Best Overall Motorglider available today? [Archive]

September 16th 20, 03:04 AM

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 3:47:32 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 1:48:13 PM UTC-4, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
> > This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
> >
> > When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
> > Say for Western Great Basin flying.
> >
> > I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
> > CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well.
> >
> > FACTORS
> >
> > Reliability
> > Maintenance required to keep it running
> > XC flyability, performance and control feel
> > Storability
> > Rigging
> > Initial cost
> > High density climb performance
> > Range
> > Cockpit layout and seating
> > Parts availability
> > Insurance cost
> > Landing gear complexity
> > Overall quality
> > Nick
> > T
> Value and performance for the price- DG-400
> UH

As a former owner of a DG400 I can assertively say that it flunks miserably on:
1. Parts availability (no parts available for the engine)
2. Landing gear complexity (had the gear do an uncommanded retraction)
3. High-density climb performance

kinsell

September 16th 20, 03:05 AM

On 9/15/20 7:24 PM, Nick Kennedy wrote:

> The DG 400 is too but I've read engine parts are hard to come by these days, but they do trade hands for 60-65K.

Parts are hard to come by, and they shake themselves off the engine as
it's mounted up on the mast. We're well beyond that now.

September 16th 20, 03:50 AM

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 4:59:35 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Stemme.Â* Except for acquisition cost...
>
> On 9/15/2020 12:34 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 2:28:37 PM UTC-4, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> >> Something thats available used this year maybe
> >> Not pie in the sky vaporware
> > Perhaps 2G's 26?
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

What about the 'poor man's version' of the Stemme, the Pipistrel Taurus? I am not sure what the deal is reg. the Rotax 503, which according to the Rotax website is no longer in production but they are advertising an E-version.. Side-by-sides rock! ;-)

Uli
'AS'

September 16th 20, 03:56 AM

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 7:50:57 PM UTC-7, AS wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 4:59:35 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Stemme.Â* Except for acquisition cost...
> >
> > On 9/15/2020 12:34 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 2:28:37 PM UTC-4, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > >> Something thats available used this year maybe
> > >> Not pie in the sky vaporware
> > > Perhaps 2G's 26?
> >
> > --
> > Dan, 5J
>
> What about the 'poor man's version' of the Stemme, the Pipistrel Taurus? I am not sure what the deal is reg. the Rotax 503, which according to the Rotax website is no longer in production but they are advertising an E-version. Side-by-sides rock! ;-)
>
> Uli
> 'AS'

Pipistrel made a life-time buy of engines, and I assume parts, from Rotax when they introduced the Taurus.

