Will cheaper motorgliders increase the number of soaring pilots?

[Eric Greenwell]

We were suffering severe thread drift, so I pulled this out of the pile...

Kirk Stant wrote:

>>I'd guess if/when you get that Antares, you'll find whatever you fly now,
>>collecting dust.>
>
> Good point (and all of this discussion is fun - "devil's advocate"
> stuff at times.
>
> You may be right that if I had a self launch my pure glider would
> gather dust - I would probably trade it for a really nice 1-26 (with
> an open canopy) and a Swift for acro. Different tools for different
> jobs.

Now you're talking! A common situation in England and Europe, I've read,
where a pilot might have shares in several quite different gliders.

>
> But I'm not sure about self-launching being the way to grow the sport,
> purely on a cost basis. I could afford half of a cherry LS6, and have
> flown it about 200 hours a year ever since I got it. There is
> absolutely no way I can pony up to the equivalent self launcher
> (lottery excepted, of course!).

Cost is the big problem, for sure. If adding a motor cost only $5000
instead of $25-$30,000, almost everyone would have one.

THe cost can be reduced considerably by getting a medium (30 to 38:1)
performance motorglider. Look at how popular the Russia AC-5M was when
it was available.

It can be cut in half by getting a partner, and the increased utility of
the motorglider (see Steve Hill's posting) means both partners can get
almost as much flying in as they would owning it by themselves.

> How many newbies are going to take
> that first jump?

I believe there is a class of newbies that would take that jump: power
pilots transitioning to gliders. Here's why:

* they already expect an aircraft to cost a lot
* they will think the maintenance costs for a motorglider are
insignificant compared to their airplane costs
* they are more likely to use partnerships, reducing the cost further
* they value independence, being able to fly on their schedule and from
an airport of their choosing
* they dislike the idea of landing out, both emotionally (it sort of
seems like a "crash") and it's inconvenient retrieve
* in-air restarts give them a chance to learn soaring skills their
transition training only hinted at during their short training time
(compared to a student without a previous license)
* a bias towards "gotta have high performance" (>40:1) hasn't been
implanted yet, again due to their much shorter time in the sport. To an
airplane pilot, even 20:1 seems amazing, and 30:1 or more just incredible

There are hundreds of thousands of power pilots in the USA, and a lot of
them are attracted to the idea of soaring, but the perceived hassles
keep them from pursuing it. A moderate performance, moderately priced
motorglider might be just what it takes to get them into the sport!

(Robert, feel free to step in here)

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Waduino]

Eric Greewall wrote...
A moderate performance, moderately priced motorglider might be just what it
takes to get them into the sport!

So what is the closest we can get to this today, right now, check-signing
pen ready to write? Moderate performance, moderate price, quality glider, or
in other words affordable self-launching fun.
Wad.

---
"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> We were suffering severe thread drift, so I pulled this out of the pile...
>
> Kirk Stant wrote:
>
>>>I'd guess if/when you get that Antares, you'll find whatever you fly now,
>>>collecting dust.>
>>
>> Good point (and all of this discussion is fun - "devil's advocate"
>> stuff at times.
>>
>> You may be right that if I had a self launch my pure glider would
>> gather dust - I would probably trade it for a really nice 1-26 (with
>> an open canopy) and a Swift for acro. Different tools for different
>> jobs.
>
> Now you're talking! A common situation in England and Europe, I've read,
> where a pilot might have shares in several quite different gliders.
>
>>
>> But I'm not sure about self-launching being the way to grow the sport,
>> purely on a cost basis. I could afford half of a cherry LS6, and have
>> flown it about 200 hours a year ever since I got it. There is
>> absolutely no way I can pony up to the equivalent self launcher
>> (lottery excepted, of course!).
>
> Cost is the big problem, for sure. If adding a motor cost only $5000
> instead of $25-$30,000, almost everyone would have one.
>
> THe cost can be reduced considerably by getting a medium (30 to 38:1)
> performance motorglider. Look at how popular the Russia AC-5M was when it
> was available.
>
> It can be cut in half by getting a partner, and the increased utility of
> the motorglider (see Steve Hill's posting) means both partners can get
> almost as much flying in as they would owning it by themselves.
>
>> How many newbies are going to take
>> that first jump?
>
> I believe there is a class of newbies that would take that jump: power
> pilots transitioning to gliders. Here's why:
>
> * they already expect an aircraft to cost a lot
> * they will think the maintenance costs for a motorglider are
> insignificant compared to their airplane costs
> * they are more likely to use partnerships, reducing the cost further
> * they value independence, being able to fly on their schedule and from
> an airport of their choosing
> * they dislike the idea of landing out, both emotionally (it sort of
> seems like a "crash") and it's inconvenient retrieve
> * in-air restarts give them a chance to learn soaring skills their
> transition training only hinted at during their short training time
> (compared to a student without a previous license)
> * a bias towards "gotta have high performance" (>40:1) hasn't been
> implanted yet, again due to their much shorter time in the sport. To an
> airplane pilot, even 20:1 seems amazing, and 30:1 or more just incredible
>
> There are hundreds of thousands of power pilots in the USA, and a lot of
> them are attracted to the idea of soaring, but the perceived hassles keep
> them from pursuing it. A moderate performance, moderately priced
> motorglider might be just what it takes to get them into the sport!
>
> (Robert, feel free to step in here)
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[Greg O'Sullivan]

