GP Gliders GP 14 Velo has finally FLOWN!!!

[Tim[_11_]]

Good Evening All:

After a very long wait, the GP 14 Velo took to the air yesterday (November 24th) from Krosno, Poland by both aero-tow and electric self-launch. More details to come but check GP Gliders on FaceBook for pictures and video. First pilot reports are very good. We are finally flying!!!

Tim McAllister
GP Gliders USA

[Casey[_2_]]

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 9:09:14 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
> Good Evening All:
>
> After a very long wait, the GP 14 Velo took to the air yesterday (November 24th) from Krosno, Poland by both aero-tow and electric self-launch. More details to come but check GP Gliders on FaceBook for pictures and video. First pilot reports are very good. We are finally flying!!!
>
> Tim McAllister
> GP Gliders USA

Tim,

Please inform when the first one comes to US. I really would like to check it out.

Casey

[son_of_flubber]

Will GP electric drive gliders be certified to aerotow with the boom deployed and the motor turned off? (Boom extended in case of PT3. Aerotow to save the battery charge for later in the flight.)

[Casey[_2_]]

On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:06:03 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Will GP electric drive gliders be certified to aerotow with the boom deployed and the motor turned off? (Boom extended in case of PT3. Aerotow to save the battery charge for later in the flight.)

Has this been done before? Any german motorized gliders "certified" with engine deployed and not running? I've never heard of such a thing. Yes a FES is probably safer for towing, but FES and boom motor are apples and oranges. I'm curious to know you question reasoning.

Casey

[JS]

On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 7:40:01 PM UTC-8, Casey wrote:
> On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:06:03 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > Will GP electric drive gliders be certified to aerotow with the boom deployed and the motor turned off? (Boom extended in case of PT3. Aerotow to save the battery charge for later in the flight.)
>
> Has this been done before? Any german motorized gliders "certified" with engine deployed and not running? I've never heard of such a thing. Yes a FES is probably safer for towing, but FES and boom motor are apples and oranges. I'm curious to know you question reasoning.
>
> Casey

I've aero towed the ASH26E (EXP) with the engine running. 5000RPM worked best.
Up and not running would be silly. Similar to air brakes open.
Don't understand how a FES would be safer for towing. Wouldn't the ropy bit get stuck in the propellery thing?
Jim

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 2:29:40 AM UTC-5, JS wrote:
> On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 7:40:01 PM UTC-8, Casey wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:06:03 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > > Will GP electric drive gliders be certified to aerotow with the boom deployed and the motor turned off? (Boom extended in case of PT3. Aerotow to save the battery charge for later in the flight.)
> >
> > Has this been done before? Any german motorized gliders "certified" with engine deployed and not running? I've never heard of such a thing. Yes a FES is probably safer for towing, but FES and boom motor are apples and oranges. I'm curious to know you question reasoning.
> >
> > Casey
>
> I've aero towed the ASH26E (EXP) with the engine running. 5000RPM worked best.
> Up and not running would be silly. Similar to air brakes open.
> Don't understand how a FES would be safer for towing. Wouldn't the ropy bit get stuck in the propellery thing?
> Jim

JS, the GP has a folding propeller so there is little drag when the pylon is up.

[Dan Marotta]

I've towed the ASH-30 mi with the propeller deployed and the engine
running. From the tug it made towing the heavy beast much easier. From
the back end of the rope, it made the tow quicker and, with such a long
span, it's good to get off tow quickly as some tow pilots don't realize
that the big ships can't turn as tightly as the 15-meter jobbies.

On 11/27/2016 12:29 AM, JS wrote:
> On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 7:40:01 PM UTC-8, Casey wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:06:03 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
>>> Will GP electric drive gliders be certified to aerotow with the boom deployed and the motor turned off? (Boom extended in case of PT3. Aerotow to save the battery charge for later in the flight.)
>> Has this been done before? Any german motorized gliders "certified" with engine deployed and not running? I've never heard of such a thing. Yes a FES is probably safer for towing, but FES and boom motor are apples and oranges. I'm curious to know you question reasoning.
>>
>> Casey
> I've aero towed the ASH26E (EXP) with the engine running. 5000RPM worked best.
> Up and not running would be silly. Similar to air brakes open.
> Don't understand how a FES would be safer for towing. Wouldn't the ropy bit get stuck in the propellery thing?
> Jim

--
Dan, 5J

[JS]

On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 7:15:06 AM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 2:29:40 AM UTC-5, JS wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 7:40:01 PM UTC-8, Casey wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:06:03 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > > > Will GP electric drive gliders be certified to aerotow with the boom deployed and the motor turned off? (Boom extended in case of PT3. Aerotow to save the battery charge for later in the flight.)
> > >
> > > Has this been done before? Any german motorized gliders "certified" with engine deployed and not running? I've never heard of such a thing. Yes a FES is probably safer for towing, but FES and boom motor are apples and oranges. I'm curious to know you question reasoning.
> > >
> > > Casey
> >
> > I've aero towed the ASH26E (EXP) with the engine running. 5000RPM worked best.
> > Up and not running would be silly. Similar to air brakes open.
> > Don't understand how a FES would be safer for towing. Wouldn't the ropy bit get stuck in the propellery thing?
> > Jim
>
> JS, the GP has a folding propeller so there is little drag when the pylon is up.

Cool!
Hope the prop hub doesn't disintegrate like another I've seen.
The 26 with prop up and stopped would definitely be silly.
Dan, great to hear that others have found the technique useful "certified" or not.
Jim

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:06:03 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Will GP electric drive gliders be certified to aerotow with the boom deployed and the motor turned off? (Boom extended in case of PT3. Aerotow to save the battery charge for later in the flight.)

