Self-launch v Sustainer

[Duster]

Retired now and looking to purchase a motorized glider; weighing the pros and cons of self-launchers v sustainers. Two-placer is a priority, as I would like to take my wife. Single place acceptable as long as I can keep her happy sightseeing. We plan on extensive travelling, some to both established and unestablished (i.e., w/o tugs avail) soaring areas (esp. ridge/mountain/wave). Is the weight penalty the chief difference? Engine reliability? Maintenance? Minimum 18m? Some of you may recommend getting some first-hand experience at a commercial operation; where would that be?

Any feedback appreciated, even if just to eliminate models to stay away from.
Mike

[Dave Walsh]

I've flown a few: you need to decide whether you want your
self-launcher to actually go anywhere under power rather than
just struggle up to launch height. If you additionally want it to
perform as a modern glider you just need a Stemme S10 and
deep pockets.

If you never want to glide up wind then a SuperFalke might
suit, but they are slow, uncomfortable and have poor
performance by modern standards.

If you want to motor about most of the time (i.e. when there
are no 10+knot thermals) then Grob 109; Dimona etc would
suit; both a comfortable and able cruisers, they do glide but
sailplanes they are not!

If just a self launch (and you are willing to put up with possibly
unreliable two strokes) then: -

Nimbus 3DM (doesn't go round corners easily)
Nimbus 4DM (an amazing bit of kit; a few have suffered wing
structural failures; also doesn't go round corners readily)
DG500M (competent, getting on in years, not as nice to fly as
a Duo).

Turbos: Plenty of choices: Duo Discus; DG1000; Arcus, Nimbus
3DT/4DT; Arcus E. I've never flown any of them but the
standard Duo is a delight. Doubtless some one will be along
soon to extol the virtues of Turbos.

>

[Renny[_2_]]

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 2:17:47 PM UTC-6, Duster wrote:
> Retired now and looking to purchase a motorized glider; weighing the pros and cons of self-launchers v sustainers. Two-placer is a priority, as I would like to take my wife. Single place acceptable as long as I can keep her happy sightseeing. We plan on extensive travelling, some to both established and unestablished (i.e., w/o tugs avail) soaring areas (esp. ridge/mountain/wave). Is the weight penalty the chief difference? Engine reliability? Maintenance? Minimum 18m? Some of you may recommend getting some first-hand experience at a commercial operation; where would that be?
>
> Any feedback appreciated, even if just to eliminate models to stay away from.
> Mike

Mike,
Another option to consider is FES equipped gliders. You have the choice of having an electric sustainer in gliders such as the: LAK-17B FES, Ventus 2, the new Ventus and the HPH 304eS. Then there are electric, FES equipped, self-launchers such as the Silent 2 Electro and miniLAK FES. More info can be found here: http://www.front-electric-sustainer.com/

Finally down the road we are expecting to see the GP 14E Velo and GP 15E Jeta become available. They are both electric self-launchers. More info can be found here: http://www.gpgliders.com/

Please be aware that all of these ships are single seaters.

Good luck in the hunt!
Renny

[Dan Marotta]

Stemme S10-VT, two seats, side by side, 23 meter span
Stemme S12-VT, two seats, side by side, 25 meter span

I absolutely love my S10-VT!

On 10/29/2016 2:17 PM, Duster wrote:
> Retired now and looking to purchase a motorized glider; weighing the pros and cons of self-launchers v sustainers. Two-placer is a priority, as I would like to take my wife. Single place acceptable as long as I can keep her happy sightseeing. We plan on extensive travelling, some to both established and unestablished (i.e., w/o tugs avail) soaring areas (esp. ridge/mountain/wave). Is the weight penalty the chief difference? Engine reliability? Maintenance? Minimum 18m? Some of you may recommend getting some first-hand experience at a commercial operation; where would that be?
>
> Any feedback appreciated, even if just to eliminate models to stay away from.
> Mike

--
Dan, 5J

[bumper[_4_]]

If you have not gone soaring with the wife already, I think it prudent to do that a few times first. Soaring, turning in thermals, rotor turbulence etc, is much easier on the pilot than the passenger. Some passengers adapt easily . . . I had to ask my wife's permission to turn my previous Stemme in a thermal :c), she only flew in it twice.

The point being, of course, is you don't want a big 2-place so you can go fly solo! Single place ships are like a sports car in comparison to a sedan! Generally more nimble, easier to rig and trailer, less expensive (well some are anyway), and opting for a single place means a lot more choices.

While I owned a Stemme S10-VT and an ASH26E at the same time for a couple of years, the Stemme was gathering cobwebs, though it truly is superb 2 place in terms of capability, the 26E fairly dances with the sky.

bumper

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 4:17:47 PM UTC-4, Duster wrote:
> Retired now and looking to purchase a motorized glider; weighing the pros and cons of self-launchers v sustainers. Two-placer is a priority, as I would like to take my wife. Single place acceptable as long as I can keep her happy sightseeing. We plan on extensive travelling, some to both established and unestablished (i.e., w/o tugs avail) soaring areas (esp. ridge/mountain/wave). Is the weight penalty the chief difference? Engine reliability? Maintenance? Minimum 18m? Some of you may recommend getting some first-hand experience at a commercial operation; where would that be?
>
> Any feedback appreciated, even if just to eliminate models to stay away from.
> Mike

The 1st decision you need to make is whether you want a Touring Motorglider that you can use as an airplane to go on trips, or if you want a high performance glider that eliminates the need for a tow plane.

If you are looking for a touring motorglider, I strongly recommend you look at the Phoenix. It is an awesome plane with side by side seating, 100 hp Rotax engine, 110 knot cruise and 26 gallon fuel capacity, giving you 700 nm range.

With full fuel, you have the load capacity to carry 2 adults plus 100 lbs of baggage. In addition, my Phoenix has a full blown Dynon Skyview system with 2 axis autopilot, synthetic vision, Mode S transponder and 2020 compliant ADS-B IN & OUT. It also includes a ballistic recovery chute as a standard feature.

However, the best feature are the removable wing tips. Remove a single pin and the you can remove the 15 lb wing tip and reduce to wingspan from 49' to 35', so that the A/C will fit in a standard T-Hanger. The whole process takes less than a minute. Note: The Phoenix also includes short wing tips that you can use when you don't want to go soaring.

