Thinking about buying a DG400

[[email protected]]

Hi everyone

I'm thinking about buying a DG400 and I'm looking for opinions. It would be my first self launching glider and I would appreciate any advise. I've seen the market and the price range between 50.00 and 56.000€ with about 140 to 200h engine hours.

I've been reading these days a lot about the ship and I love it. The only problem that I see is the engine: it is not produced any more. What would happen if I have any problem and I couldn't find any spares? I would be useless as motorglider.

Anything you can tell me about it is welcome

Thank you!

[Dave Walsh]

At 16:22 26 May 2017, wrote:
>Hi everyone=20
>
>I'm thinking about buying a DG400 and I'm looking for
opinions. It would
>be=
> my first self launching glider and I would appreciate any
advise. I've
>see=
>n the market and the price range between 50.00 and
56.000=E2=82=AC with
>abo=
>ut 140 to 200h engine hours.=20
>
>I've been reading these days a lot about the ship and I love
it. The only
>p=
>roblem that I see is the engine: it is not produced any
more. What would
>ha=
>ppen if I have any problem and I couldn't find any spares?
I would be
>usele=
>ss as motorglider.=20
>
>Anything you can tell me about it is welcome=20
>
>Thank you!
>
>You could do worse than join the various DG/Solo forums;
lots of experience out there. I owned a 400 in the UK for
many years (my first motor glider): it never failed to start
and it never broke a drive belt, it never needed any engine
repair. The same cannot be said of the electronics. The main
source of minor wiring problems was vibration. Today the
main problem might be sourcing engine parts should they be
needed. Find an inspector who deals with DG400's and ask
their advice; options exist if you have a friendly inspector.
Despite the relatively high wing loading its weak climb
performance is adequate (a very necessary feature in the
UK!). It's docile, easy to fly, good visibility, good brakes and
good (for its day) high speed performance. Good cross wind
take off ability (for a pylon self launcher: they're all tricky in
cross winds).
Excellent DG build quality, gel coat.
We had the optional wing fuel tanks which I think we used
once in 6 years. They have a finite life & their replacement is
not cheap.
The optional solar panels are a VERY worthwhile addition.
DG, as a company, were a joy to do business with: never
any problems, always fast and efficient.
What's not to like? Well the performance in rain or with
heavy bugs on the wing is dismal but that's about the only
downside. They can also be had with the brilliant NOAH pilot
ejection system.
(If can afford, or find, a DG800A it's a much better
sailplane).

[2G]

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 9:22:01 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> I'm thinking about buying a DG400 and I'm looking for opinions. It would be my first self launching glider and I would appreciate any advise. I've seen the market and the price range between 50.00 and 56.000€ with about 140 to 200h engine hours.
>
> I've been reading these days a lot about the ship and I love it. The only problem that I see is the engine: it is not produced any more. What would happen if I have any problem and I couldn't find any spares? I would be useless as motorglider.
>
> Anything you can tell me about it is welcome
>
> Thank you!

The 400 is a great value in the high-performance motorglider sector. I owned one for over 10 years and flew it for 1500 hours. Unlike Dave, I had a steady stream of maintenance issues involving:

1. Ignition module and coil failure (I had to wind my own)
2. Prop mast mounting bolt breakage (which led to a US AD)
3. Starter motor failure (twice)
4. Carb problems (knowing how to troubleshoot is a must)
5. DEI failure
6. Uncommanded gear collapse (I added a positive gear lock)
7. Dive brake handle broke (while on takeoff roll)
8. Leaking fuel shutoff valve
9. Stuck extension motor brake

Starting 2-cycle engines is a skill in its own right; every 400 pilot seems to have his own technique. DG added a primer circuit to ease the process, but this led to its own set of problems.

You will want to join the DG Owners forum (not the DG Solo forum). You will also have to pay the DG "tax" to get support from the factory.

Motorgliders are complex aircraft with their own peculiarities. I upgraded to an ASH26e and have been very impressed (and relieved) about their significantly better reliability as compared to the DG808, but they are not w/o their issues, too. DGs (both the 400s and 800s) are burdened by less than adequate battery capacity. This is why Dave emphasized getting a solar panel. The 26e is far superior in this regard, but it is 2x to 3x the price.

I assume that you are a seasoned high-performance glider pilot. If not I would suggest getting that experience first in a pure glider. Getting dual instruction in a self-launching MG is problematic.

Good luck!

Tom

[Bret Hess]

If you like (and have time) to work on planes as well as fly them, you'll likely find the support you need online to keep it flying. I'm speaking from the PIK 20E community which is active in helping each other with the same issues you would face.

[Dave Walsh]

I think you will find that as DG actually built the 400 they
support it "free of charge" so there should be no DG "tax" to
pay? Could easily be wrong though, ask your local Agent. Even
if you do have to pay the "DG Tax" it's pittance compared to
the overall ownership costs.

My earlier post perhaps sort of implied total trouble free 400
ownership? But very few things did fail, the starter relay for
one. Naturally the U/C collapsed on landing once, but that's
normal, it's a special DG design feature. Generally I found the
DG400 experience much kinder on the wallet than owning a
DG808C.

The reason I suggested joining the "Solo" forum was to
illustrate that even the newer DG (and other) self launchers
have their problems; for a balanced picture join the ASH26E
group too. You'll soon see that there is no such thing as a
totally reliable pylon powered self launcher.