With the likelihood of PT3 being as low as it is in the real world, and given all that the manufacturer must do to be able to produce, document, and sell a glider, I can't imagine that they would put much time into this.
UH

[Casey[_2_]]

On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 2:29:40 AM UTC-5, JS wrote:
> On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 7:40:01 PM UTC-8, Casey wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:06:03 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > > Will GP electric drive gliders be certified to aerotow with the boom deployed and the motor turned off? (Boom extended in case of PT3. Aerotow to save the battery charge for later in the flight.)
> >
> > Has this been done before? Any german motorized gliders "certified" with engine deployed and not running? I've never heard of such a thing. Yes a FES is probably safer for towing, but FES and boom motor are apples and oranges. I'm curious to know you question reasoning.
> >
> > Casey
>
> I've aero towed the ASH26E (EXP) with the engine running. 5000RPM worked best.
> Up and not running would be silly. Similar to air brakes open.
> Don't understand how a FES would be safer for towing. Wouldn't the ropy bit get stuck in the propellery thing?
> Jim

Jim,

Referring to low termination of tow the FES is just turning the knob for full power, allowing tow pilot leeway and the glider to get out of way is probably the best safety issue I can think of. I don't know any stats for low termination of tows but I do know of a club that had a couple rope breaks in one season.

Casey

[son_of_flubber]

On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:06:03 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Will GP electric drive gliders be certified to aerotow with the boom deployed and the motor turned off? (Boom extended in case of PT3. Aerotow to save the battery charge for later in the flight.)

Sorry that I cannot point to specifics, but I read somewhere that towing gliders with the boom extended and the motor running is sometimes done in Europe in order to compensate for low powered tugs. This would be a good reason for GP to certify for extending the boom during aerotow.

As Andrzej noted, the prop on the GP has less drag when it is folded. And the motor looks sleek. And since it is electric, I'd guess that you could dial in just enough thrust to negate the drag of the extended boom (and save the batteries for later).

Being able to use FES to recover from PT3 is very appealing if you launch from a short runway with limited low altitude PT3 options. A plus if GP offered comparable functionality.

That said, as battery costs comes down and power density increases, aerotowing a self-launch capable electric glider will at some point stop making sense. Maybe that will happen sooner rather than later.

Do self launch gliders have the climb rate and stability to deal with strong sink on launch and the rotor associated with wave, or are they marginal on turbulent days?

[Bryan Searle]

At 05:55 28 November 2016, son_of_flubber wrote:
>On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:06:03 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber
wrote:
>> Will GP electric drive gliders be certified to aerotow with the boom
>depl=
>oyed and the motor turned off? (Boom extended in case of PT3. Aerotow
to
>=
>save the battery charge for later in the flight.)
>
>Sorry that I cannot point to specifics, but I read somewhere that towing
>gl=
>iders with the boom extended and the motor running is sometimes done in
>Eur=
>ope in order to compensate for low powered tugs. This would be a good
>reaso=
>n for GP to certify for extending the boom during aerotow.
>
>As Andrzej noted, the prop on the GP has less drag when it is folded.
And
>=
>the motor looks sleek. And since it is electric, I'd guess that you
could
>=
>dial in just enough thrust to negate the drag of the extended boom (and
>sav=
>e the batteries for later).
>
>Being able to use FES to recover from PT3 is very appealing if you launch
>f=
>rom a short runway with limited low altitude PT3 options. A plus if GP
>offe=
>red comparable functionality.
>
>That said, as battery costs comes down and power density increases,
>aerotow=
>ing a self-launch capable electric glider will at some point stop making
>se=
>nse. Maybe that will happen sooner rather than later.
>
>Do self launch gliders have the climb rate and stability to deal with
>stron=
>g sink on launch and the rotor associated with wave, or are they marginal
>o=
>n turbulent days? =20
>
The first flights of the GP Velo indicate an average climb under power of
4m/s, this is very encouraging and also very safe. See
https://www.facebook.com/gpgliders/

[Tango Whisky]

I do push-pulls with my Ventus cM from time to time. I wouldn't dream of doing this in heavy turbulence...

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 12:55:50 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:06:03 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > Will GP electric drive gliders be certified to aerotow with the boom deployed and the motor turned off? (Boom extended in case of PT3. Aerotow to save the battery charge for later in the flight.)
>
> Sorry that I cannot point to specifics, but I read somewhere that towing gliders with the boom extended and the motor running is sometimes done in Europe in order to compensate for low powered tugs. This would be a good reason for GP to certify for extending the boom during aerotow.
>
> As Andrzej noted, the prop on the GP has less drag when it is folded. And the motor looks sleek. And since it is electric, I'd guess that you could dial in just enough thrust to negate the drag of the extended boom (and save the batteries for later).
>
> Being able to use FES to recover from PT3 is very appealing if you launch from a short runway with limited low altitude PT3 options. A plus if GP offered comparable functionality.
>
> That said, as battery costs comes down and power density increases, aerotowing a self-launch capable electric glider will at some point stop making sense. Maybe that will happen sooner rather than later.
>
> Do self launch gliders have the climb rate and stability to deal with strong sink on launch and the rotor associated with wave, or are they marginal on turbulent days?