The soaring performance is similar to a K-21. My wife gets motion sickness, so she's not into soaring. I got a kitchen pass to buy the Phonenix so we can use it as an airplane for flying in the Caribbean. With a 30:1 glide ratio, at 10K ft, I have 60 mile final glide if the engine quits. From Florida to Grenada, the maximum distance between airports is 120 miles, so you are never at risk of getting your feet wet.

The only downside of the Phoenix is that it is a new design, so used A/C are not available. The lead time on getting a new one is ~ 2 years.

[Dave Nadler]

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 4:17:47 PM UTC-4, Duster wrote:
> Retired now and looking to purchase a motorized glider...

Many people have found this helpful:
http://www.nadler.com/papers/2014_So_You_Think_You_Want_A_Motorglider_MS_PPT_up dated_with_speaker_notes.pdf

Important points:
1) If you want to do cross-country soaring, you will be unhappy with a touring motor-glider (not including Stemme).
2) What Bumper said: make sure you really want a two-seater

I'm flying an ArcusM two-seater these days: Awesome glider, great power system, easy one-person rigging/derigging, delightful to fly.
Absolutely not for touring.

Have fun,
Best Regards, Dave

[WAVEGURU]

Knowing what experience you already have would be helpful. Are you and your wife new to soaring? What kind of flying have you been doing together? How many hours? How many years?

Boggs

[Dan Marotta]

Not so much to disagree with Bumper, but...

First powered flight with my wife was all white knuckles and, "Get me on
the ground now!"

First glider flight was by aero tow in a borrowed DG-500m-22 with a low
release and a bunch of thermalling and, "Get me on the ground now!"

Second glider flight, also aero tow to higher altitude, followed by
gentle dolphin flight yielded, "You're in lift!" and "You're in sink!"
and, after about 45 minutes, "OK, we can go down now."

Later she suggested we buy a 2-seater so she could learn to fly. We
bought a Pipistrel Sinus and, though not a CFI, I've been doing this a
long time, so I started her with straight and level. Then turns to
headings, actually turns to line up on a road, then turns around a
point. After some of this she tried slow flight, straight and turning,
then some thermalling, finally stalls and after she got competent with
these things, I had her fly traffic patterns to short final. She had so
much fun that she started taking lessons at Sundance Aviation in
Moriarty with me as her tow pilot. She got to the point of solo but
decided that she did not want to be a licensed pilot and dropped out.

She still wanted to fly but our Sinus didn't have the soaring
capabilities that I wanted so I sold my LAK-17a, placed the Sinus on the
market, and bought the Stemme. She loved the first flight and now we're
at the point where she does half the flying, though I do the takeoffs
and landings. She's become quite good at thermalling and picking a line
along lift streets to the point that I can kick back and just enjoy the
scenery. It's absolutely wonderful to be able to share this experience
with someone so close to you!

But I have to agree with Bumper about the differences in handling
between the sports car and the bus but, after 200+ hours in it (so far
this year!) I've become quite comfortable with its handling - you just
have to adapt to its quirks. And finally, the Stemme is a large expense
if you only fly it solo.

Dan

On 10/30/2016 12:29 AM, bumper wrote:
> If you have not gone soaring with the wife already, I think it prudent to do that a few times first. Soaring, turning in thermals, rotor turbulence etc, is much easier on the pilot than the passenger. Some passengers adapt easily . . . I had to ask my wife's permission to turn my previous Stemme in a thermal :c), she only flew in it twice.
>
> The point being, of course, is you don't want a big 2-place so you can go fly solo! Single place ships are like a sports car in comparison to a sedan! Generally more nimble, easier to rig and trailer, less expensive (well some are anyway), and opting for a single place means a lot more choices.
>
> While I owned a Stemme S10-VT and an ASH26E at the same time for a couple of years, the Stemme was gathering cobwebs, though it truly is superb 2 place in terms of capability, the 26E fairly dances with the sky.
>
> bumper

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

The Phoenix is also an option. It carries more fuel than the Sinus and
more luggage, but the advantages stop there. Equipped as Mike
described, you'll pay upwards of $200K for the Phoenix whereas you can
buy my Sinus for about $80K. I'll let you look up the performance
capabilities of each for yourself.

But for the same price as the Phoenix, you can get a Stemme S10-VT. My
wife and I flew ours from Moriarty, NM to Minden, NV with a rest stop at
Cedar City, UT each way. We cruised westbound at 16,500' MSL and
eastbound at 17,500' MSL realizing 140 KTAS and burning about 3.5
gallons per hour. We easily have 8 hours endurance and we have a
service ceiling of over 30,000' MSL! But who wants to spend much time
at that altitude in an unpressurized cockpit? The 75' wings fold up to
about 37'; my hangar has 42' wide doors and it's no problem rolling the
Stemme in and out. On the down side, the Stemme doesn't have much in
the way of baggage space but the new S12-VT has a fuselage baggage
compartment and, with basic instruments, you can get a new S12 for about
the price of a decently equipped used S10.

Not wanting to beat up the Phoenix, which looks to me to be a fine
aircraft and I almost bought one, myself, but check the wing loading on
the ship you finally decide to get. The Phoenix and the Sinus have very
low wing loading hence are much more affected by winds than the much
higher loaded (and performing) Stemme.

However you decide, I wish you the best of luck in getting what's right
for you

Dan

On 10/30/2016 6:38 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 4:17:47 PM UTC-4, Duster wrote:
>> Retired now and looking to purchase a motorized glider; weighing the pros and cons of self-launchers v sustainers. Two-placer is a priority, as I would like to take my wife. Single place acceptable as long as I can keep her happy sightseeing. We plan on extensive travelling, some to both established and unestablished (i.e., w/o tugs avail) soaring areas (esp. ridge/mountain/wave). Is the weight penalty the chief difference? Engine reliability? Maintenance? Minimum 18m? Some of you may recommend getting some first-hand experience at a commercial operation; where would that be?
>>
>> Any feedback appreciated, even if just to eliminate models to stay away from.
>> Mike
> The 1st decision you need to make is whether you want a Touring Motorglider that you can use as an airplane to go on trips, or if you want a high performance glider that eliminates the need for a tow plane.
>
> If you are looking for a touring motorglider, I strongly recommend you look at the Phoenix. It is an awesome plane with side by side seating, 100 hp Rotax engine, 110 knot cruise and 26 gallon fuel capacity, giving you 700 nm range.
>
> With full fuel, you have the load capacity to carry 2 adults plus 100 lbs of baggage. In addition, my Phoenix has a full blown Dynon Skyview system with 2 axis autopilot, synthetic vision, Mode S transponder and 2020 compliant ADS-B IN & OUT. It also includes a ballistic recovery chute as a standard feature.
>
> However, the best feature are the removable wing tips. Remove a single pin and the you can remove the 15 lb wing tip and reduce to wingspan from 49' to 35', so that the A/C will fit in a standard T-Hanger. The whole process takes less than a minute. Note: The Phoenix also includes short wing tips that you can use when you don't want to go soaring.
>
> The soaring performance is similar to a K-21. My wife gets motion sickness, so she's not into soaring. I got a kitchen pass to buy the Phonenix so we can use it as an airplane for flying in the Caribbean. With a 30:1 glide ratio, at 10K ft, I have 60 mile final glide if the engine quits. From Florida to Grenada, the maximum distance between airports is 120 miles, so you are never at risk of getting your feet wet.
>
> The only downside of the Phoenix is that it is a new design, so used A/C are not available. The lead time on getting a new one is ~ 2 years.