Tom

Russ Owens

September 16th 20, 05:16 AM

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 7:56:12 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 7:50:57 PM UTC-7, AS wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 4:59:35 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > > Stemme. Except for acquisition cost...
> > >
> > > On 9/15/2020 12:34 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 2:28:37 PM UTC-4, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > > >> Something thats available used this year maybe
> > > >> Not pie in the sky vaporware
> > > > Perhaps 2G's 26?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dan, 5J
> >
> > What about the 'poor man's version' of the Stemme, the Pipistrel Taurus? I am not sure what the deal is reg. the Rotax 503, which according to the Rotax website is no longer in production but they are advertising an E-version. Side-by-sides rock! ;-)
> >
> > Uli
> > 'AS'
> Pipistrel made a life-time buy of engines, and I assume parts, from Rotax when they introduced the Taurus.
>
> Tom
Hi Nick -
I only know what I know, and that's limited, and subject to my opinion. The gas powered Taurus didn't perform well enough at 6,000 foot atlitude (Parowan) so at least one owner decided to keep flying at Sea Level and skip Parowan. The 2 cycle Solo engine on the DG-800's shake a lot and require an owner that is pretty savy about maintaining them and doing engine work. There is a lot more that an owner can do on the Solo engine than hte rotary engine installations without resorting to experts. The 26E is very smooth running and doesn't shake AT ALL! I think the rotary engine is much more reliable than the Solo, but when something really goes wrong, a lot of owners (including me) end up running to Rex at Williams for help. Rex now can pull the rotary engine apart and do work on it, but until recently, the engine used to have to go back to Austria for repair...and it's EXPENSIVE for a new engine. I've been very fortunate, that in 19 years with the ASH-26E, I have only broken a drive belt. Changing a drive belt requires engine removal and quite a bit of disassembly. Fortunately for me, it was at Parowan, and the Schleicher Factory "engine guy" (Mario Link) was there at Parowan and volunteered to change my belt along with Holgar Weitzel (sp?). I have had only VERY minor maintenance issues otherwise. There are excellent user groups for DG's and Schleichers (thank you Eric Greenwell and Jim Herd).
With towplanes getting more rare, unfortunately more of us need to move to motorgliders. There are lot's of advantages and lots of disadvantages with motorgliders!
Buying tows is MUCH cheaper than maintaining a motorglider. I'm sure you've read Eric Greenwells' excellent Motorglider publications available for FREE on www.motorglider.org (see publications).
It sure is nice though, when the line for aero tows is an hour long, to decide that.....Oh, I think I will take-off, let's see oh,.............RIGHT NOW!!!!! And off you go.
I also have my Phoenix, and love it dearly, but it is a LOW performance glider capable of great flights, but it's just not in the same league with the high performance sailplanes.
Best wishes.
Russ

[email protected]

September 16th 20, 12:56 PM

Thoughts on the Pipistrel Sinus?

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 16th 20, 02:22 PM

Nick Kennedy wrote on 9/15/2020 11:28 AM:
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:19:11 PM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 1:48:13 PM UTC-4, Nick Kennedy wrote:
>>> Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
>>> This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
>>>
>>> When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
>>> Say for Western Great Basin flying.
>>>
>>> I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
>>> CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well.
>>>
>>> FACTORS
>>>
>>> Reliability
>>> Maintenance required to keep it running
>>> XC flyability, performance and control feel
>>> Storability
>>> Rigging
>>> Initial cost
>>> High density climb performance
>>> Range
>>> Cockpit layout and seating
>>> Parts availability
>>> Insurance cost
>>> Landing gear complexity
>>> Overall quality
> Something thats available used this year maybe

"Something thats available used this year maybe
Not pie in the sky vaporware"

That helps narrow the field a bit, but what we really need to know more:

-What kind of flying do you intend - recreational, contests, badges, records,
safaris (assisted/unassisted)?

-what is your price limit?

-Are you able and willing to maintain it yourself?

--
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

Peter van Schoonhoven

September 16th 20, 02:58 PM

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 6:22:28 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Nick Kennedy wrote on 9/15/2020 11:28 AM:
> > On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:19:11 PM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 1:48:13 PM UTC-4, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> >>> Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
> >>> This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
> >>>
> >>> When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
> >>> Say for Western Great Basin flying.
> >>>
> >>> I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
> >>> CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well.
> >>>
> >>> FACTORS
> >>>
> >>> Reliability
> >>> Maintenance required to keep it running
> >>> XC flyability, performance and control feel
> >>> Storability
> >>> Rigging
> >>> Initial cost
> >>> High density climb performance
> >>> Range
> >>> Cockpit layout and seating
> >>> Parts availability
> >>> Insurance cost
> >>> Landing gear complexity
> >>> Overall quality
> > Something thats available used this year maybe
>
> "Something thats available used this year maybe
> Not pie in the sky vaporware"
> That helps narrow the field a bit, but what we really need to know more:
>
> -What kind of flying do you intend - recreational, contests, badges, records,
> safaris (assisted/unassisted)?
>
> -what is your price limit?
>
> -Are you able and willing to maintain it yourself?
>
>
> --
> 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

I owned a DG400 for a few years, found it to be an excellent performing sailplane , the landing gear was perfectly fine, the engine faultless, and it was great fun to fly. I never needed any engine parts, but no doubt over time I would have. I now own a Sinus Flex. A lot of fun but way too low soaring performance unless you let the engine idle, but then that is not what soaring is about. I agree that the Stemme is too big, too complicated, too expensive, etc.