Here I go, again. It's that perspective thing. If the subject is new toys and inventing the rationalization that gets them purchased despite the SO's concern about the bank balance, then I'm OT. If the subject is safety in launching, then Flubber's question is badly framed. I care about safety in launching, so:

The PT3s that are life threatening often *aren't the ones that a second power source is going to help with*. Wing down/bad ground loop at flying speed, controls not hooked up or other assembly fault, dive brakes open, canopy open, that sort of thing. Yes, you can invent scenario in which the electric miracle flies you away from an accident. More often, we see crappy PIC decision making turn a completely manageable situation into a very dangerous & sometimes fatal accident (I can rattle you off a long, sorry list of real, completely preventable PT3 accidents). Safety-wise, I remain an advocate for grasping the low hanging fruit first, and I still see plenty of it. It has nothing to do with new toys and everything to do with basic airmanship.

Who can name a PT3 accident that would have been prevented with instant-on electric propulsion that didn't have some other really obvious solution? I can't think of one off hand. I think these are rare.

Sitting in the back seat of our L23, I've watched nearly everyone I've flown with reach for something on the panel, fiddle with an air vent, look at a wing tip or do some other completely unnecessary thing below 500'. This can have consequences. The last PT3 we had at our airport was the guy who decided to retract his gear on tow, just because he could. Unsurprisingly, he got way out of position and next thing he knew, he was putting the gear right back down again! It doesn't get any more preventable than that.

If you want to improve your odds w.r.t. PT3 survival in particular, or emergency handling in general, the smart money is on training & critique. Increasing the complexity of your aircraft or procedures, not so much.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Tango Whisky]

Well, on my airfield (and a lot of others here in Europe I know of), an aborted aerotow at the end of the field (rope brakes, tug enigines fumes...) will result in a total loss of the glider should there be no instant supply of alternate propulsion.
Nothing to do with training : in this position at 100 ft off the ground, the only choise is what to crash into.

[[email protected]]

Any worries about the motor eating the rope if it breaks/releases on the tug end? I'm sure the noise would be distracting...

[Bruce Hoult]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 6:50:37 PM UTC+3, Tango Whisky wrote:
> Well, on my airfield (and a lot of others here in Europe I know of), an aborted aerotow at the end of the field (rope brakes, tug enigines fumes...) will result in a total loss of the glider should there be no instant supply of alternate propulsion.
> Nothing to do with training : in this position at 100 ft off the ground, the only choise is what to crash into.

That is .. terrible. I can't imagine that being tolerated at any club in NZ.. Maybe on a one-off retrieve from a paddock (and maybe not!), but not day to day operation, with members of the public, early solo students...

When I started, my club was towing Blaniks with Super Cubs, from an airfield surrounded by farms. When we started to trade the Blaniks for heavy glass two seaters (Twin Astir and Janus) and the farms turned into housing developments, tows on no wind hot days were getting unacceptably low over the fence and houses. We pretty promptly swapped the Cubs for powerful Pawnees. Problem solved.

Now that the club has moved this year to from a public airfield to a private 2 km long grass strip we've swapped the Pawnees for a brand new Skylaunch winch, and thinking about an LSA such as the Dynamic WT9 for remaining towing duties.

[Tango Whisky]

Le lundi 28 novembre 2016 17:11:31 UTC+1, a écritÂ*:
> Any worries about the motor eating the rope if it breaks/releases on the tug end? I'm sure the noise would be distracting...

Not really. I had the occasion to watch the rope being cut by the towplane pilot (it had to be changed, so we turned this into an exercise), and it actually drops well below the glider.
Now, if you are in a turbulent situation where you cannot control the slack anymore, that rope could be all over the place. That's why I wouldn't do push-pulls in such a situation.
Also, on a push-pull you need to have a briefing with the tug pilot. Ha has to known what to do if he encounters a problem during the take-off run (i.e. no brakes, evacuate to which side etc).

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:50:37 AM UTC-5, Tango Whisky wrote:
> Well, on my airfield (and a lot of others here in Europe I know of), an aborted aerotow at the end of the field (rope brakes, tug enigines fumes...) will result in a total loss of the glider should there be no instant supply of alternate propulsion.
> Nothing to do with training : in this position at 100 ft off the ground, the only choise is what to crash into.

Does this describe even 5% of PT3 accidents? It surely doesn't in the USA, and that was my point.

best,
Evan

[Mike the Strike]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 9:31:24 AM UTC-7, Tango Whisky wrote:
> Le lundi 28 novembre 2016 17:11:31 UTC+1, a écritÂ*:
> > Any worries about the motor eating the rope if it breaks/releases on the tug end? I'm sure the noise would be distracting...
>
> Not really. I had the occasion to watch the rope being cut by the towplane pilot (it had to be changed, so we turned this into an exercise), and it actually drops well below the glider.
> Now, if you are in a turbulent situation where you cannot control the slack anymore, that rope could be all over the place. That's why I wouldn't do push-pulls in such a situation.
> Also, on a push-pull you need to have a briefing with the tug pilot. Ha has to known what to do if he encounters a problem during the take-off run (i.e. no brakes, evacuate to which side etc).

You probably wouldn't want to do this in low tow - the standard in some countries and many clubs. In turbulent thermals, I had the tow rope snake back over the canopy and wings a couple of times when my ballasted open-class ship over-ran the tug.

