Another E glider concept

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIYU2zkGQFQ

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 12:33:33 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIYU2zkGQFQ

Great cgi. What are the chines for, if the are for go fast, why don't mainstream gliders have them?

[Marc Ramsey[_5_]]

On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 4:11:15 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 12:33:33 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIYU2zkGQFQ
>
> Great cgi. What are the chines for, if the are for go fast, why don't mainstream gliders have them?

If you mean the fins on either side of the nose clearly marked "sensor", likely angle of attack vanes. Not very useful when the motor is running...

[Ventus_a]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIYU2zkGQFQ

Interesting concept although on first look got to wonder if he was dreaming of an updated, stretched and powered 2 seat Salto that could fly him to fame and fortune (just kidding about the fortune)

:-) Colin

[[email protected]]

>
> If you mean the fins on either side of the nose clearly marked "sensor", likely angle of attack vanes. Not very useful when the motor is running...

Not thinking about the sensor fin.

at 0:25 in the video. The horizontal line mid screen a few inches below the canopy. Looks like a transition between a flatish underbelly and vertical cockpit upper side. Looks like the chines under a boat?

[2G]

On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 6:19:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >
> > If you mean the fins on either side of the nose clearly marked "sensor", likely angle of attack vanes. Not very useful when the motor is running...
> Not thinking about the sensor fin.
>
> at 0:25 in the video. The horizontal line mid screen a few inches below the canopy. Looks like a transition between a flatish underbelly and vertical cockpit upper side. Looks like the chines under a boat?

I wonder if they are also accepting deposits for this concept.

[Marc Ramsey[_5_]]

On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 6:19:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >
> > If you mean the fins on either side of the nose clearly marked "sensor", likely angle of attack vanes. Not very useful when the motor is running...
> Not thinking about the sensor fin.
>
> at 0:25 in the video. The horizontal line mid screen a few inches below the canopy. Looks like a transition between a flatish underbelly and vertical cockpit upper side. Looks like the chines under a boat?
I see what you mean, the odd transition between the upper and lower fuselage profile that extends to the tail. Perhaps structural, or for style? I find it hard to believe it does much for the aerodynamics except produce a bit of drag.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 8/16/2020 6:19 PM:
>
>>
>> If you mean the fins on either side of the nose clearly marked "sensor", likely angle of attack vanes. Not very useful when the motor is running...
>
> Not thinking about the sensor fin.
>
> at 0:25 in the video. The horizontal line mid screen a few inches below the canopy. Looks like a transition between a flatish underbelly and vertical cockpit upper side. Looks like the chines under a boat?
>
The lines extend along the tail boom, too. I can't think of any reason for them.

I do like the propeller concept. It allows 3 blades, giving it 50% more swept area
for the same diameter propeller as a two blade prop. That should enable them to
use a 50% more powerful motor than the two blade FES, or more ground clearance for
the same swept area. The reasons for the Vee tail are not obvious to me.

--
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

[2G]

On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 8:19:10 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote on 8/16/2020 6:19 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> If you mean the fins on either side of the nose clearly marked "sensor", likely angle of attack vanes. Not very useful when the motor is running...
> >
> > Not thinking about the sensor fin.
> >
> > at 0:25 in the video. The horizontal line mid screen a few inches below the canopy. Looks like a transition between a flatish underbelly and vertical cockpit upper side. Looks like the chines under a boat?
> >
> The lines extend along the tail boom, too. I can't think of any reason for them.
>
> I do like the propeller concept. It allows 3 blades, giving it 50% more swept area
> for the same diameter propeller as a two blade prop. That should enable them to
> use a 50% more powerful motor than the two blade FES, or more ground clearance for
> the same swept area. The reasons for the Vee tail are not obvious to me.
>
> --
> 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

Concepts are really nice because you don't have to worry about any of those pesky engineering details.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 20:04:19 -0700, Marc Ramsey wrote:

> On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 6:19:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> >
>> > If you mean the fins on either side of the nose clearly marked
>> > "sensor", likely angle of attack vanes. Not very useful when the
>> > motor is running...
>> Not thinking about the sensor fin.
>>
>> at 0:25 in the video. The horizontal line mid screen a few inches below
>> the canopy. Looks like a transition between a flatish underbelly and
>> vertical cockpit upper side. Looks like the chines under a boat?
> I see what you mean, the odd transition between the upper and lower
> fuselage profile that extends to the tail. Perhaps structural, or for
> style? I find it hard to believe it does much for the aerodynamics
> except produce a bit of drag.

Graphical artifact?

In the top view just from the right it looks as though it sticks out as
far as the sensor does and is blurred, while from the top left it only
seems to extend a cm or so and in other views it just looks like a
blurred line along the fuselage.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Dan Marotta]

The chines are improve handling at Mach 3.Â* Don't you remember the SR-71?

And didn't the ending credits say that it was a Master's Thesis in
design or something similar?

On 8/17/2020 5:40 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 20:04:19 -0700, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 6:19:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>> If you mean the fins on either side of the nose clearly marked
>>>> "sensor", likely angle of attack vanes. Not very useful when the
>>>> motor is running...
>>> Not thinking about the sensor fin.
>>>
>>> at 0:25 in the video. The horizontal line mid screen a few inches below
>>> the canopy. Looks like a transition between a flatish underbelly and
>>> vertical cockpit upper side. Looks like the chines under a boat?
>> I see what you mean, the odd transition between the upper and lower
>> fuselage profile that extends to the tail. Perhaps structural, or for
>> style? I find it hard to believe it does much for the aerodynamics
>> except produce a bit of drag.
> Graphical artifact?
>
> In the top view just from the right it looks as though it sticks out as
> far as the sensor does and is blurred, while from the top left it only
> seems to extend a cm or so and in other views it just looks like a
> blurred line along the fuselage.
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Ventus_a wrote on 8/16/2020 6:14 PM:
> Jonathan St. Cloud;1027640 Wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIYU2zkGQFQ
>
> Interesting concept although on first look got to wonder if he was
> dreaming of an updated, stretched and powered 2 seat Salto that could
> fly him to fame and fortune (just kidding about the fortune)
>
I hope someone will read the thesis and tell us the goal of the concept. It does
make me wonder if the current FES could be adapted to a three blade propeller,
with all blades external as they are now. Slightly higher drag when gliding, but a
50% increase in power capability by the propeller (or more ground clearance and
some power increase).


--
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

[Per Carlin]

The Main factors for power from a propeller are diameter, pitch and rpm, not the number of blades.