Dave Walsh

[2G]

On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 6:30:11 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
> I think you will find that as DG actually built the 400 they
> support it "free of charge" so there should be no DG "tax" to
> pay? Could easily be wrong though, ask your local Agent. Even
> if you do have to pay the "DG Tax" it's pittance compared to
> the overall ownership costs.
>
> My earlier post perhaps sort of implied total trouble free 400
> ownership? But very few things did fail, the starter relay for
> one. Naturally the U/C collapsed on landing once, but that's
> normal, it's a special DG design feature. Generally I found the
> DG400 experience much kinder on the wallet than owning a
> DG808C.
>
> The reason I suggested joining the "Solo" forum was to
> illustrate that even the newer DG (and other) self launchers
> have their problems; for a balanced picture join the ASH26E
> group too. You'll soon see that there is no such thing as a
> totally reliable pylon powered self launcher.
>
> Dave Walsh

Well, Dave, you need to think again. DG calls the tax a "service agreement", which costs 425 euro to setup and 245 euro per year to maintain (for the affected models):

https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/maintenance-service-aircraft/service-contract

Tom

[2G]

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 10:40:27 PM UTC-7, Bret Hess wrote:
> If you like (and have time) to work on planes as well as fly them, you'll likely find the support you need online to keep it flying. I'm speaking from the PIK 20E community which is active in helping each other with the same issues you would face.

If I were buying a 400 again I would probably factor in the cost of an engine overhaul to zero time it. In the US this will probably cost $4,000, give or take; can't say what it would cost in Europe, but owners on the forum would know.

The annual maintain would probably be comparable to what it takes to keep the 808 flying. The maintenance itself is not complicated, but it does take some mechanical ability.

Tom

[[email protected]]

Thank you everyone for your help, I really appreciate it!

First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my experience in pure sailplanes is very little (don´t reach 100h). Do you recommend me to wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before making the transition?

Second point, I´m not very handy, I don´t have any type of experience in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would have to go to a workshop. Is that a big inconvenience? This problem would happen to me with any type of glider that I buy. I must make my mind that if I buy a glider I will speed more mony than the average because I wouldn´t do anything.

Third and last point. I´ve also been thinking about buying a PIK20E. I´ve seen one with 1500H and 147 engine hours. It is cheapper than the DG400 but the drawback is that it has a 3000h limit which cannot be extended because the manufacturer no longer exist. This means that if i buy it, and in the future I want to change to a higher performance glider, it would be very difficult to sell it (or simply impossible as it get closer to the 3000h). Another negative is that if it need more maintenance that other plane it wouldn't be a good choice for me because as I've set before, I don't have any experience with mechanics.

Alfonso

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my experience in pure
> sailplanes is very little (don´t reach 100h). Do you recommend me to
> wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before making the transition?

YES.
To be able to safely focus on engine management (and especially when things
go wrong), flying the glider must be completely automatic. Regardless of
power experience, you are not at this point with less than 100 hours.

> Second point, I´m not very handy, I don´t have any type of experience
> in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would have to go to a workshop.
> Is that a big inconvenience?

YES.
Identify someone nearby with extensive experience maintaining the type
you expect to buy. Hint: There isn't likely to be anybody...
And maintenance of these machines by folks not intimately familiar
with the type often goes very badly.

> This problem would happen to me with any type of glider that I buy.

NO.
Any motor-glider will require MUCH more (and more specialized) maintenance
as compared to a non-motorized glider.

Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave "YO" (multiple offender, >2000 hrs in motor-gliders)

[[email protected][_2_]]

On 27/05/2017 23:15, Dave Walsh wrote:
> I think you will find that as DG actually built the 400 they
> support it "free of charge" so there should be no DG "tax" to
> pay? Could easily be wrong though, ask your local Agent. Even
> if you do have to pay the "DG Tax" it's pittance compared to
> the overall ownership costs.

Yes. You're wrong. :)

The 400 was built by Glaser-Dirks and you'll pay the tax. The DG-800A
and even my (early) 800B pays it. The cutoff date is around 1994-6 for DGs.

>
> My earlier post perhaps sort of implied total trouble free 400
> ownership? But very few things did fail, the starter relay for
> one. Naturally the U/C collapsed on landing once, but that's
> normal, it's a special DG design feature. Generally I found the
> DG400 experience much kinder on the wallet than owning a
> DG808C.
>
> The reason I suggested joining the "Solo" forum was to
> illustrate that even the newer DG (and other) self launchers
> have their problems; for a balanced picture join the ASH26E
> group too. You'll soon see that there is no such thing as a
> totally reliable pylon powered self launcher.
>
> Dave Walsh
>


--
GC

[Bret Hess]

No lifetime limit on the PIK20E. From 2011:

Dear sir,
There is no life limit for an airframe of PIK-20E. However, there is a standard inspection procedure, AIR T6-1, for aging sailplanes which shall be carried out after 3000hrs and every next 1000hrs.
The AIR T6-1 is published in Finnish Civil Aviation authority circular advisory (http://www.ilmailuhallinto.fi/files/lth/imt-air-t/ait6_1e.pdf). The special inspection procedure can be found from chapter 5.
Kind regards,

Vesa Räisänen
Technical Trainee
Finnish Transport Safety Agency
Kumpulantie 9, P.O.Box 320, FI-00101 Helsinki
tel. +358 (0)20 618 500
e-mail:
internet: http://www.trafi.fi


On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 4:59:29 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> Third and last point. I´ve also been thinking about buying a PIK20E. I´ve seen one with 1500H and 147 engine hours. It is cheapper than the DG400 but the drawback is that it has a 3000h limit which cannot be extended because the manufacturer no longer exist.

[George Haeh]

You first need to find a local mechanic familiar with the engine and
glider.

[Bret Hess]

I suggest you join (for the moment) https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/pik20/info, and ask European members what it's like to find engine support in Europe. Not all that fly PIK20Es or DG400s are mechanically inclined.

I made the transition to the PIK20E at 110 hrs, and it was my first single place glider.