What we need is for a company to build a Sinus, or a Phoenix, or a Katana or any of those similar touring motorgliders with a 4 piece wing that has a 19 or 20 meter span. The outer tips need to come off easily (like my SInus Flex) but when removed the span would be 39 feet so it goes in any hangar. With more than a 15 meter span the soaring performance would likely be close to 40/1 L/D. The 4 stroke Rotax engines are really great, the cost could hardly increase very much, and it would be in the perfect sailplane sweet spot.

Dave Walsh[_2_]

September 16th 20, 05:06 PM

The Virus/Sinus are low performance and the view out when thermal
turning is appallingly bad.

The bubble canopy Taurus is better and in strong conditions seems to
go quite well, plus it has a Rotax engine not that heap of junk Solo
found in DG800x & others. You'd struggle to call it high performance.

The DG400 has the usual DG self collapsing U/C feature. Once you
know about this design triumph it's easy to keep the U/C in working
order. It's nice to fly and has really good performance in strong
conditions; the view out is excellent. The engine parts (at least in EASA
land) are not a problem and it's a Rotax not a Solo and it doesn't
regularly break its drive belt. The gel coat/finish is excellent, as usual

with DG. Dealing with DG as a company was a joy. The engine
management man/machine interface is very last century; if you have
three arms you will have no problem, it's nearly as bad as many current
turbo/self-launch gliders: plenty of scope for finger/brain malfunction.
The 400 wing section does NOT like rain or bugs. One of the four
Hoteliers (flaperons & air-brakes) is a tricky blind fiddle to fix &
secure.
Vibration related failures are a known issue: that said my "400" was
significantly more reliable than my much newer Solo powered DG808C
or my Antares 20E.

My choice would be a DG800A (basically a 400 type fuselage/Rotax
engine + DG800 type wings). It doesn't like rain or bugs either but is
significantly better than the DG400 as a glider.

I think all newer DG800x have a vastly improved "one-switch does it
all" engine management system that really is very good?

I've got lots of hours in someone else's Stemme S10, the Limbach
engined one, it was very reliable but the VP propellor overhaul costs
were eye watering even 20 years ago. It's a very competent glider but
big and heavy, not at its best scraping low on the rocks.

I can't think of anything polite to say about Wankel engines... a
vibration free engineers nightmare?

If economics are at all an issue just buy a proper sailplane and get a
tow: it's a FAR FAR cheaper way to fly.
>
>

Mark Jardini[_2_]

September 16th 20, 06:04 PM

Pipistrelle Apis is a fun sport glider with maybe 40:1 at best LD- 50 kts. Goes well up to 80 kts. Engine used to be Rotax 447 which is bombproof but don't know anything about the new engine install. Really stout carbon construction with 121 kts vne. Light wing load with no ballast so you can get bounced around pretty good on strong days at high speed.

Comfortable cockpit and easy handling. Spring trim could be better. 10,000 hour airframe and 300 hour engine. In 10 years I have 40 hours on the engine, 400 hours on the airframe. Seems to handle the obligatory vibrations well. Pretty much trouble free so far.

Good price point.

jfitch

September 16th 20, 07:37 PM

That is a curious statement. The Austro Wankel seems to be measurably more reliable than the Rotax as installed in the DG.

I will agree that tows are far more economical - provided you can get one. Of the four Great Basin soaring operations, 4 out of 4 experienced some period of reduced tow availability this year, a trend that is increasing.

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 9:15:05 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
> I can't think of anything polite to say about Wankel engines... a
> vibration free engineers nightmare?
>
> If economics are at all an issue just buy a proper sailplane and get a
> tow: it's a FAR FAR cheaper way to fly.
> >
> >

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 16th 20, 08:27 PM

Dave Walsh wrote on 9/16/2020 9:06 AM:
> I can't think of anything polite to say about Wankel engines... a
> vibration free engineers nightmare?