--
Dan, 5J

[Duster]

Thanks for the detailed comments . There are several considerations still on the table (I have 500hrs including several hours in a Duo-Discus). My ideal motorized glider: 2-seater, easy to assemble, good trailer, dependable FES or non-pyloned powerplant, electric self-launcher (would settle for sustainer), good maneuverability. Trading-off on some features (other than my wife), the Stemme, Arcus M/T and Pipistrel Taurus electric both seem to come pretty close. I might consider a Stemme, but there doesn't seem to be many used VT's (better climb v S10), and as Dan mentioned, it doesn't maneuver like a 15m. Those are both out of my price range new. Other than Dave, there wasn't much discussion about sustainers. The numbers seem a bit tedious to find, so in general what is the weight penalty between self-launchers and sustainers? Reliability the same? Faster deployment? Yes, I would consider a single-place which would give more options. The newer electrics are compelling, but one might be waiting awhile to grab one. Aside from the deployment time, do they have a weight advantage as well (including Li batteries)? Dave's presentation included reference to a 30% incidence of engine failure (2-stroke?). Electrics must be an improvement over that, presumably. I have read Eric Greenwell's excellent articles at the ASA. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ASA-NewsGroup/info
Thanks again,
Mike

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 21:11:26 +0000, Dave Walsh >
wrote:


>If just a self launch (and you are willing to put up with possibly
>unreliable two strokes) then: -
>
>Nimbus 3DM (doesn't go round corners easily)
>Nimbus 4DM (an amazing bit of kit; a few have suffered wing
>structural failures; also doesn't go round corners readily)
>DG500M (competent, getting on in years, not as nice to fly as
>a Duo).

.... not mention the nicest self launchers with the best engine systems
out there:
ASH-25 Mi, its successot ASH-30 Mi and the 20m ASG-32 Mi.

Al open class gliders feel as if they "don't go around corners
easily", but that's not true and simply a question of experience.


>
>Turbos: Plenty of choices: Duo Discus; DG1000; Arcus, Nimbus
>3DT/4DT; Arcus E. I've never flown any of them but the
>standard Duo is a delight. Doubtless some one will be along
>soon to extol the virtues of Turbos.

I've flown all of them - all are nice.

Main problem of all open class gliders is the assembly which takes
considerable experience, time and sometimes simply a lot of strength.

Double seaters are a little better, but still heavy and, compared to
any single seater, cumbersome to assemble. One needs to think twice
about such a glider.

[JS]

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 12:06:03 PM UTC-7, Duster wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed comments . There are several considerations still on the table (I have 500hrs including several hours in a Duo-Discus). My ideal motorized glider: 2-seater, easy to assemble, good trailer, dependable FES or non-pyloned powerplant, electric self-launcher (would settle for sustainer), good maneuverability. Trading-off on some features (other than my wife), the Stemme, Arcus M/T and Pipistrel Taurus electric both seem to come pretty close. I might consider a Stemme, but there doesn't seem to be many used VT's (better climb v S10), and as Dan mentioned, it doesn't maneuver like a 15m. Those are both out of my price range new. Other than Dave, there wasn't much discussion about sustainers. The numbers seem a bit tedious to find, so in general what is the weight penalty between self-launchers and sustainers? Reliability the same? Faster deployment? Yes, I would consider a single-place which would give more options. The newer electrics are compelling, but one might be waiting awhile to grab one. Aside from the deployment time, do they have a weight advantage as well (including Li batteries)? Dave's presentation included reference to a 30% incidence of engine failure (2-stroke?). Electrics must be an improvement over that, presumably. I have read Eric Greenwell's excellent articles at the ASA. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ASA-NewsGroup/info
> Thanks again,
> Mike

Good thoughts.
How easy is it to put a Stemme in the trailer? Most of them don't have trailers, and the enormous Cobra trailer includes some complicated bits.
Agree with Andreas' comments re ASH25Mi, etc. Hope to fly a 32 this week.
The 25 feels just like any of the others in the AS line after a short while..
The N4DM is also easy to fly but I have not rigged one and personally don't care for two-stroke engines in aircraft.
Mike, in the "you only live once" spirit... Go for the Arcus JET!
Jim

[Renny[_2_]]

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 1:06:03 PM UTC-6, Duster wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed comments . There are several considerations still on the table (I have 500hrs including several hours in a Duo-Discus). My ideal motorized glider: 2-seater, easy to assemble, good trailer, dependable FES or non-pyloned powerplant, electric self-launcher (would settle for sustainer), good maneuverability. Trading-off on some features (other than my wife), the Stemme, Arcus M/T and Pipistrel Taurus electric both seem to come pretty close. I might consider a Stemme, but there doesn't seem to be many used VT's (better climb v S10), and as Dan mentioned, it doesn't maneuver like a 15m. Those are both out of my price range new. Other than Dave, there wasn't much discussion about sustainers. The numbers seem a bit tedious to find, so in general what is the weight penalty between self-launchers and sustainers? Reliability the same? Faster deployment? Yes, I would consider a single-place which would give more options. The newer electrics are compelling, but one might be waiting awhile to grab one. Aside from the deployment time, do they have a weight advantage as well (including Li batteries)? Dave's presentation included reference to a 30% incidence of engine failure (2-stroke?). Electrics must be an improvement over that, presumably. I have read Eric Greenwell's excellent articles at the ASA. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ASA-NewsGroup/info
> Thanks again,
> Mike

Mike- Regarding electric sustainers and specifically the FES, please let me know exactly what questions you may have. I have owned my LAK-17B FES for 5 years and hopefully, I can help you with answers on any questions you may have. BTW, there is no deployment time on the FES as it turns on immediately like when you turn on a ceiling fan. Now, we know nothing is 100% reliable, but in 5 years and dozens of starts on the ground and in the air, it has never failed me! Finally on system weight, the total, including the 2 each, LI-Po batteries, motor and prop, adds approx 85 pounds to the weight of the glider.

