Self launch effect on soaring growth

[John Jones]

As more self launch sailplanes are built, what will
be the effect on soaring growth?

Will soaring clubs decline? Will self launchers disperse
to many more airports, creating more exposure?

Any thoughts?

[Eric Greenwell]

John Jones wrote:

> As more self launch sailplanes are built, what will
> be the effect on soaring growth?
>
> Will soaring clubs decline? Will self launchers disperse
> to many more airports, creating more exposure?
>
> Any thoughts?

I've been a glider pilot in the USA for almost 30 years, with the last
10 years spent flying a self-launching sailplane (SLS). Until recently,
there seemed to be two types of pilots that bought self-launching
sailplanes like the DG 400, PIK 20 E, ASH 26 E, etc:

Type 1: long time (20-30 year), very experienced cross-country glider
pilots looking for more convenience

Type 2: power pilots wanting to be glider pilots but put off by the
hassles of towed gliders; that is, also looking for convenience in the
use of the glider (but perhaps not so interested in serious
cross-country flying right away).

For type 1 pilots, having an SLS seems to keep them in the sport, and
generally still involved in the activities and clubs in the region, at
least in my region (northwest USA).

For the type 2 pilot, the SLS brought them into the sport.

So, for these two types, the effect of the SLS on clubs and soaring
seems beneficial.

Recently, the availability of moderate cost, moderate performance
gliders like the Russia AC-5M, Apis, and Silent, has attracted a third
type of pilot:

Type 3: medium time (a few years) glider pilots that also want
convenience, and perhaps especially an entry into cross-country flying
without the retrieve worries.

I know very few of the type 3 pilot, so I'm not sure how much they (as a
group) interact with clubs and other pilots once they have their glider.
I suspect it's much like the type 1 pilot: if they were active in a club
before, they will continue to be active.

Most of the pilots I know like to be around other glider pilots, and I
don't see SLS pilots dispersing to airports where there aren't other
gliders.

My conclusion: self-launchers are a benefit to the clubs and the sport.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> John Jones wrote:
>
> > As more self launch sailplanes are built, what will
> > be the effect on soaring growth?
> >
> > Will soaring clubs decline? Will self launchers disperse
> > to many more airports, creating more exposure?
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> I've been a glider pilot in the USA for almost 30 years, with the last
> 10 years spent flying a self-launching sailplane (SLS). Until recently,
> there seemed to be two types of pilots that bought self-launching
> sailplanes like the DG 400, PIK 20 E, ASH 26 E, etc:
>
> Type 1: long time (20-30 year), very experienced cross-country glider
> pilots looking for more convenience
>
> Type 2: power pilots wanting to be glider pilots but put off by the
> hassles of towed gliders; that is, also looking for convenience in the
> use of the glider (but perhaps not so interested in serious
> cross-country flying right away).
>
> For type 1 pilots, having an SLS seems to keep them in the sport, and
> generally still involved in the activities and clubs in the region, at
> least in my region (northwest USA).
>
> For the type 2 pilot, the SLS brought them into the sport.
>
> So, for these two types, the effect of the SLS on clubs and soaring
> seems beneficial.
>
> Recently, the availability of moderate cost, moderate performance
> gliders like the Russia AC-5M, Apis, and Silent, has attracted a third
> type of pilot:
>
> Type 3: medium time (a few years) glider pilots that also want
> convenience, and perhaps especially an entry into cross-country flying
> without the retrieve worries.
>
> I know very few of the type 3 pilot, so I'm not sure how much they (as a
> group) interact with clubs and other pilots once they have their glider.
> I suspect it's much like the type 1 pilot: if they were active in a club
> before, they will continue to be active.
>
> Most of the pilots I know like to be around other glider pilots, and I
> don't see SLS pilots dispersing to airports where there aren't other
> gliders.
>
> My conclusion: self-launchers are a benefit to the clubs and the sport.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

Although I'm a purist, I agree with Eric that the effect overall is
beneficial for soaring. However, if you buy used first and second
generation equipment, you will likely spend an equal or greater time
maintaining your equipment to a high standard than actually soaring.