An increase from 2 to 3 blades gives at best about 10-15% more drag if the remaining is constant. However the efficiency of the propeller drops by 5-10% and this is a major drawback in electrical propulsion system for gliders.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Per Carlin wrote on 8/17/2020 12:58 PM:
> The Main factors for power from a propeller are diameter, pitch and rpm, not the number of blades.
>
> An increase from 2 to 3 blades gives at best about 10-15% more drag if the remaining is constant. However the efficiency of the propeller drops by 5-10% and this is a major drawback in electrical propulsion system for gliders.
>
I think something is missing in your explanation: for example, 3, 4 and 5 blades
are common on airplanes, and wind turbines routinely use 3 blades. My
understanding is tip speed is the ultimate limit on the power a propeller can
absorb, so adding a 3rd should 50% more power capability.

Take a look at this bad boy - Five blades!

https://hartzellprop.com/are-more-propeller-blades-better/

The Hartzell site also discusses reasons for choosing more blades

--
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

[Cumungus]

When the propeller spins backwards in the demo reel, confidence that the engineers will make an airworthy aircraft is instantly flushed down the toilet.

On Monday, August 17, 2020 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Per Carlin wrote on 8/17/2020 12:58 PM:
> > The Main factors for power from a propeller are diameter, pitch and rpm, not the number of blades.
> >
> > An increase from 2 to 3 blades gives at best about 10-15% more drag if the remaining is constant. However the efficiency of the propeller drops by 5-10% and this is a major drawback in electrical propulsion system for gliders.
> >
> I think something is missing in your explanation: for example, 3, 4 and 5 blades
> are common on airplanes, and wind turbines routinely use 3 blades. My
> understanding is tip speed is the ultimate limit on the power a propeller can
> absorb, so adding a 3rd should 50% more power capability.
>
> Take a look at this bad boy - Five blades!
>
> https://hartzellprop.com/are-more-propeller-blades-better/
>
> The Hartzell site also discusses reasons for choosing more blades
>
> --
> 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

[Dave Nadler]

On Monday, August 17, 2020 at 8:01:08 PM UTC-4, Cumungus wrote:
> When the propeller spins backwards in the demo reel, confidence that the
> engineers will make an airworthy aircraft is instantly flushed down the toilet.

That feature is for backing into your parking space.

[Bob Kuykendall]

It looks like this is a masters thesis project for a curriculum in industrial design. Of course, much of it is not functional in the ways that are important to soaring flight. But there are some interesting design concepts here that we should not dismiss out of hand.

We have to be careful about rejecting ideas that seem impractical, especially when advances in various technologies can be combined in ways that make the orthodoxy irrelevant.

The next time you find yourself yelling "get off my lawn!," stop and reflect whether the lawn is really yours.

--Bob K.

[2G]

On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 6:42:12 PM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> It looks like this is a masters thesis project for a curriculum in industrial design. Of course, much of it is not functional in the ways that are important to soaring flight. But there are some interesting design concepts here that we should not dismiss out of hand.
>
> We have to be careful about rejecting ideas that seem impractical, especially when advances in various technologies can be combined in ways that make the orthodoxy irrelevant.
>
> The next time you find yourself yelling "get off my lawn!," stop and reflect whether the lawn is really yours.
>
> --Bob K.

Don't confuse this with a real, aerodynamical design concept, because it is not. You will end up chasing your tail if you do.

[Chris Wedgwood[_2_]]

On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 3:01:45 AM UTC+2, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Monday, August 17, 2020 at 8:01:08 PM UTC-4, Cumungus wrote:
> > When the propeller spins backwards in the demo reel, confidence that the
> > engineers will make an airworthy aircraft is instantly flushed down the toilet.
>
> That feature is for backing into your parking space.

Or for landing downwind on golf courses..

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Chris Wedgwood wrote on 8/19/2020 7:33 AM:
> On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 3:01:45 AM UTC+2, Dave Nadler wrote:
>> On Monday, August 17, 2020 at 8:01:08 PM UTC-4, Cumungus wrote:
>>> When the propeller spins backwards in the demo reel, confidence that the
>>> engineers will make an airworthy aircraft is instantly flushed down the toilet.
>>
>> That feature is for backing into your parking space.
>
> Or for landing downwind on golf courses..
>
That's an interesting idea, sort of the modern tail parachute like I had on my
H301. It was enormously powerful, but not controllable, just deployed or not. An
electrically powered propeller could be used to provide adjustable drag from zero
to "a lot". The design issue is keeping the propeller from folding backwards when
you want it to produce drag.

--
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

[Soartech]

If you are looking for controllable drag you simply need a center pull cord at the apex of the drag chute.
Cord pulled = little drag
Cord slack = full drag

[Dan Marotta]

Seems simple enough to design in solenoid activated pins to prevent the
blades from folding during reverse.Â* ...But the reverse thrust just
might put the blade tips into the ground...

On 8/19/2020 9:31 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Chris Wedgwood wrote on 8/19/2020 7:33 AM:
>> On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 3:01:45 AM UTC+2, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 17, 2020 at 8:01:08 PM UTC-4, Cumungus wrote:
>>>> When the propeller spins backwards in the demo reel, confidence
>>>> that the
>>>> engineers will make an airworthy aircraft is instantly flushed down
>>>> the toilet.
>>>
>>> That feature is for backing into your parking space.
>>
>> Or for landing downwind on golf courses..
>>
> That's an interesting idea, sort of the modern tail parachute like I
> had on my H301. It was enormously powerful, but not controllable, just
> deployed or not. An electrically powered propeller could be used to
> provide adjustable drag from zero to "a lot". The design issue is
> keeping the propeller from folding backwards when you want it to
> produce drag.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Pierre Vav]

Le dimanche 16 août 2020 19:33:33 UTC+2, Jonathan St. Cloud a écritÂ*:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIYU2zkGQFQ

monerai is back ?

[Jonathon May]

Is this site working?

[Dan Marotta]

No!Â* I did not see your message... :-D

On 8/19/2020 10:48 AM, Jonathon May wrote:
> Is this site working?
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[AS]

On Wednesday, August 19, 2020 at 11:58:03 AM UTC-4, Soartech wrote:
> If you are looking for controllable drag you simply need a center pull cord at the apex of the drag chute.
> Cord pulled = little drag
> Cord slack = full drag

There were several Eastern European or Russian gliders with retractable drogue chutes. There was a line attached to the apex which could be hauled in or let out to retract the chute into the tail boom. I have no idea how that was done (hand cranked winch?) and how reliable that system was. It didn't stand the test of time, I guess, otherwise we would all have them.