Finally, as I have previously written in this thread, you can find a lot more detailed FES info at:

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

Thanks - Renny

[Dave Walsh]

Some interesting posts; but if there were a simple answer to
the original question then we'd all be flying it.

The Stemme S10, Arcus variants and the Pipistrel Taurus are
wildly different animals: it's hard to imagine a particular pilot
putting those 3 onto their "short list"!
Only the Stemme has any useful range. The Taurus with two
well built pilots on board will always be bottom of the
thermal. Scratching in weak hill lift in the Stemme is hard
work; 23m with fuel in the wings is just not enjoyable.
By all accounts the Arcus variants (excepting the Arcus E)
are a delight.
My view is that it's hard to accept inferior performance,
especially when you're paying for it. Anyone who has
sampled Nimbus 4, Arcus, Duo performance in the
mountains is not going to want to scratch around in a
Taurus.
I am not knocking the Taurus, it has good take off
performance and in Europe falls into the "Ultralight" category
so enormous advantages in cost, maintenance and licensing
areas. It also has a reliable Rotax engine, another huge plus.
By all accounts it is very nice to fly.

If I were buying a Stemme I'd actively look for the earlier
Limbach engined version; sure the power performance of the
VT is better but not needed unless "hot and high" is always
on the agenda. Some might argue that the earlier version
was more reliable?

As self launch single seaters get a mention in earlier posts
here's my two Euros worth: the ASH26E (and other Wankel
engined machines) are capable of prolonged straight and
level flight to "get you home". All the rest, powered by two
cylinder two strokes, (DG800, Ventus CM etc) require "climb
and glide"......
Note the Wankel engine has its own issues. A prospective
purchaser should join the various "User Groups": LOTS of
issues with Wankel, Solo and Rotax engines are highlighted
there.

[Dave Nadler]

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 3:06:03 PM UTC-4, Duster wrote:
> Dave's presentation included reference to a
> 30% incidence of engine failure (2-stroke?).

To be clear, that includes any failure of the propulsion system,
which can be mechanisms for extension, prop-centering, retraction,
starting, exhaust or structural cracking, etc.
Rarely the core of the engine...

These are not Toyotas, and if you fly like they won't die, you well may.

Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave

[Dan Marotta]

The Stemme is easy to rig. I rig mine solo in about 9 minutes with no
need for any rigging aids. Of course, I keep it in a hangar and have
never taken the center section off, though I've seen videos and it looks
pretty complex. But who needs a trailer when you have a reliable Rotax
turbo? You can fly to any location and rent a car when you get there.
You do need a hangar or a rental space to keep it. You wouldn't want to
rig it from a trailer too often.

I've helped rig and fly an ASH-30 mi and it was quite an ordeal using
all those tools and equipment to get it out of the trailer and moved and
lifted into position. It flies about the same as the Stemme. Heavy and
difficult at first and, with a bit of practice, well mannered and easy
to fly.

On 10/31/2016 2:21 PM, JS wrote:
> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 12:06:03 PM UTC-7, Duster wrote:
>> Thanks for the detailed comments . There are several considerations still on the table (I have 500hrs including several hours in a Duo-Discus). My ideal motorized glider: 2-seater, easy to assemble, good trailer, dependable FES or non-pyloned powerplant, electric self-launcher (would settle for sustainer), good maneuverability. Trading-off on some features (other than my wife), the Stemme, Arcus M/T and Pipistrel Taurus electric both seem to come pretty close. I might consider a Stemme, but there doesn't seem to be many used VT's (better climb v S10), and as Dan mentioned, it doesn't maneuver like a 15m. Those are both out of my price range new. Other than Dave, there wasn't much discussion about sustainers. The numbers seem a bit tedious to find, so in general what is the weight penalty between self-launchers and sustainers? Reliability the same? Faster deployment? Yes, I would consider a single-place which would give more options. The newer electrics are compelling, but one might be waiting awhile to grab one. Aside from the deployment time, do they have a weight advantage as well (including Li batteries)? Dave's presentation included reference to a 30% incidence of engine failure (2-stroke?). Electrics must be an improvement over that, presumably. I have read Eric Greenwell's excellent articles at the ASA. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ASA-NewsGroup/info
>> Thanks again,
>> Mike
> Good thoughts.
> How easy is it to put a Stemme in the trailer? Most of them don't have trailers, and the enormous Cobra trailer includes some complicated bits.
> Agree with Andreas' comments re ASH25Mi, etc. Hope to fly a 32 this week.
> The 25 feels just like any of the others in the AS line after a short while.
> The N4DM is also easy to fly but I have not rigged one and personally don't care for two-stroke engines in aircraft.
> Mike, in the "you only live once" spirit... Go for the Arcus JET!
> Jim

--
Dan, 5J

[firsys]

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 4:17:47 PM UTC-4, Duster wrote:
> Retired now and looking to purchase a motorized glider; weighing the pros and cons of self-launchers v sustainers. Two-placer is a priority, as I would like to take my wife. Single place acceptable as long as I can keep her happy sightseeing. We plan on extensive travelling, some to both established and unestablished (i.e., w/o tugs avail) soaring areas (esp. ridge/mountain/wave). Is the weight penalty the chief difference? Engine reliability? Maintenance? Minimum 18m? Some of you may recommend getting some first-hand experience at a commercial operation; where would that be?
>
> Any feedback appreciated, even if just to eliminate models to stay away from.
> Mike

There was a remark about the unreliability of two stroke engines
( most commonly Rotax).
I have flown a PIK 20E for 7 years; while there have been a number of issues with peripherals, once the engine is raised ( and you are flying) the Rotax 501 has always started without trouble, just
a touch of choke. Full power within a minute.

John F, old no longer bold!

[Dave Walsh]

I'd agree that the various Rotax two-stroke found in the
Pik20E, DG400, DG800A are (generally) reliable.
I co-owned a DG400 for many years; nothing engine related
ever failed. In all those years it failed to start just once when
the pilot forgot to turn on the ignition. Hard to blame Rotax for
this!

I have also owned a DG808C with the Solo two-stroke. A brief
internet search will tell you all you need to know about this
two-stroke. Oddly the different Solo in many "turbo" gliders
seems to be very reliable.