Waduino wrote:
> Eric Greewall wrote...
> A moderate performance, moderately priced motorglider might be just what it
> takes to get them into the sport!
>
> So what is the closest we can get to this today, right now, check-signing
> pen ready to write? Moderate performance, moderate price, quality glider, or
> in other words affordable self-launching fun.
> Wad.

Silent: http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/index.html
Apis: http://www.apisgliders.com/index.html
Excel: http://www.alpaero.com/
Sinus: http://www.mcp.com.au/sinus/index.html

Greg O'Sullivan
gjo at unimelb dot edu dot au

[Eric Greenwell]

Greg O'Sullivan wrote:
> Waduino wrote:
>
>> Eric Greewall wrote...
>> A moderate performance, moderately priced motorglider might be just
>> what it takes to get them into the sport!
>>
>> So what is the closest we can get to this today, right now,
>> check-signing pen ready to write? Moderate performance, moderate
>> price, quality glider, or in other words affordable self-launching fun.
>> Wad.
>
>
> Silent: http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/index.html
> Apis: http://www.apisgliders.com/index.html
> Excel: http://www.alpaero.com/
> Sinus: http://www.mcp.com.au/sinus/index.html

I think the TeST line also fits in here: http://www.test.infoline.cz/

And I would add some used gliders (no longer available new) to these:
Russia AC-5M, PIK 20E.

For more links and information on motorgliders and operating them, go to
the Auxiliary-powered Sailplane Association's website:

www.motorglider.org

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> > You may be right that if I had a self launch my pure glider would
> > gather dust - I would probably trade it for a really nice 1-26 (with
> > an open canopy) and a Swift for acro. Different tools for different
> > jobs.
>
> Now you're talking! A common situation in England and Europe, I've read,
> where a pilot might have shares in several quite different gliders.

I consider myself to be in a rather large syndicate that owns a Janus,
two Grob twins, two PW-5's and a Libelle. Oh, and two Pawnees.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Waduino]

Good links. I didn't know about the Exel. Strange looking but the guy makes
an excellent point about not having to raise the pylon and change flight
characteristics while you're wanting to light the engine and, at times at
least, also trying to setup for an outlanding.
What I like is that it is a glider first, some other motorgliders don't
really seem to be designed to do any real thermalling.
Does Ka6 performance pass for moderate? I think it passes the "affordable
self-launching fun" test but it makes a PW-5 look positively handsome ;-)
Wad.

"Greg O'Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Waduino wrote:
>> Eric Greewall wrote...
>> A moderate performance, moderately priced motorglider might be just what
>> it takes to get them into the sport!
>>
>> So what is the closest we can get to this today, right now, check-signing
>> pen ready to write? Moderate performance, moderate price, quality glider,
>> or in other words affordable self-launching fun.
>> Wad.
>
> Silent: http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/index.html
> Apis: http://www.apisgliders.com/index.html
> Excel: http://www.alpaero.com/
> Sinus: http://www.mcp.com.au/sinus/index.html
>
> Greg O'Sullivan
> gjo at unimelb dot edu dot au

[Willie]

> >> Eric Greewall wrote...
> >> A moderate performance, moderately priced motorglider might be just
> >> what it takes to get them into the sport!
> >>
> >> So what is the closest we can get to this today, right now,
> >> check-signing pen ready to write? Moderate performance, moderate
> >> price, quality glider, or in other words affordable self-launching fun.

Fun is the key word here.

I own a self launch sailplane, in my case an Alisport Silent-IN
and am completely happy with it's performance. Mine cost less
than half as much as a Ventus Cm or a DG 808 and still I have
a great time in it.

I can stay up all day on a dollar fifty (tow). I know their performance is
higher, but I am not in competition with them. I fly sailplanes for fun.
My ship is comfortable, easy to rig with light wings, climbs well
and turns on a dime. I get the handling of a 1-26 with a 31:1 glide ratio.

I can and do fly it cross country. With shorter wings and a low stall speed
I am confident I could land in even the short fields that other big glass
would pass up.

This is the ideal type of ship for young or new pilots to build hours in,
learn cross country in and just enjoy for an afternoon of flying.