Uli
'AS'

[ProfJ]

On Wednesday, 19 August 2020 at 10:39:50 UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Seems simple enough to design in solenoid activated pins to prevent the
> blades from folding during reverse. ...But the reverse thrust just
> might put the blade tips into the ground...
> On 8/19/2020 9:31 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Chris Wedgwood wrote on 8/19/2020 7:33 AM:
> >> On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 3:01:45 AM UTC+2, Dave Nadler wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 17, 2020 at 8:01:08 PM UTC-4, Cumungus wrote:
> >>>> When the propeller spins backwards in the demo reel, confidence
> >>>> that the
> >>>> engineers will make an airworthy aircraft is instantly flushed down
> >>>> the toilet.
> >>>
> >>> That feature is for backing into your parking space.
> >>
> >> Or for landing downwind on golf courses..
> >>
> > That's an interesting idea, sort of the modern tail parachute like I
> > had on my H301. It was enormously powerful, but not controllable, just
> > deployed or not. An electrically powered propeller could be used to
> > provide adjustable drag from zero to "a lot". The design issue is
> > keeping the propeller from folding backwards when you want it to
> > produce drag.
> >
>
> --
> Dan, 5J
You don't have to fix the propeller blades in place regardless of pitch, centripetal force does it for you. Otherwise helicopters and Carat motorgliders would not fly (for long)

[Steve Koerner]

Here is a varient of this motorglider with higher wing loading for very strong soaring conditions:

www.cnn.com/travel/article/celera-500l-plane/index.html

[kinsell]

On 8/28/20 6:24 PM, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Here is a varient of this motorglider with higher wing loading for very strong soaring conditions:
>
> www.cnn.com/travel/article/celera-500l-plane/index.html
>

Speed of a jet with eight times better fuel economy and six times better
operating costs. I can tell you watch too much CNN.

[BobW]

On 8/28/2020 8:13 PM, kinsell wrote:
> On 8/28/20 6:24 PM, Steve Koerner wrote:
>> Here is a varient of this motorglider with higher wing loading for very
>> strong soaring conditions:
>>
>> www.cnn.com/travel/article/celera-500l-plane/index.html
>>
>
> Speed of a jet with eight times better fuel economy and six times better
> operating costs.Â* IÂ* can tell you watch too much CNN.

Hyuk hyuk...the CNN irony is difficult to overlook, alright! That said, good
on Mr. Otto for having the courage of his convictions, and, for not - so far
as I'm aware - going entirely down the vaporware rabbit hole. He at least has
a state-of-various-arts-pushing flying airplane....a complex one, too!

In laminar technology advancement terms, I'm reminded of the P-51
("non-laminar" laminar airfoil profile - insufficiently developed
materials/manufacturing issues) and the Piaggio P.180 Avanti (metal [mostly],
twin pusher props, produced and sold, lotsa info available online). Both
arguably-kinda-sorta *did* advance the state of the aerodynamic art and were
successes in vastly differing ways.

The latter arguably achieved many/most of its aerodynamic design goals, while
remaining unknown to the bulk of the turboprop light twin world so far as I
can tell. Unlike Mr. Otto's approach, it utilizes well-proven, "jet-thirsty"
PT-6 engines. And yes, it has a distinctive - unmistakable - overhead
engine/prop aural signature. Fuel economy? Armchair warriors arise!

With luck, maybe we'll get to see how Mr. Otto's project fares in its targeted
flying niche.

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 08:37:47 -0600, BobW wrote:

> With luck, maybe we'll get to see how Mr. Otto's project fares in its
> targeted flying niche.
>
Its obvious that as you make small commuter aircraft more efficient and
drive down the operating cost per hour and their small size may reduce
landing fees, but their small passenger capacity ramps up the cost of
flight crew as a fraction of ticket price in comparison with conventioinal
short-haul airliners, i.e. A320s etc.

So, I wonder how these two factors affect seat prices and hence airline
operating costs. Did Eclipse Aviation's Eclipse 500 ever get off the
ground?


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Martin Gregorie wrote on 8/29/2020 10:07 AM:
> So, I wonder how these two factors affect seat prices and hence airline
> operating costs. Did Eclipse Aviation's Eclipse 500 ever get off the
> ground?
Easy to find out: 260 delivered.

--
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

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 11:00:00 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Martin Gregorie wrote on 8/29/2020 10:07 AM:
>> So, I wonder how these two factors affect seat prices and hence airline
>> operating costs. Did Eclipse Aviation's Eclipse 500 ever get off the
>> ground?
> Easy to find out: 260 delivered.

I visited what I thought was their website: http://oneaviation.aero/
but the most recent item on it is about brake tests in 2012. No delivery
details there.

Additionally, it turns out that first Eclipse Aviation and then One
Aviation have become bankrupt.

But my original point remains unanswered: for short-range commuter or
taxi service operations, at what size of aircraft does the proportion of
the ticket price due aircrew cost excssed savings due to improved
airframe efficiency and reduced landing costs?


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Martin Gregorie wrote on 8/29/2020 11:32 AM:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 11:00:00 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> Martin Gregorie wrote on 8/29/2020 10:07 AM:
>>> So, I wonder how these two factors affect seat prices and hence airline
>>> operating costs. Did Eclipse Aviation's Eclipse 500 ever get off the
>>> ground?
>> Easy to find out: 260 delivered.
>
> I visited what I thought was their website: http://oneaviation.aero/
> but the most recent item on it is about brake tests in 2012. No delivery
> details there.
>
> Additionally, it turns out that first Eclipse Aviation and then One
> Aviation have become bankrupt.
>
> But my original point remains unanswered: for short-range commuter or
> taxi service operations, at what size of aircraft does the proportion of
> the ticket price due aircrew cost excssed savings due to improved
> airframe efficiency and reduced landing costs?
>
>
Maybe the Celera people have that kind of info on their website.

--
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

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:49:36 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Martin Gregorie wrote on 8/29/2020 11:32 AM:
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 11:00:00 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>>> Martin Gregorie wrote on 8/29/2020 10:07 AM:
>>>> So, I wonder how these two factors affect seat prices and hence
>>>> airline operating costs. Did Eclipse Aviation's Eclipse 500 ever get
>>>> off the ground?
>>> Easy to find out: 260 delivered.
>>
>> I visited what I thought was their website: http://oneaviation.aero/
>> but the most recent item on it is about brake tests in 2012. No
>> delivery details there.
>>
>> Additionally, it turns out that first Eclipse Aviation and then One
>> Aviation have become bankrupt.
>>
>> But my original point remains unanswered: for short-range commuter or
>> taxi service operations, at what size of aircraft does the proportion
>> of the ticket price due aircrew cost excssed savings due to improved
>> airframe efficiency and reduced landing costs?
>>
>>
> Maybe the Celera people have that kind of info on their website.

They don't, but its an interesting site anyway.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[John McLaughlin]

Having disturbed the plumbing, I have a pitot leak! Being a turbo, the
glider has a pneumatic switch to select between nose and tail pitot
tubes. With nose selected, there's a leak. With tail selected, things are
much worse and I can't measure any pressure at all from the tail pitot
tube.

