We all talk about "oh poop planning" usually relating to near theground....another view...

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

Keep in mind, among the worst sailplanes are 20:1 or higher.
Best jets.....I have no clue, guess high single numbers?
What about a current fighter jet?!?!

Here is a nice discussion from AOPA (I am a glider pilot with some power time, but mostly joined for the lobbyist's for GA and the CFI-G insurance), but this just popped up on a newsletter....

https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/news/2019/february/01/bandit-650-part-two

[Clay[_5_]]

As someone about to transition to a self-launcher, this is very timely. But great stuff for anyone. Thanks Charlie

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

NP...hope it helps all of us.

[Dan Marotta]

That was great reading, but not really useful for self-launch gliders.Â*
In multi-engined aircraft, following an engine failure, the pilot has
the option of returning to land, ejecting (if so equipped), continuing
to a maintenance facility (if the aircraft has the performance), or
motoring along to the site of the crash.Â* I don't know of any production
self-launching glider with more than one engine so an engine failure is
simply the same as a failure of a tow, except for the drag of the
engine/prop (except in a Stemme).

If you're new to self launch gliders, consider this advice:Â* Plan and be
prepared to have an engine failure as you would plan for an air or
ground launch failure, only consider the added altitude required to
return to the runway due to increased drag over a pure glider.Â* You
likely won't be able to return to the runway with an engine hanging up
in the air stream.

On 2/22/2019 9:50 AM, Clay wrote:
> As someone about to transition to a self-launcher, this is very timely. But great stuff for anyone. Thanks Charlie

--
Dan, 5J

[waremark]

Anyone transitioning to a self launcher should study Eric Greenwells excellent guide. https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Dave Walsh[_2_]]

At 17:36 22 February 2019, Dan Marotta wrote:
>That was great reading, but not really useful for self-launch
gliders.Â*
>In multi-engined aircraft, following an engine failure, the
pilot has
>the option of returning to land, ejecting (if so equipped),
continuing
>to a maintenance facility (if the aircraft has the
performance), or
>motoring along to the site of the crash.Â* I don't know of
any production
>self-launching glider with more than one engine so an
engine failure is
>simply the same as a failure of a tow, except for the drag
of the
>engine/prop (except in a Stemme).
>
>If you're new to self launch gliders, consider this advice:Â*
Plan and be
>prepared to have an engine failure as you would plan for an
air or
>ground launch failure, only consider the added altitude
required to
>return to the runway due to increased drag over a pure
glider.Â* You
>likely won't be able to return to the runway with an engine
hanging up
>in the air stream.
>
>On 2/22/2019 9:50 AM, Clay wrote:
>> As someone about to transition to a self-launcher, this is
very timely.
>But great stuff for anyone. Thanks Charlie
>
>--
>Dan, 5J
>
Stemme aside I am pretty sure all manufactures quote the
glide angle with the engine out (erected) and a wind-milling
prop. If I recall correctly a DG400 (17m) was about 12:1, a
DG808 (18m) about 14:1, the Antares 20E is about 30:1 so
depending on where the engine fails a return to the airfield
may well be feasible. The important thing is to have a mind
set during the launch that assumes the engine WILL fail,
because eventually these engines will fail.
Dave Walsh

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dan Marotta wrote on 2/22/2019 9:36 AM:
> If you're new to self launch gliders, consider this advice:* Plan and be prepared
> to have an engine failure as you would plan for an air or ground launch failure,
> only consider the added altitude required to return to the runway due to increased
> drag over a pure glider.* You likely won't be able to return to the runway with an
> engine hanging up in the air stream.

Good advice, but the drag of the extended mast varies significantly between
gliders. My ASH 26E losing power is about like Blanik with a rope break at the
same altitude; ie, 200' AGL is "normally" enough. It's something you can try at
altitude safely, and review your logger file later (set it to 1/sec logging rate).

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Dan Marotta]

Yes, even the Stemme's engine (a Rotax 914 turbocharged 4-stroke engine)
can fail but, if it does, the glide ratio is...Â* 50:1.Â* Of course, if a
Stemme catches fire, it's often fatal.Â* My plan is to jump (altitude
permitting) - simple as that.

On 2/22/2019 2:25 PM, Dave Walsh wrote:
> At 17:36 22 February 2019, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> That was great reading, but not really useful for self-launch
> gliders.Â
>> In multi-engined aircraft, following an engine failure, the
> pilot has
>> the option of returning to land, ejecting (if so equipped),
> continuing
>> to a maintenance facility (if the aircraft has the
> performance), or
>> motoring along to the site of the crash.ÂÂ* I don't know of
> any production
>> self-launching glider with more than one engine so an
> engine failure is
>> simply the same as a failure of a tow, except for the drag
> of the
>> engine/prop (except in a Stemme).
>>
>> If you're new to self launch gliders, consider this advice:Â
> Plan and be
>> prepared to have an engine failure as you would plan for an
> air or
>> ground launch failure, only consider the added altitude
> required to
>> return to the runway due to increased drag over a pure
> glider.ÂÂ* You
>> likely won't be able to return to the runway with an engine
> hanging up
>> in the air stream.
>>
>> On 2/22/2019 9:50 AM, Clay wrote:
>>> As someone about to transition to a self-launcher, this is
> very timely.
>> But great stuff for anyone. Thanks Charlie
>>
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
>>
> Stemme aside I am pretty sure all manufactures quote the
> glide angle with the engine out (erected) and a wind-milling
> prop. If I recall correctly a DG400 (17m) was about 12:1, a
> DG808 (18m) about 14:1, the Antares 20E is about 30:1 so
> depending on where the engine fails a return to the airfield
> may well be feasible. The important thing is to have a mind
> set during the launch that assumes the engine WILL fail,
> because eventually these engines will fail.
> Dave Walsh
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Dave Walsh[_2_]]

Pylon self-launchers fall into 2 groups:
(i) DG400/PIK20E/DG800A/DG600M types where both the engine
and the prop and mast are sticking out into the airstream.
(ii) ASH26E/DG800B/DG808C types where just the prop and mast
are sticking out into the airstream.

If I recall correctly the DG400 certification required that DG
demonstrate an engine stopped and erected plus full air brake
landing. W Dirks (the D in DG) performed this but suffered some
minor back injury. (Well this is what I was told 30 years ago when
I first flew a DG400, I can't vouch for its accuracy).

So the advice was always to have NO air brake extended during
the round out: the sink rate with extended stopped engine is
pretty substantial. The other advice was to very aware of
turbulence from the stopped engine masking elevator feel.
Dave Walsh



>

[JS[_5_]]

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 4:15:05 AM UTC-8, Dave Walsh wrote:
> Pylon self-launchers fall into 2 groups:
> (i) DG400/PIK20E/DG800A/DG600M types where both the engine
> and the prop and mast are sticking out into the airstream.
> (ii) ASH26E/DG800B/DG808C types where just the prop and mast
> are sticking out into the airstream.
>
> If I recall correctly the DG400 certification required that DG
> demonstrate an engine stopped and erected plus full air brake
> landing. W Dirks (the D in DG) performed this but suffered some
> minor back injury. (Well this is what I was told 30 years ago when
> I first flew a DG400, I can't vouch for its accuracy).
>
> So the advice was always to have NO air brake extended during
> the round out: the sink rate with extended stopped engine is
> pretty substantial. The other advice was to very aware of
> turbulence from the stopped engine masking elevator feel.
> Dave Walsh
>
>
>
> >

While the normsl stall characteristics of the ASH26E are benign, stalling it with the prop up and not turning can be less predictable, as Dave suggests.
I'd suspect this to be true with any "Klappi".
Jim