It's about a 50/50 split between self-launching pilots I've met that can
soar effectively and have no clue.

YMMV,

Frank Whiteley

[Eric Greenwell]

F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>
> Although I'm a purist, I agree with Eric that the effect overall is
> beneficial for soaring. However, if you buy used first and second
> generation equipment, you will likely spend an equal or greater time
> maintaining your equipment to a high standard than actually soaring.

Assuming this means PIK 20 E and DG 400 gliders, it's not what I've
observed. The people I know, and know of, with these types of gliders
spend a lot more time soaring than maintaining. There will be increased
maintenance as the gliders accumulate engine hours, of course, but
nothing approaching the 100-200 hours/year these pilots fly. There may
be a year with particularly high maintenance (engine rebuild, say), but
that's followed by years of lower maintenance.

Regardless, the amount of maintenance of a self-launcher is still much
more than an unpowered glider. A sustainer powered glider will be more
like the unpowered glider than the self-launcher, as it's engine hours
tend to be 2-3 hours/year, compared to the 10 or so for a self-launcher,
and it's systems are less complicated.


> It's about a 50/50 split between self-launching pilots I've met that can
> soar effectively and have no clue.

Getting these less skilled (in soaring) pilots up to speed can be a
challenge, because the independence of the self-launcher tends to keep
them outside the "support system" that can teach them to soar.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Alan Meyer]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> John Jones wrote:
>
> > As more self launch sailplanes are built, what will
> > be the effect on soaring growth?
> >
> > Will soaring clubs decline? Will self launchers disperse
> > to many more airports, creating more exposure?
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
....
> Type 3: medium time (a few years) glider pilots that also want
> convenience, and perhaps especially an entry into cross-country flying
> without the retrieve worries.
>
> I know very few of the type 3 pilot, so I'm not sure how much they (as a
> group) interact with clubs and other pilots once they have their glider.
> I suspect it's much like the type 1 pilot: if they were active in a club
> before, they will continue to be active.
....

I'd put myself in this Type 3 category. I've got 300+ hours in
gliders and a few really good cross country flights, but all
spread over many years. If I feel I can spare the money,
or find the right partners to share it, I might some day get
a motorglider so that I could fly cross country on those
less than perfect days that I avoid now to avoid the hassle
of a retrieve.

I can't speak for anyone else, but if I got a motorglider,
I'd plan to stay in our club. The reasons are 1) I value
the ongoing training and safety consciousness that is
a part of our club. 2) I value the assistance that club
members render to each other, and 3) I understand
that soaring in our area depends on concerted actions
by the club to keep facillities open and keep our
aviation and non-aviation neighbors working with us
instead of against us.

[Tom Seim]

>
> Although I'm a purist, I agree with Eric that the effect overall is
> beneficial for soaring. However, if you buy used first and second
> generation equipment, you will likely spend an equal or greater time
> maintaining your equipment to a high standard than actually soaring.
>

Only if you fly less than 10 hours a year.

The required engine/propeller maintenance (change the plugs &
re-torque the prop bolts) on my DG-400 can be done in 1 hour.
Additional time depends upon what breaks. As the engine is only run
10-15 hours a year things don't have a tendency to wear out much.

> It's about a 50/50 split between self-launching pilots I've met that can
> soar effectively and have no clue.
>

Come to Richland some time. I can't over exaggerate the convenience of
noticing the cu building in mid-morning and leaving work at lunch to
go play for the rest of the day.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Michael]

Eric Greenwell > wrote
> Regardless, the amount of maintenance of a self-launcher is still much
> more than an unpowered glider.

Really? What about retrieves? Doing club duty when a commercial
operation is not available? Waiting in line to launch?

I suspect that once you factor those things out, the non-flying time
invested in the self-launcher starts to look like a much better deal.