Mike

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 08:33:48 -0800, Tango Eight wrote:

> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:50:37 AM UTC-5, Tango Whisky wrote:
>> Well, on my airfield (and a lot of others here in Europe I know of), an
>> aborted aerotow at the end of the field (rope brakes, tug enigines
>> fumes...) will result in a total loss of the glider should there be no
>> instant supply of alternate propulsion.
>> Nothing to do with training : in this position at 100 ft off the
>> ground, the only choise is what to crash into.
>
> Does this describe even 5% of PT3 accidents? It surely doesn't in the
> USA, and that was my point.
>
I'm a UK glider pilot although I have flown ( briefly) in the USA:
however this thread is the first place I can remember seeing the term. As
you say that the eventuality that Tango Whisky described is not a PT3, I
suppose it must be a fairly specific term.

So, can you define it, please?


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

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 12:17:16 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:

> So, can you define it, please?

It's a general term, the abbreviation stands for "Premature Termination of The Tow".

best,
Evan

[Casey[_2_]]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:40:19 AM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 12:55:50 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:06:03 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > > Will GP electric drive gliders be certified to aerotow with the boom deployed and the motor turned off? (Boom extended in case of PT3. Aerotow to save the battery charge for later in the flight.)
> >
> > Sorry that I cannot point to specifics, but I read somewhere that towing gliders with the boom extended and the motor running is sometimes done in Europe in order to compensate for low powered tugs. This would be a good reason for GP to certify for extending the boom during aerotow.
> >
> > As Andrzej noted, the prop on the GP has less drag when it is folded. And the motor looks sleek. And since it is electric, I'd guess that you could dial in just enough thrust to negate the drag of the extended boom (and save the batteries for later).
> >
> > Being able to use FES to recover from PT3 is very appealing if you launch from a short runway with limited low altitude PT3 options. A plus if GP offered comparable functionality.
> >
> > That said, as battery costs comes down and power density increases, aerotowing a self-launch capable electric glider will at some point stop making sense. Maybe that will happen sooner rather than later.
> >
> > Do self launch gliders have the climb rate and stability to deal with strong sink on launch and the rotor associated with wave, or are they marginal on turbulent days?
>
> Here I go, again. It's that perspective thing. If the subject is new toys and inventing the rationalization that gets them purchased despite the SO's concern about the bank balance, then I'm OT. If the subject is safety in launching, then Flubber's question is badly framed. I care about safety in launching, so:
>
> The PT3s that are life threatening often *aren't the ones that a second power source is going to help with*. Wing down/bad ground loop at flying speed, controls not hooked up or other assembly fault, dive brakes open, canopy open, that sort of thing. Yes, you can invent scenario in which the electric miracle flies you away from an accident. More often, we see crappy PIC decision making turn a completely manageable situation into a very dangerous & sometimes fatal accident (I can rattle you off a long, sorry list of real, completely preventable PT3 accidents). Safety-wise, I remain an advocate for grasping the low hanging fruit first, and I still see plenty of it. It has nothing to do with new toys and everything to do with basic airmanship.
>
> Who can name a PT3 accident that would have been prevented with instant-on electric propulsion that didn't have some other really obvious solution? I can't think of one off hand. I think these are rare.
>
> Sitting in the back seat of our L23, I've watched nearly everyone I've flown with reach for something on the panel, fiddle with an air vent, look at a wing tip or do some other completely unnecessary thing below 500'. This can have consequences. The last PT3 we had at our airport was the guy who decided to retract his gear on tow, just because he could. Unsurprisingly, he got way out of position and next thing he knew, he was putting the gear right back down again! It doesn't get any more preventable than that.
>
> If you want to improve your odds w.r.t. PT3 survival in particular, or emergency handling in general, the smart money is on training & critique. Increasing the complexity of your aircraft or procedures, not so much.
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Someone correct me if I don't understand this right: Manufactures have to pay for specific test and submit to each country what they require and pay the certificate fee if they want a Standard Registration. With GP being a small company I can not see that they would go through the expense nor long wait to get standard Certs. I imagine that they would import as Experimental as do Ali Sport and others.

Today batteries take awhile to charge and even in the future if batteries are stronger, I would imagine they will still take awhile to charge. That being said, I think there will still be a need to tow Electric Self Launchers. At a comp, I would tow every day and use the batteries for not landing out. But I would not want to pull them out of the glider every day to charge. And my goal would not to use the batteries at all and not have to charge them every night.

People see things differently and safety is probably no different. I have seen an airfield where I would not take off nor land and have heard of accidents there. Just like I would never take off with a boom extended, running or not, electric or gas.

I think its great that GP is also installing BRS as standard. I know a test pilot that used a BRS twice successfully. Once by himself and once with a passenger.

Casey

[[email protected]]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 9:31:24 AM UTC-7, Tango Whisky wrote:
> > Le lundi 28 novembre 2016 17:11:31 UTC+1, a écritÂ*:
> > > Any worries about the motor eating the rope if it breaks/releases on the tug end? I'm sure the noise would be distracting...
> >
> > Not really. I had the occasion to watch the rope being cut by the towplane pilot (it had to be changed, so we turned this into an exercise), and it actually drops well below the glider.
> > Now, if you are in a turbulent situation where you cannot control the slack anymore, that rope could be all over the place. That's why I wouldn't do push-pulls in such a situation.
> > Also, on a push-pull you need to have a briefing with the tug pilot. Ha has to known what to do if he encounters a problem during the take-off run (i.e. no brakes, evacuate to which side etc).
>
> You probably wouldn't want to do this in low tow - the standard in some countries and many clubs. In turbulent thermals, I had the tow rope snake back over the canopy and wings a couple of times when my ballasted open-class ship over-ran the tug.
>
> Mike

When in proper position for low tow the rope goes under the glider when released from the tug.
UH

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

What is the reasoning for some to prefer low tow position?

