
nicely
>according to a friend of mine who owns one. Too bad Transport
Canada, for
>some BS reason, has decided they aren't allowed to fly here.

To my mind the FES system makes a lot of sense as a self-launcher
on a light weight medium performance glider like the Silent Electro.
On a state of the art high performance new glider, however, I have to
think of the huge cost of advancing performance by e.g. 1 or 2% and
the the additional cost of taking that away by adding FES with its
folded prop.

[Paul B[_2_]]

Hi Renny

"My choice for sustainer is the FES"


On what glider?


Thanks

Paul

[Renny[_2_]]

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 5:09:55 AM UTC-6, Paul B wrote:
> Hi Renny
>
> "My choice for sustainer is the FES"
>
>
> On what glider?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul

Paul,
I own a LAK-17B FES, but it is also available on the Silent 2 Electro (which is also a self-launcher), and it is also now being offered by Schempp-Hirth for the Ventus 2cxa FES.
Thx - Renny

[Dan Marotta]

Is this one yours, Renny?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnHaBF9VTcM
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnHaBF9VTcM>

On 4/4/2015 4:52 PM, Renny wrote:
> On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 11:08:53 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>> Was hoping to get comments regarding a glider with a sustainer engine. Would you buy another one, are you happy with the sustainer, do you wish you had gotten a motor glider, a pure glider, how do you fly differently, do you actually get more soaring in or less because of the extra weight......
>>
>> do you use headsets for hearing protection with engine running... engine can achieve a positive rate of climb to what density altitude....? Am considering purchasing a glider with a sustainer and am looking for all information I can get. i am a Western USA pilot, but have flown in many parts of the country.
> My choice for sustainer is the FES (Front Electric Sustainer) for the following reasons:
>
> 1. It is extremely simple to operate.
> 2. It is very, very reliable.
> 3. It is very quiet.
> 4. It does a fine job at high elevation airports like Moriarty which is at 6,200 feet.
> 5. The "range" of 60 miles (or so depending on battery charge) is enough to get me back to Moriarty or to another airport.
> 5. If it were not to start, there is absolutely no additional drag penalty.
>
> I will, most likely, never own another glider without one!
> Thanks - Renny
>
>

--
Dan Marotta

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 10:11:46 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Is this one yours, Renny?
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnHaBF9VTcM
>
>
>
>
> On 4/4/2015 4:52 PM, Renny wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 11:08:53 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>
>
> Was hoping to get comments regarding a glider with a sustainer engine. Would you buy another one, are you happy with the sustainer, do you wish you had gotten a motor glider, a pure glider, how do you fly differently, do you actually get more soaring in or less because of the extra weight......
>
> do you use headsets for hearing protection with engine running... engine can achieve a positive rate of climb to what density altitude....? Am considering purchasing a glider with a sustainer and am looking for all information I can get. i am a Western USA pilot, but have flown in many parts of the country.
>
>
> My choice for sustainer is the FES (Front Electric Sustainer) for the following reasons:
>
> 1. It is extremely simple to operate.
> 2. It is very, very reliable.
> 3. It is very quiet.
> 4. It does a fine job at high elevation airports like Moriarty which is at 6,200 feet.
> 5. The "range" of 60 miles (or so depending on battery charge) is enough to get me back to Moriarty or to another airport.
> 5. If it were not to start, there is absolutely no additional drag penalty.
>
> I will, most likely, never own another glider without one!
> Thanks - Renny
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan Marotta

Dan,
Negative...Mine actually did a test flight self-launch at the factory in Lithuania in 2011, but in the Flight Manual it is very specific about its operating limitations with the following statement:

"LAK-17B FES is a self-sustaining powered sailplane and is prohibited from taking off solely by the means of its own power."

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Somehow this turned into a FES thread, not what I had intended. I would like comments from those with curent generation pop up factory installed sustainers. I noticed the POH's do not have performance information other than Standard conditions. Say if you have a solo 2350 what is the ceiling of climb ability? What are actual achieved results? Do you find you get less soaring as you have to stop looking for lift at a much higher altitude, and yo have a high minimum wing loading. Are you happy with the sustainer or do you wish you had gotten a pure glider? What are the downsides, the upsides. Have you experienced a failure to extend or to start, any idea what is the glider ration with engine extended. Do you prefer the two blades of Schleicher designs or the five blades of Schempp-Hirth, anyone flow a JS with jet? Does the sustainer make your flights safer as the possibility of a land is reduced. Has anyone suffered a failure resulting in damage? I am looking for as much information as the readers are willing to share. As for FES, we can start another thread but for this discussion I am interested in factory installed sustainers. Thank you all very much for your time and input.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 4:03:05 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Somehow this turned into a FES thread, not what I had intended. I would like comments from those with curent generation pop up factory installed sustainers. I noticed the POH's do not have performance information other than Standard conditions. Say if you have a solo 2350 what is the ceiling of climb ability? What are actual achieved results? Do you find you get less soaring as you have to stop looking for lift at a much higher altitude, and yo have a high minimum wing loading. Are you happy with the sustainer or do you wish you had gotten a pure glider? What are the downsides, the upsides. Have you experienced a failure to extend or to start, any idea what is the glider ration with engine extended. Do you prefer the two blades of Schleicher designs or the five blades of Schempp-Hirth, anyone flow a JS with jet? Does the sustainer make your flights safer as the possibility of a land is reduced. Has anyone suffered a failure resulting in damage? I am looking for as much information as the readers are willing to share. As for FES, we can start another thread but for this discussion I am interested in factory installed sustainers. Thank you all very much for your time and input.