So should I suspect the switch or the connections to the switch? And is
it possible for the switch to have an internal fault which could cause
these symptoms?

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

On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 11:00:06 AM UTC-4, John McLaughlin wrote:
> Having disturbed the plumbing, I have a pitot leak! Being a turbo, the
> glider has a pneumatic switch to select between nose and tail pitot
> tubes. With nose selected, there's a leak. With tail selected, things are
> much worse and I can't measure any pressure at all from the tail pitot
> tube.
>
> So should I suspect the switch or the connections to the switch? And is
> it possible for the switch to have an internal fault which could cause
> these symptoms?

Yes, pneumatic switch can fail....first check is tubing (sometimes nipping 1/4" from tubes and reattach), maybe a switch clean/lube can fix the issue. Tube nipping is what I did in '70's/'80's US cars with emissions. Just a bit to get a better seal. My method is sorta cheap/easy....check again. Some sort of pressure/vacuum device gauge is more accurate. Yes, make sure it holds a value.....I remember a spring flight where "blowing on the probe" showed needle movement....long term showed the mouse holes in cockpit tubing.....good for me, I could fly wind noise, pitch attitude, "seat of the pants".. I did a couple hours local with no real instruments..

[Dan Marotta]

I've used a spare altimeter and a syringe to demonstrate sealed
pneumatic hoses.Â* You could also make a simple manometer.

On 9/2/2020 9:26 AM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 11:00:06 AM UTC-4, John McLaughlin wrote:
>> Having disturbed the plumbing, I have a pitot leak! Being a turbo, the
>> glider has a pneumatic switch to select between nose and tail pitot
>> tubes. With nose selected, there's a leak. With tail selected, things are
>> much worse and I can't measure any pressure at all from the tail pitot
>> tube.
>>
>> So should I suspect the switch or the connections to the switch? And is
>> it possible for the switch to have an internal fault which could cause
>> these symptoms?
> Yes, pneumatic switch can fail....first check is tubing (sometimes nipping 1/4" from tubes and reattach), maybe a switch clean/lube can fix the issue. Tube nipping is what I did in '70's/'80's US cars with emissions. Just a bit to get a better seal. My method is sorta cheap/easy....check again. Some sort of pressure/vacuum device gauge is more accurate. Yes, make sure it holds a value.....I remember a spring flight where "blowing on the probe" showed needle movement....long term showed the mouse holes in cockpit tubing....good for me, I could fly wind noise, pitch attitude, "seat of the pants". I did a couple hours local with no real instruments..

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

A Cristal tube water column is almost a fundamental measuring instrument.
Make the positive or negative pressure with a syringe on a tee and check the altitude difference in time.
You can also check your ASI on some speed range with this is if you have the conversion table.

[[email protected]]

If your pneumatic plumbing has leaks, I recommend this document from Mike Borgelt. It describes a thorough method of diagnosing and correcting problems with pitot, static and TE systems.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/iqklz472pwcb8wh/Leaks.pdf?dl=0

Does not work with urinary leakage.

[John DeRosa OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net]

The Mike Borgelt airline repair document that Mark mentions is good.

Another good one is by Lee Kuhlke (with pictures) in the July 2005 issue of Soaring magazine. If you can't find that issue a link to a copy of the article is in my presentation on the whole airline topic at http://aviation.derosaweb.net/presentations/#airlines.

Best of luck!

John

[Kilo 58]

Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been modified
for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find the
article to follow-up on what modifications were done and what
height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about this,
I would be grateful for a few hints.

[Kilo 58]

Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been modified
for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find the
article to follow-up on what modifications were done and what
height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about this,
I would be grateful for a few hints.

[Kilo 58]

Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been modified
for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find the
article to follow-up on what modifications were done and what
height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about this,
I would be grateful for a few hints.

[Kilo 58]

Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been modified
for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find the
article to follow-up on what modifications were done and what
height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about this,
I would be grateful for a few hints.

[Kilo 58]

Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been modified
for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find the
article to follow-up on what modifications were done and what
height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about this,
I would be grateful for a few hints.

[[email protected]]

> I would be grateful for a few hints.

Sawzall. Tourniquet. Cauterization.

Note: Start at the lower end.

[Michael Opitz]

At 19:21 08 September 2020, Kilo 58 wrote:
>Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been modified
>for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find the

>article to follow-up on what modifications were done and what
>height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about this,
>I would be grateful for a few hints
>
>
>
We had a Ka.6E when I was young. To fit my 6'2" frame into it, we
made a new instrument panel with high leg cut-outs and extended
the center part down to the floor to make it a pedestal (to
accommodate the now displaced instruments). Then, the seat back
was removed and we found a parachute rigger who packed our chute
in a triangular wedge shape that sat on top of the wheel well. With
those modifications, I barely fit. I don't know if if one can squeeze
enough more from that to fit someone who is 6'5" though.

RO

[Eric Munk]

Schleicher has TN16 which details mods for taller pilots. The Dutch
mod was extensive rebuild of the front fuselage, basically 10 cm
longer nose from main bulkhead forward. Done through local
approval by GWL.


At 01:42 09 September 2020, Michael Opitz wrote:
>At 19:21 08 September 2020, Kilo 58 wrote:
>>Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been
modified
>>for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find
th
>
>>article to follow-up on what modifications were done and what
>>height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about
this,
>>I would be grateful for a few hints
>>
>>
>>
>We had a Ka.6E when I was young. To fit my 6'2" frame into it,
we
>made a new instrument panel with high leg cut-outs and
extended
>the center part down to the floor to make it a pedestal (to
>accommodate the now displaced instruments). Then, the seat
back
>was removed and we found a parachute rigger who packed our
chute
>in a triangular wedge shape that sat on top of the wheel well.
With
>those modifications, I barely fit. I don't know if if one can
squeeze
>enough more from that to fit someone who is 6'5" though.
>
>RO
>
>

[Kilo 58[_2_]]

I am not quite that desperate.