[Tony[_5_]]

There seems to be a lot of confusion here.

I took aerotows when flying the Silent 2 Electro in Lithuania. Per recommendation from Luka, and the fact that it just made sense, I had the key and FCU on for the tow, after having done a quick motor check on the ground to make sure the electrons were flowing. In the event of a tow failure, it wouldve been easy to release the rope and motor away if that was the best choice.

There would be no reason I can think of and it seems like a terrible idea with the FES installation to attempt the run the motor with the rope attached.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

That question (likely covered on RAS before....) belongs in it's own thread, NOT this one.

Please and thanks.

PS, yes, most of my aerotows are low tow, but I also train/use high tow.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:06:03 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Will GP electric drive gliders be certified to aerotow with the boom deployed and the motor turned off? (Boom extended in case of PT3. Aerotow to save the battery charge for later in the flight.)

Sadly this topic has been Flubbjacked.
I would like to hear more about the progress of the glider and some of the other projects these guys are doing.
I'd live to hear details about the motor, batteries, and motor control system they are using.
UH

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 1:40:05 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:

>>> I took aerotows when flying the Silent 2 Electro in Lithuania. Per recommendation from Luka, and the fact that it just made sense, I had the key and FCU on for the tow, after having done a quick motor check on the ground to make sure the electrons were flowing. In the event of a tow failure, it would've been easy to release the rope and motor away if that was the best choice.<<<

This 'instant on' feature of FES is 'icing on the cake' for anyone who flies from a field that has no good options for a PT3 at 100 feet and/or sometimes climbs slowly (over forest and boulder-strewn pasture) off the end of the runway due to strong sink. I think 99%+ of the risk-reducing benefits of FES (or a Boom electric) is the reduction of landouts in marginal fields. This benefit is small in regions with lots of good landout fields, and large in regions with relatively poor landout options and a storied history of damaged gliders and injuries associated with landouts.

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 11:06:34 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

> This 'instant on' feature of FES is 'icing on the cake' for anyone who flies from a field that has no good options for a PT3 at 100 feet and/or sometimes climbs slowly (over forest and boulder-strewn pasture) off the end of the runway due to strong sink. I think 99%+ of the risk-reducing benefits of FES (or a Boom electric) is the reduction of landouts in marginal fields.. This benefit is small in regions with lots of good landout fields, and large in regions with relatively poor landout options and a storied history of damaged gliders and injuries associated with landouts.

A smarter view to take is that the purpose of the motor is to reduce inconvenience.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 6:09:14 PM UTC-8, Tim wrote:
> Good Evening All:
>
> After a very long wait, the GP 14 Velo took to the air yesterday (November 24th) from Krosno, Poland by both aero-tow and electric self-launch. More details to come but check GP Gliders on FaceBook for pictures and video. First pilot reports are very good. We are finally flying!!!
>
> Tim McAllister
> GP Gliders USA

Looks like a fantastic glider Tim, congrats to GP. Anyone have any comments about the Velo, or any of the GP gliders for that matter? Thread drift into completely unrelated topics/nonsense is becoming the norm on this group.... So, is there a timeline for US delivery for the Velo? A rough timeline for the Jeta that you could inform us of Tim? The Jeta seems like a glider that could fill a very large niche. It sure would be one that would do all of what I want from a glider if it performs even close to advertised. I wonder what the planned empty weight and max gross are, and how much ballast it might take. All questions that I'm sure will be answered when GP wants to answer them, but I thought I might get the thread back on track...

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 11:57:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:...
I wonder what the planned empty weight and max gross are, and how much ballast it might take...

For the GP 14 e Velo

Empty weight: 170 kg
Max. take off weight: 420 kg (255 kg UL)

http://www.gpgliders.com/gp-14-e-velo

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 9:20:45 PM UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 11:57:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:...
> I wonder what the planned empty weight and max gross are, and how much ballast it might take...
>
> For the GP 14 e Velo
>
> Empty weight: 170 kg
> Max. take off weight: 420 kg (255 kg UL)
>
> http://www.gpgliders.com/gp-14-e-velo

here is the GP 15 info http://www.gpgliders.com/gp-15-jeta-0

[Casey[_2_]]

The more I look into the GP gliders and trailer the more I'm liking it. The propulsion is same company partnered with FES. http://www.mgm-compro.com And the battery in the wing is not an original concept. The German company Lange Aviation has been using it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSZxLewd8BA&t=61s look at 3:11. The trailers look very durable.

I wonder about charging the batteries in the wing. They must be pretty safe to be charged in the wing.

Casey

[krasw]

I think the GP15 is the smartest concept I've seen in ages. 13.5m gliders are stuck with club class performance (plus some, maybe) because of the massive span penalty. If GP is able to build 15m glider with kind of ultra-light structure with high aspect ratio, small wing AND stuff in electric propulsion plus rescue system, that would be awesome. Questions in my mind are: 1) how are they going to achieve the stated empty weight, 2) are they able to mass produce (anything) and 3) are they able to certify it? Last two are essential questions.

[Dan Marotta]

How much weight do the batteries add to the wing? Will weigh something
like a LAK-12 to rig?

On 11/29/2016 5:32 PM, Casey wrote:
> The more I look into the GP gliders and trailer the more I'm liking it. The propulsion is same company partnered with FES. http://www.mgm-compro.com And the battery in the wing is not an original concept. The German company Lange Aviation has been using it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSZxLewd8BA&t=61s look at 3:11. The trailers look very durable.
>
> I wonder about charging the batteries in the wing. They must be pretty safe to be charged in the wing.
>
> Casey

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

I've been told that the batteries will be removable, so you don't have to charge them in the wings. However, you presumably have to rig with them in the wings. The Antares 20E is one-man riggable with batteries in the wings, so it can be done with the right equipment.