Jonathan,
Understand, but for the record, the FES was a "factory installed sustainer." With that you will hear not a word more from me on this subject....
Good luck in your research and have a safe soaring season.
Thx - Renny

[jfitch]

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 3:03:05 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Somehow this turned into a FES thread, not what I had intended. I would like comments from those with curent generation pop up factory installed sustainers. I noticed the POH's do not have performance information other than Standard conditions. Say if you have a solo 2350 what is the ceiling of climb ability? What are actual achieved results? Do you find you get less soaring as you have to stop looking for lift at a much higher altitude, and yo have a high minimum wing loading. Are you happy with the sustainer or do you wish you had gotten a pure glider? What are the downsides, the upsides. Have you experienced a failure to extend or to start, any idea what is the glider ration with engine extended. Do you prefer the two blades of Schleicher designs or the five blades of Schempp-Hirth, anyone flow a JS with jet? Does the sustainer make your flights safer as the possibility of a land is reduced. Has anyone suffered a failure resulting in damage? I am looking for as much information as the readers are willing to share. As for FES, we can start another thread but for this discussion I am interested in factory installed sustainers. Thank you all very much for your time and input.

I do not own a sustainer, rather a motorglider (ASH26e) but some of the experience is relevant. 1) If you are looking at any auxiliary engine as a safety device, I think you will eventually be disappointed if not injured. 2) An engine significantly increases the pilot workload at just the moment you would like it to be reduced, that is when low and looking for lift or a landing site. 3) An engine increases maintenance for a glider by around 2x or maybe more. These are realities that must be considered along with any perceived benefits.

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 7:55:55 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> An engine increases maintenance for a glider by around 2x or maybe more.

2x? Dream on!!!

[5U]

I owned a V2CXT for 4 years. Started the engine every flight. It never failed. Not one time. I never touched the solo
engine. Never even changed the spark plugs. An excellent machine. 5U

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

5U, did you ever use the engine for a low save, is there such a thing or is it always a save from 2,000 agl? How long do you run the engine on each flight, what type of climb rate did you achieve to what density altitude? thank you

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 1:08:53 AM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was hoping to get comments regarding a glider with a sustainer engine. Would you buy another one, are you happy with the sustainer, do you wish you had gotten a motor glider, a pure glider, how do you fly differently, do you actually get more soaring in or less because of the extra weight......
>
> do you use headsets for hearing protection with engine running... engine can achieve a positive rate of climb to what density altitude....? Am considering purchasing a glider with a sustainer and am looking for all information I can get. i am a Western USA pilot, but have flown in many parts of the country.

My partner and I flew down to see 5U's 2CXT and liked it so much the we bought a new one two and a half years ago. I can echo everything 5U said and add to it. I had a self-launcher and probably will never have another due to the extra weight and complexity. I did indeed spend 2x thinking about THAT engine, plus a moderate degree of frustration. Did i mention weight? Wing loading was high and it was awfully hard for me to rig and de-rig. The engine battery itself weighed a lot and was difficult to get to. As to technique, yes, of course you have a field picked out. But you don't think too much about "well I'm 1200', time to get out the engine. It's more like, hey, I've been in dead air for a good while, nothing looks promising, I still have good maneuvering height, but I'm not leaving this area where this good field is below me, I think I'll drop the gear (always do that), and start a pattern. Oh, now, by the way, I'll see if the engine will start. It has never failed me, and I start it at the beginning of almost every flight. Only if the engine will be on for more than two minutes do I use the little orange "ribbed" earplugs that shooters wear. At what alt did I start it? I honesty don't know, but I'd guess usually around 1000'. If I had promising lift ahead and in range of a good field, I'd go down a bit lower. If the field is an airport, I'd go even lower.
But here's the selling point: Compared to the way I used to fly pure sailplanes, I now leave the airport earlier, I fly farther away, I come back later, I fly on weaker days, and I don't worry about a crew. I am relaxed flying with a sustainer ...... there is less stress and worry. The higher price tag is so worth it! About the third time you use the engine for a retrieve you'll decide that it has paid for itself. There are a lot of great pilots who rarely land out and don't need an engine; I am not one of them.