As Dave Nadler says of motor gliders: "these are not Toyotas".
It would be so nice to have a self-launch with an engine
engineered by Honda.

[Dave Nadler]

On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 4:15:04 PM UTC-4, Dave Walsh wrote:
> As Dave Nadler says of motor gliders: "these are not Toyotas".
> It would be so nice to have a self-launch with an engine
> engineered by Honda.

I don't think a Honda engine would improve the situation.
In my limited gas-powered motor-glider experience, the inflight
problems I can remember off the top of my head were:
- fuel system contamination downstream of the filters blocking carbs
- fuel leaks
- starter switch failure
- intermittent ignition (cable harness problem)
- pylon limit switch failure (can't retract)
- prop brake failure (can't retract)
- prop brake safety-interlock switch failure (can't start)
- extension spindle-drive failure
- mechanic refilled radiator with undiluted anti-freeze (immediate overheat)
I'm sure there were a few others I forgot.

Anyway, in no case did I have a problem with the core engine;
all this stuff was glider-manufacturer or mechanic induced.
I've been quite lucky and haven't had failures lots of my friends
have endured such as drive-belts, fuel lines, starter motors,
exhaust system cracking, etc.

Some of the older two-strokes were more troublesome but the
Solos I've had have been solid.

The ArcusM system has been great!

Hope that helps clarify,
Best Regards, Dave

[Dave Walsh]

OK, let me try to clarify too.
When I said I'd like a self-launch engineered by Honda I really
meant the whole package, not just the core engine. I'd agree
that many of the self-launch problems are not with the core
engine but equally some are very definitely core engine
related.

Let's imagine that you are a German engineer given a blank
piece of paper and asked to design a water cooled two cylinder
two stroke specifically for installation in a self-launch. Years
down the line what have we have got; an engine/installation
that suffers: -
Cylinder head cracks.
Cylinder base gasket leaks.
Iffy crankcase/cylinder head bolts.
Drive belts that fail.

We all know that German engineering can, sometimes, be the
best in the world....I just think it's not very evident in some of
the self-launchers currently on offer.

Of course if you fly from 8000 foot runways surrounded by nice
flat fields this may be less of a worry than flying from many
European glider sites.

Happy landings (and take offs), Dave W.

[Dave Nadler]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 9:45:06 AM UTC-4, Dave Walsh wrote:
> We all know that German engineering can, sometimes, be the
> best in the world....I just think it's not very evident in some of
> the self-launchers currently on offer.

I'm glad you don't know how sausages are made ;-)

The problem is simply economic: For the tiny glider market,
it is utterly impossible to afford the testing and refinement
that goes into a modern automobile. Hence our toys will
NEVER approach the latter's reliability.

The motor certification costs have blocked for example the
higher-power motor originally planned for the ASH-30 and ASG-32,
hence the current situation...

Its all about costs.

From guy who does finance and management as well as engineering ;-)

See ya, Dave

[Dan Marotta]

German, Japanese, American, Chinese... Engineering is engineering and
has nothing to do with nationality. The final product has more to do
with marketing and manufacturing decisions and materials choices than
differential equations. Think King Tiger tank, vastly under powered for
its size or anything made in China with pot metal fasteners (at least
those things sold in the US) that twist apart at the slightest extra
torque. An aircraft power plant has to be light and powerful, but the
lighter you make something, the less strength and durability it will have.

Like we used to say in the defense industry: Cost, Schedule, Quality -
pick any two.

On 11/2/2016 7:32 AM, Dave Walsh wrote:
> OK, let me try to clarify too.
> When I said I'd like a self-launch engineered by Honda I really
> meant the whole package, not just the core engine. I'd agree
> that many of the self-launch problems are not with the core
> engine but equally some are very definitely core engine
> related.
>
> Let's imagine that you are a German engineer given a blank
> piece of paper and asked to design a water cooled two cylinder
> two stroke specifically for installation in a self-launch. Years
> down the line what have we have got; an engine/installation
> that suffers: -
> Cylinder head cracks.
> Cylinder base gasket leaks.
> Iffy crankcase/cylinder head bolts.
> Drive belts that fail.
>
> We all know that German engineering can, sometimes, be the
> best in the world....I just think it's not very evident in some of
> the self-launchers currently on offer.
>
> Of course if you fly from 8000 foot runways surrounded by nice
> flat fields this may be less of a worry than flying from many
> European glider sites.
>
> Happy landings (and take offs), Dave W.
>
>
>
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

We have owned a Duo Discus T (sustainer engine) for ten years or so. It probably has less than ten hours on the engine. My theory is the less you use it, the less likely there will be major repair expenses. I Recall only two times when it was necessary to start the engine rather than landing out. (In Florida)

Cobra one man rigging tool works fine, and I usually assemble it myself.

We are preparing to retire and will be selling this glider if you are interested..

Tom Knauff

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Didn't they also build the Hindenburg and the Audi 100? Two examples of **** poor engineering!!


On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 6:45:06 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
..>...
> We all know that German engineering can, sometimes, be the
> best in the world....I just think it's not very evident in some of
> the self-launchers currently on offer.
>
....
>
> Happy landings (and take offs), Dave W.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

In theory, but I think culture influences design philosophy. I would trust a German engineered and produced product in a vehicle (air land or sea) long before I would trust a Chinese engineered product! Not intending to sound racist but **** China and there poisoned pet food, baby food, medicine, dog meat festival, children's custom jewelry made of heavy metals and **** their lead pollution. And don't even get me started on their CRM (cockpit resource management)....

German's do know how to make very quality products though, when they are not cheating instead of designing (VW group).

Would you drive a Chinese engineered and made car, I surely would not!

Jon

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 7:26:06 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> German, Japanese, American, Chinese... Engineering is engineering and

> --
> Dan, 5J

[Dave Walsh]

Like thermals this thread seems to be drifting.

My point was that someone looking to buy into self-launchers
for the first time should closely examine the merits if the
various engines on offer (by joining the various owner/user
groups).

I think that, in terms of reliability, the Solo 2625 two stroke
does not represent an improvement over the previous
generation Rotax engines.

Now I know you can't buy a modern self-launch with the Rotax
(except the Taurus?) so if you eliminate all modern Solo
engined self-launchers from your list this just leaves two
options: -

(i) Self-launchers fitted with the Wankel engine

(ii) The electric Antares 20/23E

As I've never owned a Wankel powered sailplane I have no
experience, or axe to grind. But I do remember watching, in
the days I owned a DG808C, an ASH 31M, taxi in from the
runway; I couldn't believe how smooth it sounded compared to
the normal "bag o' nails" noise of a Solo at idle.