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 3:15:15 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
>13.5m gliders are stuck with club class performance (plus some, maybe) because of the massive span penalty.<

So in your mind, the range extension of the sustainer does not compensate for the lower glide ratio?? Could the 13.5m could do the same task in the same time on the same day as a 15m pure glider?

The 13.5m might even go farther/faster than the 15m pure glider because the pilot could be smart and use the engine selectively.

Assuming aerotow, do you think that many pilots will land at the end of the day with fully charged batteries? If I had one I think I would land with a 50% charge or less. What do the people that already have FES do on a typical day?

[Sean[_2_]]

You guys are worrying too much.

This is a tiny, extremely modern glider. The batteries will add AT MOST 50 lbs per wing. Probably more like 30 lb. per wing or 60 lb. total. And without batteries I'll bet these wings are AT LEAST 50 lb. lighter (EACH) than any current 15m wing. So it's a wash in weight, with the batteries in the wing, with a current 15m (standard, not motor) glider such as an ASW-27. I would suspect that it might be lighter than a 27 wing, even with batteries.

The prototype had a picure (99%) sure, without batteries, and the guy was carrying the wing around under his arm like a large RC glider. Maybe I am wrong on this. Anyone?

Also, aero-towing with the boom deployed (and motor ready to go) would be very easy and practical to do. I cannot think of anything that would prevent certification of that procedure. The only thing I could imagine might be she shocks on the propeller in the aero retract (sprung bach clean) position. Maybe heavy gear hits on take off roll could somehow damage it.

Sean

[Dan Marotta]

I don't think towing with the boom erect would effect certification.
There may be a /_prohibition_/ in the flight manual but, if it's
experimental, IIRC you can do anything that you demonstrate during your
flight test phase (unless prohibited).

On 11/30/2016 12:26 PM, Sean wrote:
> You guys are worrying too much.
>
> This is a tiny, extremely modern glider. The batteries will add AT MOST 50 lbs per wing. Probably more like 30 lb. per wing or 60 lb. total. And without batteries I'll bet these wings are AT LEAST 50 lb. lighter (EACH) than any current 15m wing. So it's a wash in weight, with the batteries in the wing, with a current 15m (standard, not motor) glider such as an ASW-27. I would suspect that it might be lighter than a 27 wing, even with batteries.
>
> The prototype had a picure (99%) sure, without batteries, and the guy was carrying the wing around under his arm like a large RC glider. Maybe I am wrong on this. Anyone?
>
> Also, aero-towing with the boom deployed (and motor ready to go) would be very easy and practical to do. I cannot think of anything that would prevent certification of that procedure. The only thing I could imagine might be she shocks on the propeller in the aero retract (sprung bach clean) position. Maybe heavy gear hits on take off roll could somehow damage it.
>
> Sean
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Arne Martin Güettler]

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 20:26:18 UTC+1, Sean wrote:
> You guys are worrying too much.
>
> This is a tiny, extremely modern glider. The batteries will add AT MOST 50 lbs per wing. Probably more like 30 lb. per wing or 60 lb. total. And without batteries I'll bet these wings are AT LEAST 50 lb. lighter (EACH) than any current 15m wing.


From the information I've seen, its 4.7 kWh batteries weigh 27 kg total (i.e. 13.5 kg per wing). And each wing weighs 31 kg empty. So around 45 kg with batteries, which is still lighter than any 15 m wing I've heard about.

>
> The prototype had a picure (99%) sure, without batteries, and the guy was carrying the wing around under his arm like a large RC glider. Maybe I am wrong on this. Anyone?

http://www.gpgliders.com/sites/default/files/field/image/_mg_6927_custom.jpg

[krasw]

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 20:11:22 UTC+2, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 3:15:15 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> >13.5m gliders are stuck with club class performance (plus some, maybe) because of the massive span penalty.<
>
> So in your mind, the range extension of the sustainer does not compensate for the lower glide ratio?? Could the 13.5m could do the same task in the same time on the same day as a 15m pure glider?
>
> The 13.5m might even go farther/faster than the 15m pure glider because the pilot could be smart and use the engine selectively.
>
> Assuming aerotow, do you think that many pilots will land at the end of the day with fully charged batteries? If I had one I think I would land with a 50% charge or less. What do the people that already have FES do on a typical day?

We are talking about self-launching glider with retractable engine. I think the flight profile of GP is self-launch (or aerotow in competitions), pure gliding flight and occasional retrieve. I don't see pure gliding part affected by engine in any positive way.

I think that people are reluctant to pay huge amount of money for less performance than previous generation of gliders. Only way to do this is offer huge benefits in other areas. 13.5m gliders have edge in rigging/ground handling and electric self launching. It will be interesting to see if this is enough to compensate for 10-20% performance disadvantage compared to used std./15m/18m class glider (even with engine) you can easily get with 100+k eur needed for new 13.5m self launcher.

If we discuss about the weight of GP15, they really have to pull a miracle. Ventus 2a or ASW27 weigh 220-260 kg without engine. LAK stated that they can build new version of LAK-19 with carbon fuselage under 200 kg. That is 15m glider without engine or batteries. GP's small wing, lighter structure and lower MTOW could save something, but then you add engine and batteries (40 kg at least, probably more). They state that empty weight is 185 kg. That would leave 145 kg of structure (minus rocket parachute). VNE is in same page as with Ventus and ASW. Have they discovered some new space material that saves 100 kg of carbon and kevlar?