I got tired of pulling out of fields .... been there, done that. Now I get home in time for dinner.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Was wondering why you purchased the vents 2cXt, did you look at a ASG-29E or other turbo? Any comment on the five flooding blades of the S-H gliders as opposed to the two bladed fix prop on Schleicher"s. I would think the Schleicher would produce more thrust, but have higher vibration and noise level.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 3:10:44 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was wondering why you purchased the vents 2cXt, did you look at a ASG-29E or other turbo? Any comment on the five flooding blades of the S-H gliders as opposed to the two bladed fix prop on Schleicher"s. I would think the Schleicher would produce more thrust, but have higher vibration and noise level.

Never looked at the ASG-29E. I've always been a S-H fan. The five blades work fine.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 2:10:44 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was wondering why you purchased the vents 2cXt, did you look at a ASG-29E or other turbo? Any comment on the five flooding blades of the S-H gliders as opposed to the two bladed fix prop on Schleicher"s. I would think the Schleicher would produce more thrust, but have higher vibration and noise level.

The two blade system is likely more quiet however the Schempp Hirth system uses 5 blades, all of which are different lengths and spread the noise out over 5 different frequencies.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 10:54:33 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 2:10:44 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > Was wondering why you purchased the vents 2cXt, did you look at a ASG-29E or other turbo? Any comment on the five flooding blades of the S-H gliders as opposed to the two bladed fix prop on Schleicher"s. I would think the Schleicher would produce more thrust, but have higher vibration and noise level.
>
> The two blade system is likely more quiet however the Schempp Hirth system uses 5 blades, all of which are different lengths and spread the noise out over 5 different frequencies.

Noise is controlable using ear plugs. It would be about my last consideration in choosing a sustainer.

[David Salmon[_3_]]

At 22:03 05 April 2015, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>Somehow this turned into a FES thread, not what I had intended. I would
>li=
>ke comments from those with curent generation pop up factory installed
>sust=
>ainers. I noticed the POH's do not have performance information other
>than=
> Standard conditions. Say if you have a solo 2350 what is the ceiling of
>cl=
>imb ability? What are actual achieved results? Do you find you get less
>s=
>oaring as you have to stop looking for lift at a much higher altitude,
and
>=
>yo have a high minimum wing loading. Are you happy with the sustainer or
>d=
>o you wish you had gotten a pure glider? What are the downsides, the
>upsid=
>es. Have you experienced a failure to extend or to start, any idea what
>is=
> the glider ration with engine extended. Do you prefer the two blades
of
>=
>Schleicher designs or the five blades of Schempp-Hirth, anyone flow a JS
>wi=
>th jet? Does the sustainer make your flights safer as the possibility of
>a=
> land is reduced. Has anyone suffered a failure resulting in damage? I
>am=
> looking for as much information as the readers are willing to share. As
>f=
>or FES, we can start another thread but for this discussion I am
>interested=
> in factory installed sustainers. Thank you all very much for your time
>an=
>d input.
>

A couple of further points. I don't think I have ever climbed above about
4500 amsl,and never noticed any fall off in climb. Our engine was retro
fitted to a glider already made to take an engine, but not fitted when new.
The engine takes 25 seconds to erect, so away from home I use 1500 above
ground as the height to get the engine out, but quite happily start it from
a 1000 winch launch. My partner in another glider has a Ventus 2t which
only takes 15 seconds to erect, but occasionally pops the circuit breaker.
I suspect on later engines they reduced the gearing to reduce amps, our
circuit breaker has never popped.
We always ensure that the carbs are filled before flying, but our engine
rarely starts cleanly, it seems to fire on one cylinder for 5/10 secs
before developing full power.
Dave

[JS]

The only "stink glider" I've owned had a Wankel, and I felt it a good decision. It would climb to over 12,000' if necessary to get over a ridge. Cooling (systems, time/power/speed management) is a concern with the AE50R.
Seems one problem with all 2-stroke engines in gliders is that the fuel must be put into the tank as premix. If you don't use it, the fuel and oil will separate and you'll likely be burning the wrong mixture. Once did a test run on a sustainer for 1/10th of an hour, still unable to produce sufficient power.
Motorcycles have been using oil injection technology, but only for a few decades.
A few friends have JS-1Js which are very simple, quite reliable and produce enough power. But they're thirsty and noisy.
The newish European retrofit jet kit doesn't appear to have enough thrust or burn time for Southwestern US conditions.
Wanted to visit the (not allowed to mention here) factory during a day off in Kaunas, Lithuania a couple of weeks ago, but there was a directors meeting that afternoon. They have a very interesting approach.
Jim