[jfitch]

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:14:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my experience in pure
> > sailplanes is very little (don´t reach 100h). Do you recommend me to
> > wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before making the transition?
>
> YES.
> To be able to safely focus on engine management (and especially when things
> go wrong), flying the glider must be completely automatic. Regardless of
> power experience, you are not at this point with less than 100 hours.
>
> > Second point, I´m not very handy, I don´t have any type of experience
> > in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would have to go to a workshop.
> > Is that a big inconvenience?
>
> YES.
> Identify someone nearby with extensive experience maintaining the type
> you expect to buy. Hint: There isn't likely to be anybody...
> And maintenance of these machines by folks not intimately familiar
> with the type often goes very badly.
>
> > This problem would happen to me with any type of glider that I buy.
>
> NO.
> Any motor-glider will require MUCH more (and more specialized) maintenance
> as compared to a non-motorized glider.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Best Regards, Dave "YO" (multiple offender, >2000 hrs in motor-gliders)

I cannot agree that having only 100 hours disqualifies you from motorglider ownership. For the first 200 hours of flying it, simply be very conservative with motor use: do not self launch, do not attempt air starts at less than 3000 AGL and then over a landing field, etc. After all it will fly fine with the motor stowed - as good as a pure glider. You can push this envelope and squeeze these margins as you gain experience. If you are an undisciplined pilot that will take chances with the motor, then you are not a good candidate for motorglider ownership, regardless of hours. If fact you might want to reevaluate flying at all.

I do agree that the maintenance requirements for any motorglider are 3x any pure glider.

[2G]

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:47:36 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:14:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my experience in pure
> > > sailplanes is very little (don´t reach 100h). Do you recommend me to
> > > wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before making the transition?
> >
> > YES.
> > To be able to safely focus on engine management (and especially when things
> > go wrong), flying the glider must be completely automatic. Regardless of
> > power experience, you are not at this point with less than 100 hours.
> >
> > > Second point, I´m not very handy, I don´t have any type of experience
> > > in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would have to go to a workshop.
> > > Is that a big inconvenience?
> >
> > YES.
> > Identify someone nearby with extensive experience maintaining the type
> > you expect to buy. Hint: There isn't likely to be anybody...
> > And maintenance of these machines by folks not intimately familiar
> > with the type often goes very badly.
> >
> > > This problem would happen to me with any type of glider that I buy.
> >
> > NO.
> > Any motor-glider will require MUCH more (and more specialized) maintenance
> > as compared to a non-motorized glider.
> >
> > Hope that helps,
> > Best Regards, Dave "YO" (multiple offender, >2000 hrs in motor-gliders)
>
> I cannot agree that having only 100 hours disqualifies you from motorglider ownership. For the first 200 hours of flying it, simply be very conservative with motor use: do not self launch, do not attempt air starts at less than 3000 AGL and then over a landing field, etc. After all it will fly fine with the motor stowed - as good as a pure glider. You can push this envelope and squeeze these margins as you gain experience. If you are an undisciplined pilot that will take chances with the motor, then you are not a good candidate for motorglider ownership, regardless of hours. If fact you might want to reevaluate flying at all.
>
> I do agree that the maintenance requirements for any motorglider are 3x any pure glider.

There is a big difference between "disqualification" and "inadvisable." Flying high-performance sailplanes is a skill that takes hundreds of hours to become proficient. Self-launching motorgliders requires yet another set of skills. The test of the skills only comes when the pilot is under stress and the margin for error is all but gone. My advice stands: Alfonso should get himself a pure glider and build that critical first 300-500 hours in it before acquiring an MG. The only mitigating circumstance would be if he does not have tows available.

Tom

[jfitch]

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:24:14 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:47:36 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:14:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my experience in pure
> > > > sailplanes is very little (don´t reach 100h). Do you recommend me to
> > > > wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before making the transition?
> > >
> > > YES.
> > > To be able to safely focus on engine management (and especially when things
> > > go wrong), flying the glider must be completely automatic. Regardless of
> > > power experience, you are not at this point with less than 100 hours.
> > >
> > > > Second point, I´m not very handy, I don´t have any type of experience
> > > > in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would have to go to a workshop.
> > > > Is that a big inconvenience?
> > >
> > > YES.
> > > Identify someone nearby with extensive experience maintaining the type
> > > you expect to buy. Hint: There isn't likely to be anybody...
> > > And maintenance of these machines by folks not intimately familiar
> > > with the type often goes very badly.
> > >
> > > > This problem would happen to me with any type of glider that I buy.
> > >
> > > NO.
> > > Any motor-glider will require MUCH more (and more specialized) maintenance
> > > as compared to a non-motorized glider.
> > >
> > > Hope that helps,
> > > Best Regards, Dave "YO" (multiple offender, >2000 hrs in motor-gliders)
> >
> > I cannot agree that having only 100 hours disqualifies you from motorglider ownership. For the first 200 hours of flying it, simply be very conservative with motor use: do not self launch, do not attempt air starts at less than 3000 AGL and then over a landing field, etc. After all it will fly fine with the motor stowed - as good as a pure glider. You can push this envelope and squeeze these margins as you gain experience. If you are an undisciplined pilot that will take chances with the motor, then you are not a good candidate for motorglider ownership, regardless of hours. If fact you might want to reevaluate flying at all.
> >
> > I do agree that the maintenance requirements for any motorglider are 3x any pure glider.
>
> There is a big difference between "disqualification" and "inadvisable." Flying high-performance sailplanes is a skill that takes hundreds of hours to become proficient. Self-launching motorgliders requires yet another set of skills. The test of the skills only comes when the pilot is under stress and the margin for error is all but gone. My advice stands: Alfonso should get himself a pure glider and build that critical first 300-500 hours in it before acquiring an MG. The only mitigating circumstance would be if he does not have tows available.
>
> Tom

The test of skills for the motor only comes when you use the motor. That is my point. An auxilliary motorglider with the motor folded is a pure glider. This may require discipline that the pilot may not have - that is my other point.