[Casey[_2_]]

> We are talking about self-launching glider with retractable engine. I think the flight profile of GP is self-launch (or aerotow in competitions), pure gliding flight and occasional retrieve. I don't see pure gliding part affected by engine in any positive way.
>
> I think that people are reluctant to pay huge amount of money for less performance than previous generation of gliders. Only way to do this is offer huge benefits in other areas. 13.5m gliders have edge in rigging/ground handling and electric self launching. It will be interesting to see if this is enough to compensate for 10-20% performance disadvantage compared to used std./15m/18m class glider (even with engine) you can easily get with 100+k eur needed for new 13.5m self launcher.
>
> If we discuss about the weight of GP15, they really have to pull a miracle. Ventus 2a or ASW27 weigh 220-260 kg without engine. LAK stated that they can build new version of LAK-19 with carbon fuselage under 200 kg. That is 15m glider without engine or batteries. GP's small wing, lighter structure and lower MTOW could save something, but then you add engine and batteries (40 kg at least, probably more). They state that empty weight is 185 kg. That would leave 145 kg of structure (minus rocket parachute). VNE is in same page as with Ventus and ASW. Have they discovered some new space material that saves 100 kg of carbon and kevlar?

How long has the Ali-Sport Silent Electro been available? not long and there are 10 in the US. http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.aspx?Mfrtxt=ALI+SPORT&Modeltxt=&PageNo=1

Time has gotten more precious and people want the perfect day mid week flight if they can afford it. And obviously there are people that can afford it. Just wait until some of the 13.5m electors come on the market used. I'm willing to bet they will sell before a used ASW27/29. Performance is obviously not the only thing people are looking at. Light self rigging and independent self launching is the huge benefit. Not to mention no more landing out and BRS.

[J. Nieuwenhuize]

Simply using a modern production technique (infusion or prepregs) can cut structural airframe weight by an easy 20%.
Going for a sparless wing (like the Diana) saves another easy 10-20 kg.
So no, it's not that hard to make such a light airframe if we step away from 1980's technology and what was certified then..

[marco]

Lower weight is not impossible. Look at the following picture: http://esoaring.com/sparrowonehand.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windward_Performance_SparrowHawk shows the full spec. Granted: it is only 11 mtr but 13.5 mtr could come in rather lightweight as well.
And with the electric power this for me is a very good package. I, as a non competition pilot, would be more than happy with this performance package. Easy to rig and decent performance. I believe it to be one of the better aims in creating a new future for our sport, out of the way of heavier and more expensive planes. The only thing I am struggling with is the certification as ultralight against a formal certification. But we have seen the long time it took Jonker to get a European license. New entries to the constructor market, at least in Europe, looks to take lots of time and probably money. A short-cut is a possible way out.

Finally: The package has a higher weight allowance than the 13.5 mtr FAI allowance is, "clipping its wings" even before the glider gets airborn. I am still unsure on how the rules will be explained in Hungary. Personally I have not made up my mind yet on the GPglider but it is high on my short list.

On a side note: I would be curious though is a 15 mtr ultralight sets a record with a weight higher than allowed as a ultralight (which has European weight restrictions in itself) but perfectly OK in a normal 15 mtr class. It feels really messy as an outsider......

[krasw]

lauantai 3. joulukuuta 2016 22.10.26 UTC+2 marco kirjoitti:

The only thing I am struggling with is the certification as ultralight against a formal certification. But we have seen the long time it took Jonker to get a European license. New entries to the constructor market, at least in Europe, looks to take lots of time and probably money. A short-cut is a possible way out.
>

That is a good point. GP14SE proto seems to be registered as Slovakian microlight. AFAIK there is currently no pan-european ultra/microlight, or ultra/microlight-glider category (other than CS-LSA, that regulative joke of EASA). These aircraft are outside the scope of EASA, and national authorities can impose whatever rules they see fit. Most of them have chosen different rules.

If GP15 will be certified as single seat ultralight, it would have max wing loading of under 40 kg/m2 in most countries (MTOW around 300 kg). That would pretty much prevent it flying 15 m competitions. Normal flying would be no problem of course, practically all ultralights in Europe fly overweight on daily basis, and that seems to bother no-one.

[Soartech]

> Tim McAllister
> GP Gliders USA

Tim, what is the ballpark price for this glider?

[RossFW]

On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 1:09:14 PM UTC+11, Tim wrote:
> Good Evening All:
>
> After a very long wait, the GP 14 Velo took to the air yesterday (November 24th) from Krosno, Poland by both aero-tow and electric self-launch. More details to come but check GP Gliders on FaceBook for pictures and video. First pilot reports are very good. We are finally flying!!!
>
> Tim McAllister
> GP Gliders USA

If they want a glider attractive to competition pilots, they might want to look at building a standard class version.

[Sean[_2_]]

Well under 100k US for the early buyers, COMPLETE with electric self launch and trailer.

No that is not a typo.

The post early buyer discount price may be slighly higher today but this concept is a game changer. Half the price of the big self launchers. No gasoline, far less complexity in "motor" operation.

But no strong "class" yet. Will that come? We shall see.

A new 15 meter version (same concept) is right on the GP14s heels.

I think think these early buyers are going to have much fun toying with all of us pure gliders! Good for them!