At 01:16 09 September 2020, wrote:
>> I would be grateful for a few hints.
>
>Sawzall. Tourniquet. Cauterization.
>
>Note: Start at the lower end.
>
>

[Kilo 58[_2_]]

Yes, there is little to be done other than structural work. I last
flew a Ka6e in 1970. I loved it. There is a mod that extends the
nose and remounts the rudder pedals. I am seeking details. I’m
not sure it is practical, but time will tell! I am hopeful that as one
Ka6e has been modified, there might be a case for “grandfather
rights� for the modification.
At 01:42 09 September 2020, Michael Opitz wrote:
>At 19:21 08 September 2020, Kilo 58 wrote:
>>Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been
modified
>>for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find
th
>
>>article to follow-up on what modifications were done and what
>>height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about
this,
>>I would be grateful for a few hints
>>
>>
>>
>We had a Ka.6E when I was young. To fit my 6'2" frame into it,
we
>made a new instrument panel with high leg cut-outs and
extended
>the center part down to the floor to make it a pedestal (to
>accommodate the now displaced instruments). Then, the seat
back
>was removed and we found a parachute rigger who packed our
chute
>in a triangular wedge shape that sat on top of the wheel well.
With
>those modifications, I barely fit. I don't know if if one can
squeeze
>enough more from that to fit someone who is 6'5" though.
>
>RO
>
>

[Kilo 58[_2_]]

Yes, there is little to be done other than structural work. I last
flew a Ka6e in 1970. I loved it. There is a mod that extends the
nose and remounts the rudder pedals. I am seeking details. I’m
not sure it is practical, but time will tell! I am hopeful that as one
Ka6e has been modified, there might be a case for “grandfather
rights� for the modification.
At 01:42 09 September 2020, Michael Opitz wrote:
>At 19:21 08 September 2020, Kilo 58 wrote:
>>Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been
modified
>>for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find
th
>
>>article to follow-up on what modifications were done and what
>>height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about
this,
>>I would be grateful for a few hints
>>
>>
>>
>We had a Ka.6E when I was young. To fit my 6'2" frame into it,
we
>made a new instrument panel with high leg cut-outs and
extended
>the center part down to the floor to make it a pedestal (to
>accommodate the now displaced instruments). Then, the seat
back
>was removed and we found a parachute rigger who packed our
chute
>in a triangular wedge shape that sat on top of the wheel well.
With
>those modifications, I barely fit. I don't know if if one can
squeeze
>enough more from that to fit someone who is 6'5" though.
>
>RO
>
>

[Kilo 58[_2_]]

Ah-ha. Now we are getting there. I will be in touch Eric.
At 12:32 09 September 2020, Eric Munk wrote:
>Schleicher has TN16 which details mods for taller pilots. The
Dutch
>mod was extensive rebuild of the front fuselage, basically 10 cm
>longer nose from main bulkhead forward. Done through local
>approval by GWL.
>
>
>At 01:42 09 September 2020, Michael Opitz wrote:
>>At 19:21 08 September 2020, Kilo 58 wrote:
>>>Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been
>modified
>>>for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find
>th
>>
>>>article to follow-up on what modifications were done and
what
>>>height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about
>this,
>>>I would be grateful for a few hints
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>We had a Ka.6E when I was young. To fit my 6'2" frame into
it,
>we
>>made a new instrument panel with high leg cut-outs and
>extended
>>the center part down to the floor to make it a pedestal (to
>>accommodate the now displaced instruments). Then, the seat
>back
>>was removed and we found a parachute rigger who packed our
>chute
>>in a triangular wedge shape that sat on top of the wheel well.
>With
>>those modifications, I barely fit. I don't know if if one can
>squeeze
>>enough more from that to fit someone who is 6'5" though.
>>
>>RO
>>
>>
>
>

[Kilo 58[_2_]]

Ah-ha. Now we are getting there. I will be in touch Eric.
At 12:32 09 September 2020, Eric Munk wrote:
>Schleicher has TN16 which details mods for taller pilots. The
Dutch
>mod was extensive rebuild of the front fuselage, basically 10 cm
>longer nose from main bulkhead forward. Done through local
>approval by GWL.
>
>
>At 01:42 09 September 2020, Michael Opitz wrote:
>>At 19:21 08 September 2020, Kilo 58 wrote:
>>>Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been
>modified
>>>for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find
>th
>>
>>>article to follow-up on what modifications were done and
what
>>>height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about
>this,
>>>I would be grateful for a few hints
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>We had a Ka.6E when I was young. To fit my 6'2" frame into
it,
>we
>>made a new instrument panel with high leg cut-outs and
>extended
>>the center part down to the floor to make it a pedestal (to
>>accommodate the now displaced instruments). Then, the seat
>back
>>was removed and we found a parachute rigger who packed our
>chute
>>in a triangular wedge shape that sat on top of the wheel well.
>With
>>those modifications, I barely fit. I don't know if if one can
>squeeze
>>enough more from that to fit someone who is 6'5" though.
>>
>>RO
>>
>>
>
>

[Kilo 58[_2_]]

Ah-ha. Now we are getting there. I will be in touch Eric.
At 12:32 09 September 2020, Eric Munk wrote:
>Schleicher has TN16 which details mods for taller pilots. The
Dutch
>mod was extensive rebuild of the front fuselage, basically 10 cm
>longer nose from main bulkhead forward. Done through local
>approval by GWL.
>
>
>At 01:42 09 September 2020, Michael Opitz wrote:
>>At 19:21 08 September 2020, Kilo 58 wrote:
>>>Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been
>modified
>>>for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find
>th
>>
>>>article to follow-up on what modifications were done and
what
>>>height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about
>this,
>>>I would be grateful for a few hints
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>We had a Ka.6E when I was young. To fit my 6'2" frame into
it,
>we
>>made a new instrument panel with high leg cut-outs and
>extended
>>the center part down to the floor to make it a pedestal (to
>>accommodate the now displaced instruments). Then, the seat
>back
>>was removed and we found a parachute rigger who packed our
>chute
>>in a triangular wedge shape that sat on top of the wheel well.
>With
>>those modifications, I barely fit. I don't know if if one can
>squeeze
>>enough more from that to fit someone who is 6'5" though.
>>
>>RO
>>
>>
>
>

[Kilo 58[_2_]]

Ah-ha. Now we are getting there. I will be in touch Eric.
At 12:32 09 September 2020, Eric Munk wrote:
>Schleicher has TN16 which details mods for taller pilots. The
Dutch
>mod was extensive rebuild of the front fuselage, basically 10 cm
>longer nose from main bulkhead forward. Done through local
>approval by GWL.
>
>
>At 01:42 09 September 2020, Michael Opitz wrote:
>>At 19:21 08 September 2020, Kilo 58 wrote:
>>>Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been
>modified
>>>for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find
>th
>>
>>>article to follow-up on what modifications were done and
what
>>>height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about
>this,
>>>I would be grateful for a few hints
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>We had a Ka.6E when I was young. To fit my 6'2" frame into
it,
>we
>>made a new instrument panel with high leg cut-outs and
>extended
>>the center part down to the floor to make it a pedestal (to
>>accommodate the now displaced instruments). Then, the seat
>back
>>was removed and we found a parachute rigger who packed our
>chute
>>in a triangular wedge shape that sat on top of the wheel well.
>With
>>those modifications, I barely fit. I don't know if if one can
>squeeze
>>enough more from that to fit someone who is 6'5" though.
>>
>>RO
>>
>>
>
>

[Kilo 58[_2_]]