[Sean Fidler]

Here is a video I did for a friend looking to buy one recently, if it helps: https://youtu.be/YJbE1urv4Mg

[2G]

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:24:14 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:47:36 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:14:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my experience in pure
> > > > > sailplanes is very little (don´t reach 100h). Do you recommend me to
> > > > > wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before making the transition?
> > > >
> > > > YES.
> > > > To be able to safely focus on engine management (and especially when things
> > > > go wrong), flying the glider must be completely automatic. Regardless of
> > > > power experience, you are not at this point with less than 100 hours.
> > > >
> > > > > Second point, I´m not very handy, I don´t have any type of experience
> > > > > in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would have to go to a workshop.
> > > > > Is that a big inconvenience?
> > > >
> > > > YES.
> > > > Identify someone nearby with extensive experience maintaining the type
> > > > you expect to buy. Hint: There isn't likely to be anybody...
> > > > And maintenance of these machines by folks not intimately familiar
> > > > with the type often goes very badly.
> > > >
> > > > > This problem would happen to me with any type of glider that I buy.
> > > >
> > > > NO.
> > > > Any motor-glider will require MUCH more (and more specialized) maintenance
> > > > as compared to a non-motorized glider.
> > > >
> > > > Hope that helps,
> > > > Best Regards, Dave "YO" (multiple offender, >2000 hrs in motor-gliders)
> > >
> > > I cannot agree that having only 100 hours disqualifies you from motorglider ownership. For the first 200 hours of flying it, simply be very conservative with motor use: do not self launch, do not attempt air starts at less than 3000 AGL and then over a landing field, etc. After all it will fly fine with the motor stowed - as good as a pure glider. You can push this envelope and squeeze these margins as you gain experience. If you are an undisciplined pilot that will take chances with the motor, then you are not a good candidate for motorglider ownership, regardless of hours. If fact you might want to reevaluate flying at all.
> > >
> > > I do agree that the maintenance requirements for any motorglider are 3x any pure glider.
> >
> > There is a big difference between "disqualification" and "inadvisable." Flying high-performance sailplanes is a skill that takes hundreds of hours to become proficient. Self-launching motorgliders requires yet another set of skills. The test of the skills only comes when the pilot is under stress and the margin for error is all but gone. My advice stands: Alfonso should get himself a pure glider and build that critical first 300-500 hours in it before acquiring an MG. The only mitigating circumstance would be if he does not have tows available.
> >
> > Tom
>
> The test of skills for the motor only comes when you use the motor. That is my point. An auxilliary motorglider with the motor folded is a pure glider. This may require discipline that the pilot may not have - that is my other point.

You can always buy a MG and not use the motor, flying it as a pure glider. This would be curious choice and a huge waste of money. My comment as "inadvisable" stands and you didn't address it. Advisability is a judgment by an expert, disqualification is a ruling by a bureaucrat.

Tom

[Chris Short]

Would you have the same concers if it was an electric self launcher
or sustainer?

Chris

At 04:45 31 May 2017, 2G wrote:
>On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:24:14 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
>> > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:47:36 AM UTC-7, jfitch
wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:14:07 AM UTC-7, Dave
Nadler wrote:
>> > > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-4,

>wrot=
>e:
>> > > > > First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my
experience in
>pu=
>re
>> > > > > sailplanes is very little (don=C2=B4t reach 100h). Do
you
>recomme=
>nd me to
>> > > > > wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before
making the
>=
>transition?
>> > > >=20
>> > > > YES.
>> > > > To be able to safely focus on engine management (and
especially
>whe=
>n things
>> > > > go wrong), flying the glider must be completely
automatic.
>Regardle=
>ss of
>> > > > power experience, you are not at this point with less
than 100
>hour=
>s.
>> > > >=20
>> > > > > Second point, I=C2=B4m not very handy, I
don=C2=B4t have any
>type=
> of experience
>> > > > > in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would
have to go to
>a=
> workshop.
>> > > > > Is that a big inconvenience?
>> > > >=20
>> > > > YES.
>> > > > Identify someone nearby with extensive experience
maintaining the
>t=
>ype
>> > > > you expect to buy. Hint: There isn't likely to be
anybody...
>> > > > And maintenance of these machines by folks not
intimately familiar
>> > > > with the type often goes very badly.
>> > > >=20
>> > > > > This problem would happen to me with any type of
glider that I
>bu=
>y.
>> > > >=20
>> > > > NO.
>> > > > Any motor-glider will require MUCH more (and more
specialized)
>main=
>tenance
>> > > > as compared to a non-motorized glider.
>> > > >=20
>> > > > Hope that helps,
>> > > > Best Regards, Dave "YO" (multiple offender, >2000 hrs
in
>motor-glid=
>ers)
>> > >=20
>> > > I cannot agree that having only 100 hours disqualifies you
from
>motor=
>glider ownership. For the first 200 hours of flying it, simply be
very
>cons=
>ervative with motor use: do not self launch, do not attempt air
starts at
>l=
>ess than 3000 AGL and then over a landing field, etc. After all it
will
>fly=
> fine with the motor stowed - as good as a pure glider. You can
push this
>e=
>nvelope and squeeze these margins as you gain experience. If
you are an
>un=
>disciplined pilot that will take chances with the motor, then you
are not
>a=
> good candidate for motorglider ownership, regardless of hours. If
fact
>you=
> might want to reevaluate flying at all.=20
>> > >=20
>> > > I do agree that the maintenance requirements for any
motorglider are
>=
>3x any pure glider.
>> >=20
>> > There is a big difference between "disqualification" and
>"inadvisable."=
> Flying high-performance sailplanes is a skill that takes hundreds
of
>hours=
> to become proficient. Self-launching motorgliders requires yet
another
>set=
> of skills. The test of the skills only comes when the pilot is under
>stres=
>s and the margin for error is all but gone. My advice stands:
Alfonso
>shoul=
>d get himself a pure glider and build that critical first 300-500
hours in
>=
>it before acquiring an MG. The only mitigating circumstance would
be if he
>=
>does not have tows available.
>> >=20
>> > Tom
>>=20
>> The test of skills for the motor only comes when you use the
motor. That
>=
>is my point. An auxilliary motorglider with the motor folded is a
pure
>gli=
>der. This may require discipline that the pilot may not have - that
is my
>o=
>ther point.
>
>You can always buy a MG and not use the motor, flying it as a
pure glider.
>=
>This would be curious choice and a huge waste of money. My
comment as
>"inad=
>visable" stands and you didn't address it. Advisability is a
judgment by
>an=
> expert, disqualification is a ruling by a bureaucrat.
>
>Tom
>

[Dave Nadler]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 3:30:06 AM UTC-4, Chris Short wrote:
> Would you have the same concers if it was an electric self launcher
> or sustainer?