Michael

[Tom Seim]

John Jones > wrote in message >...
> As more self launch sailplanes are built, what will
> be the effect on soaring growth?
>
> Will soaring clubs decline? Will self launchers disperse
> to many more airports, creating more exposure?
>
> Any thoughts?

I have trailered/flown into GA airports with my DG-400 where there has
been absolutely no glider activity and, generally, received quite a
bit of interest from power pilots. I use the opportunity to inform
them where they can go to get instruction and what it takes to
transition from power into gliders, as well as answering the usual
questions like what do gliders cost.

One power pilot, flying a rig that consumed 30 gal/hr, watched me land
after a 4 hour flight. He asked me how much fuel I burned during the
flight. I replied, "a couple of quarts". He was impressed!

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Eric Greenwell]

Michael wrote:
> Eric Greenwell > wrote
>
>>Regardless, the amount of maintenance of a self-launcher is still much
>>more than an unpowered glider.
>
>
> Really? What about retrieves? Doing club duty when a commercial
> operation is not available? Waiting in line to launch?

These aren't the airframe maintenance items Frank was talking about, so
I didn't address them.

>
> I suspect that once you factor those things out, the non-flying time
> invested in the self-launcher starts to look like a much better deal.

I agree the total time spent on the sport can be less with a
self-launcher (this us one of the reasons I have a self-launcher), for
all the reasons you mention, and especially if you can fly from a local
airport (as I do) instead of driving a few hours to the gliderport.
Another point is the time spent on maintaining the glider can usually be
done at the pilot's convenience (evenings, winter, etc).

By similar considerations, the additional cost of a self-launcher can
often be covered (or at least reduced substantially) by considering the
all the avoided costs and time.

Nonetheless, the _maintenance_ involved in a self-launcher is much
greater than a similar unpowered glider.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Tom Seim" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> > Although I'm a purist, I agree with Eric that the effect overall is
> > beneficial for soaring. However, if you buy used first and second
> > generation equipment, you will likely spend an equal or greater time
> > maintaining your equipment to a high standard than actually soaring.
> >
>
> Only if you fly less than 10 hours a year.
>
> The required engine/propeller maintenance (change the plugs &
> re-torque the prop bolts) on my DG-400 can be done in 1 hour.
> Additional time depends upon what breaks. As the engine is only run
> 10-15 hours a year things don't have a tendency to wear out much.
>
PIK-20E is notoriously time consuming. Our local DG-400 is showing a
similar tendency regardless of the requirements. Has something to do with
the prior owners, but the problems have included electrical and fuel and
steerable tail wheel over the years. Doesn't seem to fly as often as I'd
expect, though the current owner is very enthused, though rather perturbed.

> > It's about a 50/50 split between self-launching pilots I've met that can
> > soar effectively and have no clue.
> >
>
> Come to Richland some time. I can't over exaggerate the convenience of
> noticing the cu building in mid-morning and leaving work at lunch to
> go play for the rest of the day.
>
Drove through there twice earlier this week on a road trip to deliver a
glider to Cle Elum. Monday afternoon (early) looked pretty good for April
though the high stuff was coming in pretty quickly. The terrain between
Ellensburg and Yakima looked very intimidating.

We flew off our winch yesterday. Of the 20 or so launches, more than half
hooked soaring flights (We weren't pushing back to the fence, so 1600agl was
typical launch height). Nice cu to 11,500 despite all the media howling
about the snow storm (tracked further south than expected, 3ft in places).
$8/launch.

Frank Whiteley

[Eric Greenwell]

F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>>Come to Richland some time. I can't over exaggerate the convenience of
>>noticing the cu building in mid-morning and leaving work at lunch to
>>go play for the rest of the day.
>>
>
> Drove through there twice earlier this week on a road trip to deliver a
> glider to Cle Elum. Monday afternoon (early) looked pretty good for April
> though the high stuff was coming in pretty quickly.