Ah-ha. Now we are getting there. I will be in touch Eric.
At 12:32 09 September 2020, Eric Munk wrote:
>Schleicher has TN16 which details mods for taller pilots. The
Dutch
>mod was extensive rebuild of the front fuselage, basically 10 cm
>longer nose from main bulkhead forward. Done through local
>approval by GWL.
>
>
>At 01:42 09 September 2020, Michael Opitz wrote:
>>At 19:21 08 September 2020, Kilo 58 wrote:
>>>Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been
>modified
>>>for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find
>th
>>
>>>article to follow-up on what modifications were done and
what
>>>height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about
>this,
>>>I would be grateful for a few hints
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>We had a Ka.6E when I was young. To fit my 6'2" frame into
it,
>we
>>made a new instrument panel with high leg cut-outs and
>extended
>>the center part down to the floor to make it a pedestal (to
>>accommodate the now displaced instruments). Then, the seat
>back
>>was removed and we found a parachute rigger who packed our
>chute
>>in a triangular wedge shape that sat on top of the wheel well.
>With
>>those modifications, I barely fit. I don't know if if one can
>squeeze
>>enough more from that to fit someone who is 6'5" though.
>>
>>RO
>>
>>
>
>

[Kilo 58[_2_]]

Ah-ha. Now we are getting there. I will be in touch Eric.
At 12:32 09 September 2020, Eric Munk wrote:
>Schleicher has TN16 which details mods for taller pilots. The
Dutch
>mod was extensive rebuild of the front fuselage, basically 10 cm
>longer nose from main bulkhead forward. Done through local
>approval by GWL.
>
>
>At 01:42 09 September 2020, Michael Opitz wrote:
>>At 19:21 08 September 2020, Kilo 58 wrote:
>>>Some time ago, I read about a Dutch Ka6e that had been
>modified
>>>for tall pilots. I am 6 foot 5 inches (197 cm) tall. I can’t find
>th
>>
>>>article to follow-up on what modifications were done and
what
>>>height Pilot could be accommodated. If anyone knows about
>this,
>>>I would be grateful for a few hints
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>We had a Ka.6E when I was young. To fit my 6'2" frame into
it,
>we
>>made a new instrument panel with high leg cut-outs and
>extended
>>the center part down to the floor to make it a pedestal (to
>>accommodate the now displaced instruments). Then, the seat
>back
>>was removed and we found a parachute rigger who packed our
>chute
>>in a triangular wedge shape that sat on top of the wheel well.
>With
>>those modifications, I barely fit. I don't know if if one can
>squeeze
>>enough more from that to fit someone who is 6'5" though.
>>
>>RO
>>
>>
>
>

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

Can anyone point me in the direction of getting figures for tug upsets
worldwide.
I am particularly interested in the figures for Australia comparing them
with the rest of the world.
Ideally I would like figures for the total aerotows completed by country
as well as the tug upset figures to be able to make a statistical
comparison.

[Jon Hill]

rasp forecast almost nil convection, 15-20knts ENE at Kenley we had
streets giving straight line lift of 4-6 m/s almost all day, cruising east

to Biggin Hills's ATZ to watch the biz jets fly there landing circuit then

back down wind to M25 J7 at 80 and 90 knts in a Grob 103!!! Why did
rasdp have it so wrong???

[Paul T[_4_]]

https://youtu.be/vcPCLPyXOYE

[Pat Russell[_2_]]

Why are they flying LY registered aircraft in Slovenia?

[krasw]

On Friday, 25 September 2020 at 16:46:13 UTC+3, Pat Russell wrote:
> Why are they flying LY registered aircraft in Slovenia?

Did you read the video description?

[kinsell]

On 9/25/20 2:01 AM, Paul T wrote:
> https://youtu.be/vcPCLPyXOYE
>

Notice how much the tail is bouncing even on a golf course quality grass
runway? One good bounce and goodbye prop and motor.

[Adrian Morgan]

I have an LX 5000, which I want to interface with a Red Box Flarm.

The LX has four ports (five including the vario display connection)
labelled:

1. Power (wired to battery main switch)
2. Hold (wired to flip switch. No idea what it does!)
3. DataComm (a previous owner had "hot wired" two of its leads into a
Garmin LX12 cable. No Garmin now fitted)
4. Meter ( RJ 12 6 pin phone type port. Not connected.)

The LX presumably has a built in GPS, but needs an aerial.

The LX is not finding a GPS fix, as there is no aerial. I assume the
Garmin
had been used to give the LX data via the DataComm hot wires.

Now, with no Garmin, I assume the Flarm GPS aerial could do the job.

Question, how to wire it all up. Must be simple for anyone other than an
electronic imbecile like myself.

[kinsell]

Why are so many topics getting threaded under "Another E glider
concept"? Happens both on my newsreader, as well as when just viewing
R.A.S. on Google.




On 10/9/20 8:44 AM, Adrian Morgan wrote:
> I have an LX 5000, which I want to interface with a Red Box Flarm.
>
> The LX has four ports (five including the vario display connection)
> labelled:
>
> 1. Power (wired to battery main switch)
> 2. Hold (wired to flip switch. No idea what it does!)
> 3. DataComm (a previous owner had "hot wired" two of its leads into a
> Garmin LX12 cable. No Garmin now fitted)
> 4. Meter ( RJ 12 6 pin phone type port. Not connected.)
>
> The LX presumably has a built in GPS, but needs an aerial.
>
> The LX is not finding a GPS fix, as there is no aerial. I assume the
> Garmin
> had been used to give the LX data via the DataComm hot wires.
>
> Now, with no Garmin, I assume the Flarm GPS aerial could do the job.
>
> Question, how to wire it all up. Must be simple for anyone other than an
> electronic imbecile like myself.
>

[B BRIONES]

On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 7:55:04 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> Why are so many topics getting threaded under "Another E glider
> concept"? Happens both on my newsreader, as well as when just viewing
> R.A.S. on Google.
> On 10/9/20 8:44 AM, Adrian Morgan wrote:
> > I have an LX 5000, which I want to interface with a Red Box Flarm.
> >
> > The LX has four ports (five including the vario display connection)
> > labelled:
> >
> > 1. Power (wired to battery main switch)
> > 2. Hold (wired to flip switch. No idea what it does!)
> > 3. DataComm (a previous owner had "hot wired" two of its leads into a
> > Garmin LX12 cable. No Garmin now fitted)
> > 4. Meter ( RJ 12 6 pin phone type port. Not connected.)
> >
> > The LX presumably has a built in GPS, but needs an aerial.
> >
> > The LX is not finding a GPS fix, as there is no aerial. I assume the
> > Garmin
> > had been used to give the LX data via the DataComm hot wires.
> >
> > Now, with no Garmin, I assume the Flarm GPS aerial could do the job.
> >
> > Question, how to wire it all up. Must be simple for anyone other than an
> > electronic imbecile like myself.
> >


here's another :) Not an e-glider but a fossil burning, screaming jet engine, glider looking but short winged--

https://www.desertaerospace.com/extreme-light-jet--xlj-

[[email protected]]

> here's another :) Not an e-glider but a fossil burning, screaming jet engine, glider looking but short winged--
>
> https://www.desertaerospace.com/extreme-light-jet--xlj-

That was an early concept for a personal jet airplane modelled on a glider type fuselage with a wing designed for the flight characteristics envisioned. It was to use a PBS TJ-100 engine like the one Bob was using on his airshow Salto glider (www.vertigoairshows.com) and the two-seat retractable engine TsT-14 BonusJet glider (as well as the four jet powered Arcuses built by Desert Aerospace.)