Yes.

[Pete[_9_]]

This is great info on the DG400.
Does anyone have a link to the DG 400 owner's thread that keeps getting mentioned?
I plan to upgrade from my DG 100 to a DG 400 in the next 5 years. Like most pilots, too many missed opportunities to soar b/c of towplane issues...
I too worry about engine maintenance though, however I love the wings of the DG 400/17. The straight leading edge is just gorgeous even if it isn't as efficient.

[C-FFKQ (42)]

On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 09:10:59 UTC-4, Pete wrote:
> This is great info on the DG400.
> Does anyone have a link to the DG 400 owner's thread that keeps getting mentioned?
> I plan to upgrade from my DG 100 to a DG 400 in the next 5 years. Like most pilots, too many missed opportunities to soar b/c of towplane issues...
> I too worry about engine maintenance though, however I love the wings of the DG 400/17. The straight leading edge is just gorgeous even if it isn't as efficient.

I know of a nice DG-400 sitting on my airfield (CPC3) in Ontario, Canada. It's posted on W&W for $55k USD. Well maintained, the owner was using it to chase records in the Canadian Rockies until last year.

I've offered him a straight trade on my lovely Kestrel 19, but he declined (drats!).

[2G]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:30:06 AM UTC-7, Chris Short wrote:
> Would you have the same concers if it was an electric self launcher
> or sustainer?
>
> Chris
>
> At 04:45 31 May 2017, 2G wrote:
> >On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:24:14 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:47:36 AM UTC-7, jfitch
> wrote:
> >> > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:14:07 AM UTC-7, Dave
> Nadler wrote:
> >> > > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-4,
>
> >wrot=
> >e:
> >> > > > > First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my
> experience in
> >pu=
> >re
> >> > > > > sailplanes is very little (don=C2=B4t reach 100h). Do
> you
> >recomme=
> >nd me to
> >> > > > > wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before
> making the
> >=
> >transition?
> >> > > >=20
> >> > > > YES.
> >> > > > To be able to safely focus on engine management (and
> especially
> >whe=
> >n things
> >> > > > go wrong), flying the glider must be completely
> automatic.
> >Regardle=
> >ss of
> >> > > > power experience, you are not at this point with less
> than 100
> >hour=
> >s.
> >> > > >=20
> >> > > > > Second point, I=C2=B4m not very handy, I
> don=C2=B4t have any
> >type=
> > of experience
> >> > > > > in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would
> have to go to
> >a=
> > workshop.
> >> > > > > Is that a big inconvenience?
> >> > > >=20
> >> > > > YES.
> >> > > > Identify someone nearby with extensive experience
> maintaining the
> >t=
> >ype
> >> > > > you expect to buy. Hint: There isn't likely to be
> anybody...
> >> > > > And maintenance of these machines by folks not
> intimately familiar
> >> > > > with the type often goes very badly.
> >> > > >=20
> >> > > > > This problem would happen to me with any type of
> glider that I
> >bu=
> >y.
> >> > > >=20
> >> > > > NO.
> >> > > > Any motor-glider will require MUCH more (and more
> specialized)
> >main=
> >tenance
> >> > > > as compared to a non-motorized glider.
> >> > > >=20
> >> > > > Hope that helps,
> >> > > > Best Regards, Dave "YO" (multiple offender, >2000 hrs
> in
> >motor-glid=
> >ers)
> >> > >=20
> >> > > I cannot agree that having only 100 hours disqualifies you
> from
> >motor=
> >glider ownership. For the first 200 hours of flying it, simply be
> very
> >cons=
> >ervative with motor use: do not self launch, do not attempt air
> starts at
> >l=
> >ess than 3000 AGL and then over a landing field, etc. After all it
> will
> >fly=
> > fine with the motor stowed - as good as a pure glider. You can
> push this
> >e=
> >nvelope and squeeze these margins as you gain experience. If
> you are an
> >un=
> >disciplined pilot that will take chances with the motor, then you
> are not
> >a=
> > good candidate for motorglider ownership, regardless of hours. If
> fact
> >you=
> > might want to reevaluate flying at all.=20
> >> > >=20
> >> > > I do agree that the maintenance requirements for any
> motorglider are
> >=
> >3x any pure glider.
> >> >=20
> >> > There is a big difference between "disqualification" and
> >"inadvisable."=
> > Flying high-performance sailplanes is a skill that takes hundreds
> of
> >hours=
> > to become proficient. Self-launching motorgliders requires yet
> another
> >set=
> > of skills. The test of the skills only comes when the pilot is under
> >stres=
> >s and the margin for error is all but gone. My advice stands:
> Alfonso
> >shoul=
> >d get himself a pure glider and build that critical first 300-500
> hours in
> >=
> >it before acquiring an MG. The only mitigating circumstance would
> be if he
> >=
> >does not have tows available.
> >> >=20
> >> > Tom
> >>=20
> >> The test of skills for the motor only comes when you use the
> motor. That
> >=
> >is my point. An auxilliary motorglider with the motor folded is a
> pure
> >gli=
> >der. This may require discipline that the pilot may not have - that
> is my
> >o=
> >ther point.
> >
> >You can always buy a MG and not use the motor, flying it as a
> pure glider.
> >=
> >This would be curious choice and a huge waste of money. My
> comment as
> >"inad=
> >visable" stands and you didn't address it. Advisability is a
> judgment by
> >an=
> > expert, disqualification is a ruling by a bureaucrat.
> >
> >Tom
> >

My concerns are about pilots assuming more complexity than they are prepared for. You will not know for certainty that the line has been crossed until an accident has occurred. My preference is to err on the side of caution.