It was OK even under the overcast. I flew from Richland to 5 miles east
of Cle Elum, then to Wenatchee, and finally back home across the Yakima
Firing Range, which was active, but to only 5000 feet (a rare treat, as
the bullets, A-10s, and other activities usually consume 18000 feet).
Three other motorgliders also flew.

> The terrain between
> Ellensburg and Yakima looked very intimidating.

And it is, though it's only 15 miles between airports or landable
fields, and so not a problem with the typical 5000-7000 agl conditions.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> F.L. Whiteley wrote:
> >>Come to Richland some time. I can't over exaggerate the convenience of
> >>noticing the cu building in mid-morning and leaving work at lunch to
> >>go play for the rest of the day.
> >>
> >
> > Drove through there twice earlier this week on a road trip to deliver a
> > glider to Cle Elum. Monday afternoon (early) looked pretty good for
April
> > though the high stuff was coming in pretty quickly.
>
> It was OK even under the overcast. I flew from Richland to 5 miles east
> of Cle Elum, then to Wenatchee, and finally back home across the Yakima
> Firing Range, which was active, but to only 5000 feet (a rare treat, as
> the bullets, A-10s, and other activities usually consume 18000 feet).
> Three other motorgliders also flew.
>
I wondered a bit about the Yakima range area, so it's a live fire area.

Also figured if it was a good as it looked you guys might be up there. Left
my handheld at home though;^) Sounds like a pretty good romp.

Frank

[Tom Seim]

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message >...
> "Tom Seim" > wrote in message
> om...
> > >
> > > Although I'm a purist, I agree with Eric that the effect overall is
> > > beneficial for soaring. However, if you buy used first and second
> > > generation equipment, you will likely spend an equal or greater time
> > > maintaining your equipment to a high standard than actually soaring.
> > >
> >
> > Only if you fly less than 10 hours a year.
> >
> > The required engine/propeller maintenance (change the plugs &
> > re-torque the prop bolts) on my DG-400 can be done in 1 hour.
> > Additional time depends upon what breaks. As the engine is only run
> > 10-15 hours a year things don't have a tendency to wear out much.
> >
> PIK-20E is notoriously time consuming. Our local DG-400 is showing a
> similar tendency regardless of the requirements. Has something to do with
> the prior owners, but the problems have included electrical and fuel and
> steerable tail wheel over the years. Doesn't seem to fly as often as I'd
> expect, though the current owner is very enthused, though rather perturbed.
>

Make no mistake, foregoing necessary maintenance will catch up to you
in the end. Some problems go on for years because the owners are
inexperienced and/or ignorant. Some aspects of maintenance are
peculiar to motorgliders (the extension mechanism, for instance). As
an example, I was experiencing numerous retraction problems that
required that I use the emergency override (it's helpfull to have 3
hands in this situation). Everything ALWAYS worked fine on the ground.
I eventually solved the problem by adjusting the prop position sensor
(it seems that subjected to the forces of airflow the gap increased
slightly). There is a DG users group that discusses these maintenance
issues.

> > > It's about a 50/50 split between self-launching pilots I've met that can
> > > soar effectively and have no clue.
> > >
> >
> > Come to Richland some time. I can't over exaggerate the convenience of
> > noticing the cu building in mid-morning and leaving work at lunch to
> > go play for the rest of the day.
> >
> Drove through there twice earlier this week on a road trip to deliver a
> glider to Cle Elum. Monday afternoon (early) looked pretty good for April
> though the high stuff was coming in pretty quickly. The terrain between
> Ellensburg and Yakima looked very intimidating.
>
> We flew off our winch yesterday. Of the 20 or so launches, more than half
> hooked soaring flights (We weren't pushing back to the fence, so 1600agl was
> typical launch height). Nice cu to 11,500 despite all the media howling
> about the snow storm (tracked further south than expected, 3ft in places).
> $8/launch.
>

I'll have to come up and get my "aerotow only" restriction lifted on
my license (see my other comments on how to reduce the cost of a
glider license).

Tom