Willie
EK (echo kilo)

[Mark James Boyd]

>They also have pictures of the "2nd generation" twin-jet self-launcher,
>with improved performances. See
>
>http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/news.htm


No details on the insurer, or if the pilot needs a twin engine rating :0

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Willie wrote:
>
>> Fun is the key word here.
>>
>> I own a self launch sailplane, in my case an Alisport Silent-IN
>> and am completely happy with it's performance. Mine cost less
>> than half as much as a Ventus Cm or a DG 808 and still I have
>> a great time in it.
>>
>> I can stay up all day on a dollar fifty (tow). I know their performance is
>> higher, but I am not in competition with them. I fly sailplanes for fun.
>> My ship is comfortable, easy to rig with light wings, climbs well
>> and turns on a dime. I get the handling of a 1-26 with a 31:1 glide ratio.
>
>And Alisport also has the similar Silent 2, sleeker and with 39:1, but
>with the same qualtities that Willie likes.
>
>
>and scroll down about 1/4 the way.
>--
>Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Eric Greenwell]

Willie wrote:

> Fun is the key word here.
>
> I own a self launch sailplane, in my case an Alisport Silent-IN
> and am completely happy with it's performance. Mine cost less
> than half as much as a Ventus Cm or a DG 808 and still I have
> a great time in it.
>
> I can stay up all day on a dollar fifty (tow). I know their performance is
> higher, but I am not in competition with them. I fly sailplanes for fun.
> My ship is comfortable, easy to rig with light wings, climbs well
> and turns on a dime. I get the handling of a 1-26 with a 31:1 glide ratio.

And Alisport also has the similar Silent 2, sleeker and with 39:1, but
with the same qualtities that Willie likes.

They also have pictures of the "2nd generation" twin-jet self-launcher,
with improved performances. See

http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/news.htm

and scroll down about 1/4 the way.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Steve Hill]

My point in the whole discussion about self launching perhaps helping to
stimulate growth in our ranks is aimed at the notion that our sport is
dying. The obvious status quo has been aero-towing in the U.S. forever...If
self launchers continue to keep bringing transition pilots ie...power pilots
with an interest in soaring, then it's potentially a great thing for all
soaring pilots.

Several people have made comments on racing sailplanes...I'll just say that
I have never yet seen two sailplanes of any kind be able to get together
without some sort of race, formal or otherwise break out. Let's face it, we
are competitive people. If my DG is in a thermal with a Libelle, it's
obvious that the Libelle pilot is going to show me that he can outclimb
me...not really much I can do about that....but when we leave the thermal,
I'm going to introduce him to the rear view of an accelerating DG-400 and
how the flaps look in the reflexed position...but over the course of the
day, we'll have a ton of fun flying and teasing and learning. The point is,
that you never have to stop racing...sorta like some of the previous
comments that would lead you to believe that self launching is mutually
exclusive to hanging out at the glider club and aero-towing occasionally or
winch launching...or generally participating in the all aspects of
soaring...you can still do all those things.

I think it seems like most people are on the same page that whatever we can
do to promote our sport better, is good for all of us.


Steve.

[Robertmudd1u]

>No details on the insurer, or if the pilot needs a twin engine rating

Insured by Costello, higher than normal rates because it is used for air show
work.
No multi engine rating needed or held because there is no such thing in the FAA
world as a multi engine glider.

Robert Mudd

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Robertmudd1u > wrote:
>>No details on the insurer, or if the pilot needs a twin engine rating
>
>Insured by Costello, higher than normal rates because it is used for air show
>work.
>No multi engine rating needed or held because there is no such thing in the FAA
>world as a multi engine glider.

Dang. Now that IS fantastic. Costello should get a reeeel nice
Christmas card for being so reasonable.

I was aware that there is no FAA cat/class requirement for
multi-engine single-place experimental turbine glider in the
general CFR's ;) , but to see that the insurer shows such
flexibility is reassuring.

I'd sure love to see performance data on this aircraft:
climb rates and speeds, fuel consumption, acceleration
to rotation, etc...

Good for you guys! I'm going to absolutely have to see this
act at an airshow at some point. Oct 2,3 at Kingman, AZ 2005.
Hmmm...maybe we need to get him all the way out to Calif. before that
:)

It also seems pretty clear that if two 45# thrust engines can do this
to a 660# total flying weight glider, one 45# thrust engine may be
enough for a 400# total flying weight glider. And talk about safer:
I can't imagine the turbine drag is more than a prop, so
engine failures at launch should be less dramatic.

Thanks for the response, Robert. Cheers to you...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Greg Arnold]

>
> I was aware that there is no FAA cat/class requirement for
> multi-engine single-place experimental turbine glider in the
> general CFR's ;) , but to see that the insurer shows such
> flexibility is reassuring.
>
> I'd sure love to see performance data on this aircraft:
> climb rates and speeds, fuel consumption, acceleration
> to rotation, etc...
>
> Good for you guys! I'm going to absolutely have to see this
> act at an airshow at some point. Oct 2,3 at Kingman, AZ 2005.
> Hmmm...maybe we need to get him all the way out to Calif. before that


He is talking about it at the Convention in Ontario, CA in February.