The design was superseded by the jet powered SubSonex from Sonex Aircraft. About a dozen or more are flying today, with probably 20 more kits in progress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonex_Aircraft_SubSonex

The XLJ (Extreme Light Jet) concept may be revisited in the future by Desert Aerospace if time permits.

[B BRIONES]

On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > here's another :) Not an e-glider but a fossil burning, screaming jet engine, glider looking but short winged--
> >
> > https://www.desertaerospace.com/extreme-light-jet--xlj-
> That was an early concept for a personal jet airplane modelled on a glider type fuselage with a wing designed for the flight characteristics envisioned. It was to use a PBS TJ-100 engine like the one Bob was using on his airshow Salto glider (www.vertigoairshows.com) and the two-seat retractable engine TsT-14 BonusJet glider (as well as the four jet powered Arcuses built by Desert Aerospace.)
>
> The design was superseded by the jet powered SubSonex from Sonex Aircraft.. About a dozen or more are flying today, with probably 20 more kits in progress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonex_Aircraft_SubSonex
>
> The XLJ (Extreme Light Jet) concept may be revisited in the future by Desert Aerospace if time permits.

The XLJ (Extreme Light Jet) really looks good though--

[2G]

On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 10:40:20 AM UTC-7, B BRIONES wrote:
> On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 7:55:04 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> > Why are so many topics getting threaded under "Another E glider
> > concept"? Happens both on my newsreader, as well as when just viewing
> > R.A.S. on Google.
> > On 10/9/20 8:44 AM, Adrian Morgan wrote:
> > > I have an LX 5000, which I want to interface with a Red Box Flarm.
> > >
> > > The LX has four ports (five including the vario display connection)
> > > labelled:
> > >
> > > 1. Power (wired to battery main switch)
> > > 2. Hold (wired to flip switch. No idea what it does!)
> > > 3. DataComm (a previous owner had "hot wired" two of its leads into a
> > > Garmin LX12 cable. No Garmin now fitted)
> > > 4. Meter ( RJ 12 6 pin phone type port. Not connected.)
> > >
> > > The LX presumably has a built in GPS, but needs an aerial.
> > >
> > > The LX is not finding a GPS fix, as there is no aerial. I assume the
> > > Garmin
> > > had been used to give the LX data via the DataComm hot wires.
> > >
> > > Now, with no Garmin, I assume the Flarm GPS aerial could do the job.
> > >
> > > Question, how to wire it all up. Must be simple for anyone other than an
> > > electronic imbecile like myself.
> > >
>
>
> here's another :) Not an e-glider but a fossil burning, screaming jet engine, glider looking but short winged--
>
> https://www.desertaerospace.com/extreme-light-jet--xlj-

That doesn't even rise to the level of a concept - more like wishful thinking.

Tom

[Tim Newport-Peace[_6_]]

At 03:00 10 October 2020, 2G wrote:
>On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 10:40:20 AM UTC-7, B BRIONES wrote:
>> On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 7:55:04 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>> > Why are so many topics getting threaded under "Another E glider
>> > concept"? Happens both on my newsreader, as well as when just viewing

>> > R.A.S. on Google.
>> > On 10/9/20 8:44 AM, Adrian Morgan wrote:
>> > > I have an LX 5000, which I want to interface with a Red Box Flarm.
>> > >
>> > > The LX has four ports (five including the vario display connection)

>> > > labelled:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Power (wired to battery main switch)
>> > > 2. Hold (wired to flip switch. No idea what it does!)
>> > > 3. DataComm (a previous owner had "hot wired" two of its leads into
a
>
>> > > Garmin LX12 cable. No Garmin now fitted)
>> > > 4. Meter ( RJ 12 6 pin phone type port. Not connected.)
>> > >
>> > > The LX presumably has a built in GPS, but needs an aerial.
>> > >
>> > > The LX is not finding a GPS fix, as there is no aerial. I assume the

>> > > Garmin
>> > > had been used to give the LX data via the DataComm hot wires.
>> > >
>> > > Now, with no Garmin, I assume the Flarm GPS aerial could do the job.

>> > >
>> > > Question, how to wire it all up. Must be simple for anyone other
than
>an
>> > > electronic imbecile like myself.
>> > >
>>
>>
>> here's another :) Not an e-glider but a fossil burning, screaming jet
>engine, glider looking but short winged--
>>
>> https://www.desertaerospace.com/extreme-light-jet--xlj-
>
>That doesn't even rise to the level of a concept - more like wishful
>thinking.
>
>Tom
>
Which does nothing to answer the original poster's question. Shame on you!

Quite simply, LX5000 and Flarm cannot exchange Spatial Data.

Both the LX5000 and Flarm are IGC Flight Recorders and as such can only
receiver Spatial Data via the antenna.

The dataports can transfer Task Declarations (prior to Take-Off).
They may also output NMEA data, but not receive it.
The LX5000 can control a suitable Radio via a Radio Bridge.
Waypoint and similar files can be received via the dataport.
IGC files can be downloaded.
Dataports have their uses, but receiving Spatial Data is not one of them.

What the poster wants to do is not possible.

Tim.

[Graham Stanford[_2_]]

Just bought an ASK 14 motorglider and reading the flight manual
etc. The fuel required is noted as octane 80 normal gasoline mixed
with two stroke oil at a ratio of 20/1.

The chap that owned it before me ran it on normal unleaded with
shell vsx at a ration of 30/1.

I’m sure this is ok but I wanted to see what anyone else currently
uses?