Tom

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 9:10:59 AM UTC-4, Pete wrote:
> This is great info on the DG400.
> Does anyone have a link to the DG 400 owner's thread that keeps getting mentioned?

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dg-owners/info
This is a really great resource for owners of DG-400's and 800's; however, you actually have to own a DG to become a member of the group.

[JS]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 9:16:09 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 9:10:59 AM UTC-4, Pete wrote:
> > This is great info on the DG400.
> > Does anyone have a link to the DG 400 owner's thread that keeps getting mentioned?
>
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dg-owners/info
> This is a really great resource for owners of DG-400's and 800's; however, you actually have to own a DG to become a member of the group.

You don't (or didn't) need to own one to join this group:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DGSoloUsersGroup/info
But the frequent appearance of the word "vibration" scared me off.
Went for a Wank(el) instead.
Jim

[OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net]

There is also the https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dg_gliders/info group.

[Dan Marotta]

Ya know... Flying a motor glider (Stemme) was pretty much a non-event
for me other than the thrill of it all. Having said that, it's my
belief that anyone who needs to ask others if he's capable of doing
anything probably shouldn't do it until HE truly believes he can.

On 5/31/2017 9:15 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:30:06 AM UTC-7, Chris Short wrote:
>> Would you have the same concers if it was an electric self launcher
>> or sustainer?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> At 04:45 31 May 2017, 2G wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:24:14 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:47:36 AM UTC-7, jfitch
>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:14:07 AM UTC-7, Dave
>> Nadler wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-4,
>>
>>> wrot=
>>> e:
>>>>>>>> First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my
>> experience in
>>> pu=
>>> re
>>>>>>>> sailplanes is very little (don=C2=B4t reach 100h). Do
>> you
>>> recomme=
>>> nd me to
>>>>>>>> wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before
>> making the
>>> =
>>> transition?
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> YES.
>>>>>>> To be able to safely focus on engine management (and
>> especially
>>> whe=
>>> n things
>>>>>>> go wrong), flying the glider must be completely
>> automatic.
>>> Regardle=
>>> ss of
>>>>>>> power experience, you are not at this point with less
>> than 100
>>> hour=
>>> s.
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> Second point, I=C2=B4m not very handy, I
>> don=C2=B4t have any
>>> type=
>>> of experience
>>>>>>>> in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would
>> have to go to
>>> a=
>>> workshop.
>>>>>>>> Is that a big inconvenience?
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> YES.
>>>>>>> Identify someone nearby with extensive experience
>> maintaining the
>>> t=
>>> ype
>>>>>>> you expect to buy. Hint: There isn't likely to be
>> anybody...
>>>>>>> And maintenance of these machines by folks not
>> intimately familiar
>>>>>>> with the type often goes very badly.
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> This problem would happen to me with any type of
>> glider that I
>>> bu=
>>> y.
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> NO.
>>>>>>> Any motor-glider will require MUCH more (and more
>> specialized)
>>> main=
>>> tenance
>>>>>>> as compared to a non-motorized glider.
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> Hope that helps,
>>>>>>> Best Regards, Dave "YO" (multiple offender, >2000 hrs
>> in
>>> motor-glid=
>>> ers)
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> I cannot agree that having only 100 hours disqualifies you
>> from
>>> motor=
>>> glider ownership. For the first 200 hours of flying it, simply be
>> very
>>> cons=
>>> ervative with motor use: do not self launch, do not attempt air
>> starts at
>>> l=
>>> ess than 3000 AGL and then over a landing field, etc. After all it
>> will
>>> fly=
>>> fine with the motor stowed - as good as a pure glider. You can
>> push this
>>> e=
>>> nvelope and squeeze these margins as you gain experience. If
>> you are an
>>> un=
>>> disciplined pilot that will take chances with the motor, then you
>> are not
>>> a=
>>> good candidate for motorglider ownership, regardless of hours. If
>> fact
>>> you=
>>> might want to reevaluate flying at all.=20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> I do agree that the maintenance requirements for any
>> motorglider are
>>> =
>>> 3x any pure glider.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> There is a big difference between "disqualification" and
>>> "inadvisable."=
>>> Flying high-performance sailplanes is a skill that takes hundreds
>> of
>>> hours=
>>> to become proficient. Self-launching motorgliders requires yet
>> another
>>> set=
>>> of skills. The test of the skills only comes when the pilot is under
>>> stres=
>>> s and the margin for error is all but gone. My advice stands:
>> Alfonso
>>> shoul=
>>> d get himself a pure glider and build that critical first 300-500
>> hours in
>>> =
>>> it before acquiring an MG. The only mitigating circumstance would
>> be if he
>>> =
>>> does not have tows available.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Tom
>>>> =20
>>>> The test of skills for the motor only comes when you use the
>> motor. That
>>> =
>>> is my point. An auxilliary motorglider with the motor folded is a
>> pure
>>> gli=
>>> der. This may require discipline that the pilot may not have - that
>> is my
>>> o=
>>> ther point.
>>>
>>> You can always buy a MG and not use the motor, flying it as a
>> pure glider.
>>> =
>>> This would be curious choice and a huge waste of money. My
>> comment as
>>> "inad=
>>> visable" stands and you didn't address it. Advisability is a
>> judgment by
>>> an=
>>> expert, disqualification is a ruling by a bureaucrat.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
> My concerns are about pilots assuming more complexity than they are prepared for. You will not know for certainty that the line has been crossed until an accident has occurred. My preference is to err on the side of caution.
>
> Tom

--
Dan, 5J

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

With all due respect Dan, many who believe they can, really cannot and should not! There is a current example of this splashed across the news nightly. Experience is only gained from time in the saddle and proper skillful instruction. I have met a 300 hour helicopter pilot that thought he was one of the best helicopter pilots in the world. I flew with him and told him what a terrible pilot he was. He didn't believe me, crashed his bird and thought it was environmental forces. I explained again that his over confidence was the root of his problem, he knew too much to learn anything more. Sometimes it is best to have a qualified person give their blessing.