[Dan Marotta]

Touche and mea culpa!

My last job before retirement was with a German company. I traveled to
Nurnberg (yes, that's how they spell it) for training and to Mexico for
qualification of their (made in Germany) assembly line and it was the
most impressive thing I've ever seen. And my Ford truck was still
humming along just fine at 250,000 miles when a wind storm dropped a
very large tree on it. On my Chinese made motorcycle lift, I replaced
all the nuts and bolts before ever lifting my Harley on it...

On 11/2/2016 8:02 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> In theory, but I think culture influences design philosophy. I would trust a German engineered and produced product in a vehicle (air land or sea) long before I would trust a Chinese engineered product! Not intending to sound racist but **** China and there poisoned pet food, baby food, medicine, dog meat festival, children's custom jewelry made of heavy metals and **** their lead pollution. And don't even get me started on their CRM (cockpit resource management)....
>
> German's do know how to make very quality products though, when they are not cheating instead of designing (VW group).
>
> Would you drive a Chinese engineered and made car, I surely would not!
>
> Jon
>
> On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 7:26:06 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> German, Japanese, American, Chinese... Engineering is engineering and
>> --
>> Dan, 5J

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

On 11/3/2016 4:04 AM, Dave Walsh wrote:
> Now I know you can't buy a modern self-launch with the Rotax
> (except the Taurus?)

The Stemme is powered by a /Rotax/ 4-cylinder turbocharged 115
horsepower /certificated/ aircraft engine. It's mainly a glider, but it
will outperform a lot of general aviation piston powered airplanes
(except for baggage).

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 3:42:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Touche and mea culpa!
>
> My last job before retirement was with a German company. I traveled to
> Nurnberg (yes, that's how they spell it) for training and to Mexico for
> qualification of their (made in Germany) assembly line and it was the
> most impressive thing I've ever seen. And my Ford truck was still
> humming along just fine at 250,000 miles when a wind storm dropped a
> very large tree on it. On my Chinese made motorcycle lift, I replaced
> all the nuts and bolts before ever lifting my Harley on it...
>
> On 11/2/2016 8:02 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > In theory, but I think culture influences design philosophy. I would trust a German engineered and produced product in a vehicle (air land or sea) long before I would trust a Chinese engineered product! Not intending to sound racist but **** China and there poisoned pet food, baby food, medicine, dog meat festival, children's custom jewelry made of heavy metals and **** their lead pollution. And don't even get me started on their CRM (cockpit resource management)....
> >
> > German's do know how to make very quality products though, when they are not cheating instead of designing (VW group).
> >
> > Would you drive a Chinese engineered and made car, I surely would not!
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 7:26:06 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >> German, Japanese, American, Chinese... Engineering is engineering and
> >> --
> >> Dan, 5J
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

Dan, Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Nürnberg! You got it right except for the Umlaut. And I second your admiration for German Engineering.

[Vaughn Simon[_2_]]

On 11/2/2016 10:02 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Would you drive a Chinese engineered and made car, I surely would not!

Sure I would. Why not?

Would I buy one? That's a different question!

I used to happily rent and fly a Chinese-made Cessna 162. Within its
LSA limitations, it's a perfectly nice little airplane.

Vaughn

[waremark]

Objections here to Solo self launchers are overdone. I changed to an Arcus M after several years with a Wankel rotary ASH 26. I have also flown an ASH 31. It is true that the ASH 26 is quieter and has a characteristically smooth sounding engine, but the injected and electronically controlled Solo in the Arcus is also reasonably smooth and is perfectly suitable for straight and level flight for self retrieves at about 85 knots. In the Arcus you need noise attenuating headphones, but that is not a big problem.

The Arcus Solo is quoted at 68 HP, whereas the Wankel in the AS 30, 31, and 32 is rated at 57 HP.

AS use a manual prop braking and lowering system which always worked well for me. The Arcus system is fully automated but more error prone. I would choose the AS system.

For me, it has to be a self launcher not a sustainer, although I accept that with modern sustainer technologies it is safe to leave an engine start till lower. I like independence of launch facilities, being able to put myself in the bit of the sky I choose, being able to take a high launch without thinking about the cost (even if total ownership cost is higher), and if I need to start the engine over a field knowing that it was working when I took off, and will get me up to a safe height at a decent rate.

[Dan Marotta]

Herb,

I knew about the umlaut, I just didn't know how to type it. Kinda like
super and subscripts. :-)

On 11/3/2016 3:49 PM, wrote:
> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 3:42:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Touche and mea culpa!
>>
>> My last job before retirement was with a German company. I traveled to
>> Nurnberg (yes, that's how they spell it) for training and to Mexico for
>> qualification of their (made in Germany) assembly line and it was the
>> most impressive thing I've ever seen. And my Ford truck was still
>> humming along just fine at 250,000 miles when a wind storm dropped a
>> very large tree on it. On my Chinese made motorcycle lift, I replaced
>> all the nuts and bolts before ever lifting my Harley on it...
>>
>> On 11/2/2016 8:02 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>>> In theory, but I think culture influences design philosophy. I would trust a German engineered and produced product in a vehicle (air land or sea) long before I would trust a Chinese engineered product! Not intending to sound racist but **** China and there poisoned pet food, baby food, medicine, dog meat festival, children's custom jewelry made of heavy metals and **** their lead pollution. And don't even get me started on their CRM (cockpit resource management)....
>>>
>>> German's do know how to make very quality products though, when they are not cheating instead of designing (VW group).
>>>
>>> Would you drive a Chinese engineered and made car, I surely would not!
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 7:26:06 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>> German, Japanese, American, Chinese... Engineering is engineering and
>>>> --
>>>> Dan, 5J
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> Dan, Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Nürnberg! You got it right except for the Umlaut. And I second your admiration for German Engineering.

--
Dan, 5J

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 4:02:20 PM UTC-7, waremark wrote:
<... if I need to start the engine over a field knowing that it was working when <I took off, and will get me up to a safe height at a decent rate.

I think most sustainer guys start the engine after the first thermal off tow and before leaving home area (30 second run or so)if they are going XC just to keep it lubed and operating. The guys that do this seem to always (mostly) have a working sustainer. The problem with self launcher is you are basically flying with a full load of undumpable ballast, so they are not very good weak weather birds. I think the wing loading (it has been 15 years) on my ASH-26E was close to 9 pounds, with a 200 lb pilot and a 20 pound chute.