Thanks

G

[BG[_4_]]

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 1:00:07 PM UTC-7, Graham Stanford wrote:
> Just bought an ASK 14 motorglider and reading the flight manual
> etc. The fuel required is noted as octane 80 normal gasoline mixed
> with two stroke oil at a ratio of 20/1.
>
> The chap that owned it before me ran it on normal unleaded with
> shell vsx at a ration of 30/1.
>
> I’m sure this is ok but I wanted to see what anyone else currently
> uses?
>
> Thanks
>
> G
The oil to gas ratio is function of oil type and not fundamental to a 2 stroke engine design. The 20:1 ratio sounds like conventional oil and not synthetic. Most pure synthetics are 50:1. A down side to conventional oil is they burn very dirty with lots carbon buildup in the cylinder, ports and are very prone to fouling the plug Synthetics burn much cleaner though not perfect.
Buzz

[Graham Stanford[_2_]]

At 17:01 19 October 2020, BG wrote:
>On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 1:00:07 PM UTC-7, Graham
Stanford wrote:
>> Just bought an ASK 14 motorglider and reading the flight
manual=20
>> etc. The fuel required is noted as octane 80 normal gasoline
mixed=20
>> with two stroke oil at a ratio of 20/1.=20
>>=20
>> The chap that owned it before me ran it on normal unleaded
with=20
>> shell vsx at a ration of 30/1.=20
>>=20
>> I=E2=80=99m sure this is ok but I wanted to see what
anyone else
>currentl=
>y=20
>> uses?=20
>>=20
>> Thanks=20
>>=20
>> G
>The oil to gas ratio is function of oil type and not fundamental to
a 2
>str=
>oke engine design. The 20:1 ratio sounds like conventional oil
and not
>syn=
>thetic. Most pure synthetics are 50:1. A down side to
conventional oil
>is=
> they burn very dirty with lots carbon buildup in the cylinder,
ports and
>=
>are very prone to fouling the plug Synthetics burn much
cleaner though
>no=
>t perfect.
>Buzz
>

Thanks Buzz

G

[Michael Opitz]

Just got an email about my W&W ad for a PowerFlarm Portable
from a "Frank Taylor" in the MN area (area code 507). The grammar
is just a little off, he asks what my asking price is even though it is
right in the ad, and he wants to pay with a Bank of America certified
check. Has anyone else out there been contacted by this guy? I
checked the SSA member directory, and there are no matches for
a Frank Taylor. I smell a scam.

RO

[Michael Opitz]

At 16:01 26 October 2020, Michael Opitz wrote:
>Just got an email about my W&W ad for a PowerFlarm Portable
>from a "Frank Taylor" in the MN area (area code 507). The grammar
>is just a little off, he asks what my asking price is even though it is
>right in the ad, and he wants to pay with a Bank of America certified
>check. Has anyone else out there been contacted by this guy? I
>checked the SSA member directory, and there are no matches for
>a Frank Taylor. I smell a scam.
>
>RO
>
>

W&W just answered. Scammer. P3 got the identical email in
response to his ad as well.

RO

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 26 October 2020 10:15:06 UTC-6, Michael Opitz wrote:
> Just got an email about my W&W ad for a PowerFlarm Portable
> from a "Frank Taylor" in the MN area (area code 507). The grammar
> is just a little off, he asks what my asking price is even though it is
> right in the ad, and he wants to pay with a Bank of America certified
> check. Has anyone else out there been contacted by this guy? I
> checked the SSA member directory, and there are no matches for
> a Frank Taylor. I smell a scam.
>
> RO

I got the same email, wording was obvious it was a scammer!

[Jonathon May]

There is a new you tube video of a NZ glider entering cloud, you
should all watch it.Sorry posting the link defeated me but some
one will.I suggest you pour a stiff drink before watching.It is only
3mins.

[Jonathon May]

At 19:28 20 November 2020, Jonathon May wrote:
>There is a new you tube video of a NZ glider entering cloud, you
>should all watch it.Sorry posting the link defeated me but some
>one will.I suggest you pour a stiff drink before watching.It is
only
>3mins
>
>
youtube.comGlider IMC, Manawatu New Zealand.webloc

[Doug Bailey]

On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 11:45:08 AM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
> At 19:28 20 November 2020, Jonathon May wrote:
> >There is a new you tube video of a NZ glider entering cloud, you
> >should all watch it.Sorry posting the link defeated me but some
> >one will.I suggest you pour a stiff drink before watching.It is
> only
> >3mins
> >
> >
> youtube.comGlider IMC, Manawatu New Zealand.webloc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8djWfNmJlKo

[AS]

On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 5:08:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 11:45:08 AM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
> > At 19:28 20 November 2020, Jonathon May wrote:
> > >There is a new you tube video of a NZ glider entering cloud, you
> > >should all watch it.Sorry posting the link defeated me but some
> > >one will.I suggest you pour a stiff drink before watching.It is
> > only
> > >3mins
> > >
> > >
> > youtube.comGlider IMC, Manawatu New Zealand.webloc
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8djWfNmJlKo

Thanks for sharing that link. Chilling!

Uli
'AS'

[John Sinclair[_5_]]

On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 7:09:04 PM UTC-8, AS wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 5:08:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 11:45:08 AM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
> > > At 19:28 20 November 2020, Jonathon May wrote:
> > > >There is a new you tube video of a NZ glider entering cloud, you
> > > >should all watch it.Sorry posting the link defeated me but some
> > > >one will.I suggest you pour a stiff drink before watching.It is
> > > only
> > > >3mins
> > > >
> > > >
> > > youtube.comGlider IMC, Manawatu New Zealand.webloc
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8djWfNmJlKo
> Thanks for sharing that link. Chilling!
>
> Uli


Wow, that was really something!
This months Soaring mag has an article on cloud flying. The author is quite current and knowledgeable on the subject, but I worry about a couple of idiots that thought they’d like to log just a bit of IMC time, like this video?
What do the rest of you think about the article published in Soaring mag?
JJ

[RickH]

;1035562']On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 7:09:04 PM UTC-8, AS wrote:
On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 5:08:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 11:45:08 AM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
At 19:28 20 November 2020, Jonathon May wrote:
There is a new you tube video of a NZ glider entering cloud, you
should all watch it.Sorry posting the link defeated me but some
one will.I suggest you pour a stiff drink before watching.It is
only
3mins


youtube.comGlider IMC, Manawatu New Zealand.webloc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8djWfNmJlKo
Thanks for sharing that link. Chilling!

Uli


Wow, that was really something!
This months Soaring mag has an article on cloud flying. The author is quite current and knowledgeable on the subject, but I worry about a couple of idiots that thought they’d like to log just a bit of IMC time, like this video?
What do the rest of you think about the article published in Soaring mag?
JJ

If your ship is equipped, you are rated, and current, why not? The fun part would be filing, or picking a clearance up in the air, and listening to the surprise on the part of the specialist as well as the fumbling when you ask for the block altitude! Cross country and being handed off to the next sector would probably raise some eyebrows too! I thought this glider instructor's review of the video was pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH7UXgT4Txs