On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 10:57:24 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Ya know... Flying a motor glider (Stemme) was pretty much a non-event
> for me other than the thrill of it all. Having said that, it's my
> belief that anyone who needs to ask others if he's capable of doing
> anything probably shouldn't do it until HE truly believes he can.
>
> On 5/31/2017 9:15 PM, 2G wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:30:06 AM UTC-7, Chris Short wrote:
> >> Would you have the same concers if it was an electric self launcher
> >> or sustainer?
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> At 04:45 31 May 2017, 2G wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:24:14 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:47:36 AM UTC-7, jfitch
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:14:07 AM UTC-7, Dave
> >> Nadler wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-4,
> >>
> >>> wrot=
> >>> e:
> >>>>>>>> First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my
> >> experience in
> >>> pu=
> >>> re
> >>>>>>>> sailplanes is very little (don=C2=B4t reach 100h). Do
> >> you
> >>> recomme=
> >>> nd me to
> >>>>>>>> wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before
> >> making the
> >>> =
> >>> transition?
> >>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>> YES.
> >>>>>>> To be able to safely focus on engine management (and
> >> especially
> >>> whe=
> >>> n things
> >>>>>>> go wrong), flying the glider must be completely
> >> automatic.
> >>> Regardle=
> >>> ss of
> >>>>>>> power experience, you are not at this point with less
> >> than 100
> >>> hour=
> >>> s.
> >>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>> Second point, I=C2=B4m not very handy, I
> >> don=C2=B4t have any
> >>> type=
> >>> of experience
> >>>>>>>> in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would
> >> have to go to
> >>> a=
> >>> workshop.
> >>>>>>>> Is that a big inconvenience?
> >>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>> YES.
> >>>>>>> Identify someone nearby with extensive experience
> >> maintaining the
> >>> t=
> >>> ype
> >>>>>>> you expect to buy. Hint: There isn't likely to be
> >> anybody...
> >>>>>>> And maintenance of these machines by folks not
> >> intimately familiar
> >>>>>>> with the type often goes very badly.
> >>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>> This problem would happen to me with any type of
> >> glider that I
> >>> bu=
> >>> y.
> >>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>> NO.
> >>>>>>> Any motor-glider will require MUCH more (and more
> >> specialized)
> >>> main=
> >>> tenance
> >>>>>>> as compared to a non-motorized glider.
> >>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>> Hope that helps,
> >>>>>>> Best Regards, Dave "YO" (multiple offender, >2000 hrs
> >> in
> >>> motor-glid=
> >>> ers)
> >>>>>> =20
> >>>>>> I cannot agree that having only 100 hours disqualifies you
> >> from
> >>> motor=
> >>> glider ownership. For the first 200 hours of flying it, simply be
> >> very
> >>> cons=
> >>> ervative with motor use: do not self launch, do not attempt air
> >> starts at
> >>> l=
> >>> ess than 3000 AGL and then over a landing field, etc. After all it
> >> will
> >>> fly=
> >>> fine with the motor stowed - as good as a pure glider. You can
> >> push this
> >>> e=
> >>> nvelope and squeeze these margins as you gain experience. If
> >> you are an
> >>> un=
> >>> disciplined pilot that will take chances with the motor, then you
> >> are not
> >>> a=
> >>> good candidate for motorglider ownership, regardless of hours. If
> >> fact
> >>> you=
> >>> might want to reevaluate flying at all.=20
> >>>>>> =20
> >>>>>> I do agree that the maintenance requirements for any
> >> motorglider are
> >>> =
> >>> 3x any pure glider.
> >>>>> =20
> >>>>> There is a big difference between "disqualification" and
> >>> "inadvisable."=
> >>> Flying high-performance sailplanes is a skill that takes hundreds
> >> of
> >>> hours=
> >>> to become proficient. Self-launching motorgliders requires yet
> >> another
> >>> set=
> >>> of skills. The test of the skills only comes when the pilot is under
> >>> stres=
> >>> s and the margin for error is all but gone. My advice stands:
> >> Alfonso
> >>> shoul=
> >>> d get himself a pure glider and build that critical first 300-500
> >> hours in
> >>> =
> >>> it before acquiring an MG. The only mitigating circumstance would
> >> be if he
> >>> =
> >>> does not have tows available.
> >>>>> =20
> >>>>> Tom
> >>>> =20
> >>>> The test of skills for the motor only comes when you use the
> >> motor. That
> >>> =
> >>> is my point. An auxilliary motorglider with the motor folded is a
> >> pure
> >>> gli=
> >>> der. This may require discipline that the pilot may not have - that
> >> is my
> >>> o=
> >>> ther point.
> >>>
> >>> You can always buy a MG and not use the motor, flying it as a
> >> pure glider.
> >>> =
> >>> This would be curious choice and a huge waste of money. My
> >> comment as
> >>> "inad=
> >>> visable" stands and you didn't address it. Advisability is a
> >> judgment by
> >>> an=
> >>> expert, disqualification is a ruling by a bureaucrat.
> >>>
> >>> Tom
> >>>
> > My concerns are about pilots assuming more complexity than they are prepared for. You will not know for certainty that the line has been crossed until an accident has occurred. My preference is to err on the side of caution.
> >
> > Tom
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

I pretty much agree with what you said, Jonathan, but R.A.S. is not the
place to get this sort of advice. Have a visit with a qualified CFIG
and get an assessment.