[2G]

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 1:17:47 PM UTC-7, Duster wrote:
> Retired now and looking to purchase a motorized glider; weighing the pros and cons of self-launchers v sustainers. Two-placer is a priority, as I would like to take my wife. Single place acceptable as long as I can keep her happy sightseeing. We plan on extensive travelling, some to both established and unestablished (i.e., w/o tugs avail) soaring areas (esp. ridge/mountain/wave). Is the weight penalty the chief difference? Engine reliability? Maintenance? Minimum 18m? Some of you may recommend getting some first-hand experience at a commercial operation; where would that be?
>
> Any feedback appreciated, even if just to eliminate models to stay away from.
> Mike

[2G]

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 4:22:07 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Herb,
>
> I knew about the umlaut, I just didn't know how to type it. Kinda like
> super and subscripts. :-)
>
> On 11/3/2016 3:49 PM, wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 3:42:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >> Touche and mea culpa!
> >>
> >> My last job before retirement was with a German company. I traveled to
> >> Nurnberg (yes, that's how they spell it) for training and to Mexico for
> >> qualification of their (made in Germany) assembly line and it was the
> >> most impressive thing I've ever seen. And my Ford truck was still
> >> humming along just fine at 250,000 miles when a wind storm dropped a
> >> very large tree on it. On my Chinese made motorcycle lift, I replaced
> >> all the nuts and bolts before ever lifting my Harley on it...
> >>
> >> On 11/2/2016 8:02 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> >>> In theory, but I think culture influences design philosophy. I would trust a German engineered and produced product in a vehicle (air land or sea) long before I would trust a Chinese engineered product! Not intending to sound racist but **** China and there poisoned pet food, baby food, medicine, dog meat festival, children's custom jewelry made of heavy metals and **** their lead pollution. And don't even get me started on their CRM (cockpit resource management)....
> >>>
> >>> German's do know how to make very quality products though, when they are not cheating instead of designing (VW group).
> >>>
> >>> Would you drive a Chinese engineered and made car, I surely would not!
> >>>
> >>> Jon
> >>>
> >>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 7:26:06 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >>>> German, Japanese, American, Chinese... Engineering is engineering and
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dan, 5J
> >> --
> >> Dan, 5J
> > Dan, Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Nürnberg! You got it right except for the Umlaut. And I second your admiration for German Engineering.
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

Hi Dan,

I didn't either, so I looked it up. To type Ü hold down the ALT key while typing 0220. This and other accents are covered at http://symbolcodes.tlt.psu.edu/accents/codealt.html

Herb: LIGHTEN UP!

Tom

[Dan Marotta]

Doesn't work on my Asus/Windows 10... I'm sure I can figure out how -
just lazy...

On 11/7/2016 10:44 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 4:22:07 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Herb,
>>
>> I knew about the umlaut, I just didn't know how to type it. Kinda like
>> super and subscripts. :-)
>>
>> On 11/3/2016 3:49 PM, wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 3:42:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>> Touche and mea culpa!
>>>>
>>>> My last job before retirement was with a German company. I traveled to
>>>> Nurnberg (yes, that's how they spell it) for training and to Mexico for
>>>> qualification of their (made in Germany) assembly line and it was the
>>>> most impressive thing I've ever seen. And my Ford truck was still
>>>> humming along just fine at 250,000 miles when a wind storm dropped a
>>>> very large tree on it. On my Chinese made motorcycle lift, I replaced
>>>> all the nuts and bolts before ever lifting my Harley on it...
>>>>
>>>> On 11/2/2016 8:02 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>>>>> In theory, but I think culture influences design philosophy. I would trust a German engineered and produced product in a vehicle (air land or sea) long before I would trust a Chinese engineered product! Not intending to sound racist but **** China and there poisoned pet food, baby food, medicine, dog meat festival, children's custom jewelry made of heavy metals and **** their lead pollution. And don't even get me started on their CRM (cockpit resource management)....
>>>>>
>>>>> German's do know how to make very quality products though, when they are not cheating instead of designing (VW group).
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you drive a Chinese engineered and made car, I surely would not!
>>>>>
>>>>> Jon
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 7:26:06 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>>>> German, Japanese, American, Chinese... Engineering is engineering and
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dan, 5J
>>>> --
>>>> Dan, 5J
>>> Dan, Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Nürnberg! You got it right except for the Umlaut. And I second your admiration for German Engineering.
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> Hi Dan,
>
> I didn't either, so I looked it up. To type Ü hold down the ALT key while typing 0220. This and other accents are covered at http://symbolcodes.tlt.psu.edu/accents/codealt.html
>
> Herb: LIGHTEN UP!
>
> Tom

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 11:44:45 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 4:22:07 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Herb,
> >
> > I knew about the umlaut, I just didn't know how to type it. Kinda like
> > super and subscripts. :-)
> >
> > On 11/3/2016 3:49 PM, wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 3:42:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > >> Touche and mea culpa!
> > >>
> > >> My last job before retirement was with a German company. I traveled to
> > >> Nurnberg (yes, that's how they spell it) for training and to Mexico for
> > >> qualification of their (made in Germany) assembly line and it was the
> > >> most impressive thing I've ever seen. And my Ford truck was still
> > >> humming along just fine at 250,000 miles when a wind storm dropped a
> > >> very large tree on it. On my Chinese made motorcycle lift, I replaced
> > >> all the nuts and bolts before ever lifting my Harley on it...
> > >>
> > >> On 11/2/2016 8:02 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > >>> In theory, but I think culture influences design philosophy. I would trust a German engineered and produced product in a vehicle (air land or sea) long before I would trust a Chinese engineered product! Not intending to sound racist but **** China and there poisoned pet food, baby food, medicine, dog meat festival, children's custom jewelry made of heavy metals and **** their lead pollution. And don't even get me started on their CRM (cockpit resource management)....
> > >>>
> > >>> German's do know how to make very quality products though, when they are not cheating instead of designing (VW group).
> > >>>
> > >>> Would you drive a Chinese engineered and made car, I surely would not!
> > >>>
> > >>> Jon
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 7:26:06 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > >>>> German, Japanese, American, Chinese... Engineering is engineering and
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Dan, 5J
> > >> --
> > >> Dan, 5J
> > > Dan, Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Nürnberg! You got it right except for the Umlaut. And I second your admiration for German Engineering.
> >
> > --
> > Dan, 5J
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> I didn't either, so I looked it up. To type Ü hold down the ALT key while typing 0220. This and other accents are covered at http://symbolcodes..tlt.psu.edu/accents/codealt.html
>
> Herb: LIGHTEN UP!
>
> Tom

Herb: LIGHTEN UP!
Hey, don't yell at me in caps, Tom. I'm totally relaxed. In Windows 10 go to 'Settings', then 'Time and Language', 'Region and Language' and select "Add Language". Install the German keyboard. To switch to the German keyboard you invoke the Windows key together with the space bar. Same for triggering back to English keyboard. I type in German a lot and am used to knowing where the specific German letters are located. The Ü,ü for example are under the {,[ keys. It is a bit involved and I apologize to Dan for being a dickish.