[Tim[_11_]]

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 9:47:08 PM UTC-6, Soartech wrote:
> > Tim McAllister
> > GP Gliders USA
>
> Tim, what is the ballpark price for this glider?

List price for the gliders are:
GP 14 E/SE 82,900 EUR
GP 15 E/SE 93,900 EUR

GP Trailer for GP 14 is 11,900 EUR and for the GP 15 14,900

Customer chosen options generally add up to @6,000 +/- EUR.

Regular Purchase Terms now apply (minimum 25% order Initial Down Payment), but discounts for deposits between 50% and 100% of the order total garner discounts between 5% and 12% off of the standard glider list price (discount not applicable to options or trailer).

We are taking delivery positions for Autumn of 2018 with orders to date of 8 GP 14's, 6 GP 15's and 1 GP 11 on deferred order.

For more information please contact me at www.gpglidersusa.com

Best,
Tim McAllister
GP Gliders USA

[Tim[_11_]]

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:59:34 PM UTC-6, RossFW wrote:
> On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 1:09:14 PM UTC+11, Tim wrote:
> > Good Evening All:
> >
> > After a very long wait, the GP 14 Velo took to the air yesterday (November 24th) from Krosno, Poland by both aero-tow and electric self-launch. More details to come but check GP Gliders on FaceBook for pictures and video. First pilot reports are very good. We are finally flying!!!
> >
> > Tim McAllister
> > GP Gliders USA
>
> If they want a glider attractive to competition pilots, they might want to look at building a standard class version.

Maybe someday for if Europeans clamor for it, but from a North American perspective, the market for new Standard class gliders is dead.

Best,
Tim

[Tim[_11_]]

>
> Tim,
>
> Please inform when the first one comes to US. I really would like to check it out.
>
> Casey

Casey,
The first GP Glider, our GP 14 E Velo, should be landed here in Texas by the late summer or early fall '17. Once licensed and flown-off, we will be making limited tours throughout the fall and then having it on the floor of the SSA Convention in Reno, NV Feb 2018.

With successful firts flight fo the GP 14, the operation is currently moving into its production facilities (x3 times as large) and making preparation for GP 14 customer deliveries in late spring '17 in time for WGC in Hungary AND possibly even the prototype/1st customer delivery of the GP 15 early this summer '17. And with more test flights of the GP 14 E prototype, we are all lookign forward to good news from Poland.

Best,
Tim
GP Gliders USA

[krasw]

maanantai 5. joulukuuta 2016 23.44.13 UTC+2 Tim kirjoitti:
>
> Maybe someday for if Europeans clamor for it, but from a North American perspective, the market for new Standard class gliders is dead.
>
> Best,
> Tim

Reason is that there hasn't been a new design since LS8, D2 or '28, so current market is saturated, and std. class gliders are particularly bad at carrying the weight of sustainer and stay competitive, hence 18m wing tip versions (which are even more heavy and less competitive in 15m configuration).

If someone would design a std. class ship that is 3-5% better than current ships plus 50kg lighter, and could carry a electric sustainer engine, market could very well be alive again. I see no reason why that is not possible. IGC class is there, you can always sell 50-100 gliders to top competition pilots. GP16?

[Bruce Hoult]

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:45:11 AM UTC+3, krasw wrote:
> maanantai 5. joulukuuta 2016 23.44.13 UTC+2 Tim kirjoitti:
> >
> > Maybe someday for if Europeans clamor for it, but from a North American perspective, the market for new Standard class gliders is dead.
> >
> > Best,
> > Tim
>
> Reason is that there hasn't been a new design since LS8, D2 or '28, so current market is saturated, and std. class gliders are particularly bad at carrying the weight of sustainer and stay competitive, hence 18m wing tip versions (which are even more heavy and less competitive in 15m configuration).
>
> If someone would design a std. class ship that is 3-5% better than current ships plus 50kg lighter, and could carry a electric sustainer engine, market could very well be alive again. I see no reason why that is not possible. IGC class is there, you can always sell 50-100 gliders to top competition pilots. GP16?

Those gliders are all currently 100 on BGA handicaps. Diana is 103. Most 15m are on 104, 105+ is 18m and Open.

Looking in the other direction, the original Discus from thirty years ago is still a 98 handicap (only 2% worse!) and mid 70's Cirrus, DG100 are 90.

There was a big jump from 70s to 80s ships, but really very little advance since then, given fixed class rules. The Diana managed 3%, but I hear it's a little fragile? I don't think you'd want to make one a club glider, with all kinds of bozos jumping in, whereas LS4s and Discus are great in this role.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, 5 December 2016 22:42:48 UTC+1, Tim wrote:
> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 9:47:08 PM UTC-6, Soartech wrote:
> > > Tim McAllister
> > > GP Gliders USA
> >
> > Tim, what is the ballpark price for this glider?
>
> List price for the gliders are:
> GP 14 E/SE 82,900 EUR
> GP 15 E/SE 93,900 EUR
>
> GP Trailer for GP 14 is 11,900 EUR and for the GP 15 14,900
>
> Customer chosen options generally add up to @6,000 +/- EUR.
>
> Regular Purchase Terms now apply (minimum 25% order Initial Down Payment), but discounts for deposits between 50% and 100% of the order total garner discounts between 5% and 12% off of the standard glider list price (discount not applicable to options or trailer).
>
> We are taking delivery positions for Autumn of 2018 with orders to date of 8 GP 14's, 6 GP 15's and 1 GP 11 on deferred order.
>
> For more information please contact me at www.gpglidersusa.com
>
> Best,
> Tim McAllister
> GP Gliders USA