On 6/1/2017 12:44 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> With all due respect Dan, many who believe they can, really cannot and should not! There is a current example of this splashed across the news nightly. Experience is only gained from time in the saddle and proper skillful instruction. I have met a 300 hour helicopter pilot that thought he was one of the best helicopter pilots in the world. I flew with him and told him what a terrible pilot he was. He didn't believe me, crashed his bird and thought it was environmental forces. I explained again that his over confidence was the root of his problem, he knew too much to learn anything more. Sometimes it is best to have a qualified person give their blessing.
>
>
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 10:57:24 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Ya know... Flying a motor glider (Stemme) was pretty much a non-event
>> for me other than the thrill of it all. Having said that, it's my
>> belief that anyone who needs to ask others if he's capable of doing
>> anything probably shouldn't do it until HE truly believes he can.
>>
>> On 5/31/2017 9:15 PM, 2G wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:30:06 AM UTC-7, Chris Short wrote:
>>>> Would you have the same concers if it was an electric self launcher
>>>> or sustainer?
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> At 04:45 31 May 2017, 2G wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:24:14 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:47:36 AM UTC-7, jfitch
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:14:07 AM UTC-7, Dave
>>>> Nadler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-4,
>>>>
>>>>> wrot=
>>>>> e:
>>>>>>>>>> First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my
>>>> experience in
>>>>> pu=
>>>>> re
>>>>>>>>>> sailplanes is very little (don=C2=B4t reach 100h). Do
>>>> you
>>>>> recomme=
>>>>> nd me to
>>>>>>>>>> wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before
>>>> making the
>>>>> =
>>>>> transition?
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> YES.
>>>>>>>>> To be able to safely focus on engine management (and
>>>> especially
>>>>> whe=
>>>>> n things
>>>>>>>>> go wrong), flying the glider must be completely
>>>> automatic.
>>>>> Regardle=
>>>>> ss of
>>>>>>>>> power experience, you are not at this point with less
>>>> than 100
>>>>> hour=
>>>>> s.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> Second point, I=C2=B4m not very handy, I
>>>> don=C2=B4t have any
>>>>> type=
>>>>> of experience
>>>>>>>>>> in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would
>>>> have to go to
>>>>> a=
>>>>> workshop.
>>>>>>>>>> Is that a big inconvenience?
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> YES.
>>>>>>>>> Identify someone nearby with extensive experience
>>>> maintaining the
>>>>> t=
>>>>> ype
>>>>>>>>> you expect to buy. Hint: There isn't likely to be
>>>> anybody...
>>>>>>>>> And maintenance of these machines by folks not
>>>> intimately familiar
>>>>>>>>> with the type often goes very badly.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> This problem would happen to me with any type of
>>>> glider that I
>>>>> bu=
>>>>> y.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> NO.
>>>>>>>>> Any motor-glider will require MUCH more (and more
>>>> specialized)
>>>>> main=
>>>>> tenance
>>>>>>>>> as compared to a non-motorized glider.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps,
>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Dave "YO" (multiple offender, >2000 hrs
>>>> in
>>>>> motor-glid=
>>>>> ers)
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> I cannot agree that having only 100 hours disqualifies you
>>>> from
>>>>> motor=
>>>>> glider ownership. For the first 200 hours of flying it, simply be
>>>> very
>>>>> cons=
>>>>> ervative with motor use: do not self launch, do not attempt air
>>>> starts at
>>>>> l=
>>>>> ess than 3000 AGL and then over a landing field, etc. After all it
>>>> will
>>>>> fly=
>>>>> fine with the motor stowed - as good as a pure glider. You can
>>>> push this
>>>>> e=
>>>>> nvelope and squeeze these margins as you gain experience. If
>>>> you are an
>>>>> un=
>>>>> disciplined pilot that will take chances with the motor, then you
>>>> are not
>>>>> a=
>>>>> good candidate for motorglider ownership, regardless of hours. If
>>>> fact
>>>>> you=
>>>>> might want to reevaluate flying at all.=20
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> I do agree that the maintenance requirements for any
>>>> motorglider are
>>>>> =
>>>>> 3x any pure glider.
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> There is a big difference between "disqualification" and
>>>>> "inadvisable."=
>>>>> Flying high-performance sailplanes is a skill that takes hundreds
>>>> of
>>>>> hours=
>>>>> to become proficient. Self-launching motorgliders requires yet
>>>> another
>>>>> set=
>>>>> of skills. The test of the skills only comes when the pilot is under
>>>>> stres=
>>>>> s and the margin for error is all but gone. My advice stands:
>>>> Alfonso
>>>>> shoul=
>>>>> d get himself a pure glider and build that critical first 300-500
>>>> hours in
>>>>> =
>>>>> it before acquiring an MG. The only mitigating circumstance would
>>>> be if he
>>>>> =
>>>>> does not have tows available.
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> The test of skills for the motor only comes when you use the
>>>> motor. That
>>>>> =
>>>>> is my point. An auxilliary motorglider with the motor folded is a
>>>> pure
>>>>> gli=
>>>>> der. This may require discipline that the pilot may not have - that
>>>> is my
>>>>> o=
>>>>> ther point.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can always buy a MG and not use the motor, flying it as a
>>>> pure glider.
>>>>> =
>>>>> This would be curious choice and a huge waste of money. My
>>>> comment as
>>>>> "inad=
>>>>> visable" stands and you didn't address it. Advisability is a
>>>> judgment by
>>>>> an=
>>>>> expert, disqualification is a ruling by a bureaucrat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>> My concerns are about pilots assuming more complexity than they are prepared for. You will not know for certainty that the line has been crossed until an accident has occurred. My preference is to err on the side of caution.
>>>
>>> Tom
>> --
>> Dan, 5J

--
Dan, 5J

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 1:33:39 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I pretty much agree with what you said, Jonathan, but R.A.S. is not the
> place to get this sort of advice. Have a visit with a qualified CFIG
> and get an assessment.
>
>
Totally agree with you Dan.