[Chris]

If you are curious about what it takes to disasemble a Stemme and considering a Cobra trailer instead of a hangar you may want to look at this video. The center panel is 400lb and needs to be lifted over the canopy....

https://youtu.be/ejpUGpZ2vhc

[JS]

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-8, Chris wrote:
> If you are curious about what it takes to disasemble a Stemme and considering a Cobra trailer instead of a hangar you may want to look at this video.. The center panel is 400lb and needs to be lifted over the canopy....
>
> https://youtu.be/ejpUGpZ2vhc

And the video of assembling an S10 by two pilots wearing very smart lab coats is even better. At least they don't have to pull off the nose cone. Love the collection of extra trailer parts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vtn-32cvY8

Is that Unterwössen? (Mit Umlaut)
Jim

[GeneReinecke]

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 2:17:47 PM UTC-6, Duster wrote:
> Retired now and looking to purchase a motorized glider; weighing the pros and cons of self-launchers v sustainers. Two-placer is a priority, as I would like to take my wife. Single place acceptable as long as I can keep her happy sightseeing. We plan on extensive travelling, some to both established and unestablished (i.e., w/o tugs avail) soaring areas (esp. ridge/mountain/wave). Is the weight penalty the chief difference? Engine reliability? Maintenance? Minimum 18m? Some of you may recommend getting some first-hand experience at a commercial operation; where would that be?
>
> Any feedback appreciated, even if just to eliminate models to stay away from.
> Mike

Watching the Stemme assembly video made me curious:
Are most Stemme owners simply hangaring their aircraft at their favorite soaring site and flying them to their second favorite? The complexity of the trailer, hoists and assembly tools would lead me to believe so.
BTW, does anybody have any feedback on flying differences between the S10 and S12?
Gene

[Dan Marotta]

Yes, but the Cobra trailer has two electric hoists to facilitate lifting
the center section. It looks like it takes at least an hour to assemble
from the trailer whereas I can rig my wings from the folded position in
about 10 minutes. I learned recently that some of the very early
Stemmes had a 4-piece wing and could be solo rigged using a rigging tool.

BTW, I'll bet you could build your own trailer for about 20% of the cost
of a Cobra using the proper sized Haul Mark. You don't really need a
clam shell top.

On 11/8/2016 1:27 PM, Chris wrote:
> If you are curious about what it takes to disasemble a Stemme and considering a Cobra trailer instead of a hangar you may want to look at this video. The center panel is 400lb and needs to be lifted over the canopy....
>
> https://youtu.be/ejpUGpZ2vhc

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

I keep it in my hangar with the wings folded (my doors only open to 42'
wide. I pull it out and then taxi, still folded, to the apron by the
launch area where I unfold and rig the wings.

I imported the ship from Mexico and got a checkout while taking my
instructor home to Payson, AZ from Laredo, TX, then I flew it home to
Moriarty. Two months later, my wife and I flew the Stemme to Minden for
a fun week of soaring. I used about 24 gallons of gas for 650 miles of
powered flight for about 27 mpg at a true airspeed of 140 kts. We flew
west at 16,500' and east at 17,500'. With the turbo, the climb was
quick and easy.

To my knowledge there's one S12 in the country and I think the owner
said it flies just like the S10.

On 11/8/2016 4:12 PM, GeneReinecke wrote:
> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 2:17:47 PM UTC-6, Duster wrote:
>> Retired now and looking to purchase a motorized glider; weighing the pros and cons of self-launchers v sustainers. Two-placer is a priority, as I would like to take my wife. Single place acceptable as long as I can keep her happy sightseeing. We plan on extensive travelling, some to both established and unestablished (i.e., w/o tugs avail) soaring areas (esp. ridge/mountain/wave). Is the weight penalty the chief difference? Engine reliability? Maintenance? Minimum 18m? Some of you may recommend getting some first-hand experience at a commercial operation; where would that be?
>>
>> Any feedback appreciated, even if just to eliminate models to stay away from.
>> Mike
> Watching the Stemme assembly video made me curious:
> Are most Stemme owners simply hangaring their aircraft at their favorite soaring site and flying them to their second favorite? The complexity of the trailer, hoists and assembly tools would lead me to believe so.
> BTW, does anybody have any feedback on flying differences between the S10 and S12?
> Gene

--
Dan, 5J

[Tango Whisky]

No. That's Bex in Switzerland where I fly.

[JS]

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 8:09:30 PM UTC-8, Tango Whisky wrote:
> No. That's Bex in Switzerland where I fly.

Cool, Bert. You fly in a wonderful place. I've driven past Bex to work in Brig.
Unterwössen was the first alpine site with an umlaut that came to mind..

The Stemme rigging video makes an ASH25 seem like Kinderspiel!
Jim

[George Haeh]

I see the clever keyboarders are finding codes for umlauting
German vowels, but on a Chrome browser set to English, they
come out as gibberish = C3 = B6 [spaces inserted]

Unterwoessen and Nuernberg are perfectly acceptable.

When my great grandfolks left Bavaria to become Pennsylvania
Dutch, Deutsch posing an orthographic challenge to the locals,
the e got inserted because the Ellis Island typewriters couldn't do
accents.

Later on my grandfather changed the o to a when folks kept
driving by the sign.

At 06:08 09 November 2016, JS wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 8:09:30 PM UTC-8, Tango
Whisky wrote:
>> No. That's Bex in Switzerland where I fly.
>
>Cool, Bert. You fly in a wonderful place. I've driven past Bex to
work in
>B=
>rig.
>Unterw=C3=B6ssen was the first alpine site with an umlaut that
came to
>mind=
>..
>
>The Stemme rigging video makes an ASH25 seem like
Kinderspiel!
>Jim
>