How is "vibration free" an "engineers nightmare"? It's certainly a pilots dream!
After 200 engine hours spread over 25 years, I have not had a significant
vibration induced problem! Try achieving that with a two stroke.

Here's some actual comparisons: a while ago, I searched the postings on the Wankel
powered Schleicher glider group for key words like "vibration", and also on the
DG/Solo group. There were few to found for the Wankel engine, and they were a
small minority of the issues discussed. The search of the DG/Solo group found a
LOT "vibration" issues, and they were the big majority problems.

--
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

Dan Marotta

September 16th 20, 09:04 PM

The Stemme /can/ be a touring motorglider if you want to fly it that
way.Â* I prefer to fly mine as a self launching glider with a rock solid,
/certificated,/ engine for self retrieve.Â* It has /never/ failed to
start.Â* Still, I don't take it anywhere that I can not land on a paved
runway but, with 50:1 glide at a decent cruise speed, there are plenty
of landing spots available.

On 9/15/2020 4:06 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 3:59:35 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Stemme. Except for acquisition cost...
>> On 9/15/2020 12:34 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 2:28:37 PM UTC-4, Nick Kennedy wrote:
>>>> Something thats available used this year maybe
>>>> Not pie in the sky vaporware
>>> Perhaps 2G's 26?
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> For a Touring Motorglider, I vote for the Phoenix.

--
Dan, 5J

Dan Marotta

September 16th 20, 09:09 PM

Patti and I sat in a Taurus and, while we liked the idea, it was pretty
lightly built.Â* Plus it was too simple.Â* I'd go to sleep from not having
to monitor any "systems".Â* Not like the spawn of a B-52 and an Abrams
Tank. =-O And I won't have anything beyond a lawn mower or a chain saw
with a two stroke engine.

On 9/15/2020 8:50 PM, AS wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 4:59:35 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Stemme.Â* Except for acquisition cost...
>>
>> On 9/15/2020 12:34 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 2:28:37 PM UTC-4, Nick Kennedy wrote:
>>>> Something thats available used this year maybe
>>>> Not pie in the sky vaporware
>>> Perhaps 2G's 26?
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> What about the 'poor man's version' of the Stemme, the Pipistrel Taurus? I am not sure what the deal is reg. the Rotax 503, which according to the Rotax website is no longer in production but they are advertising an E-version. Side-by-sides rock! ;-)
>
> Uli
> 'AS'

--
Dan, 5J

Dave Walsh[_2_]

September 16th 20, 09:11 PM

At 19:27 16 September 2020, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Dave Walsh wrote on 9/16/2020 9:06 AM:
>> I can't think of anything polite to say about Wankel engines... a
>> vibration free engineers nightmare?
>
>How is "vibration free" an "engineers nightmare"? It's certainly a
pilots
>dream!
>After 200 engine hours spread over 25 years, I have not had a
significant
>vibration induced problem! Try achieving that with a two stroke.
>
>Here's some actual comparisons: a while ago, I searched the postings
on the
>Wankel
>powered Schleicher glider group for key words like "vibration", and
also on
>the
>DG/Solo group. There were few to found for the Wankel engine, and
they were
>a
>small minority of the issues discussed. The search of the DG/Solo
group
>found a
>LOT "vibration" issues, and they were the big majority problems.
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email
>me)

My poor use of English, perhaps I should have said the Wankel is an
engineering nightmare (without vibration problems)? Clearly some
pilots have reliable Wankel engines; others are not so fortunate. Luckily
we're in a democracy so we can choose which (unreliable) engine to
buy. Current DG models have Solo not Rotax engines. I don't like any of
them. There are some nice Japanese two strokes out there, just not in
any sailplane. Despite the reported lack of vibration the bolts holding
some Wankel engines together seem to have a habit of falling out?
Assuming all motor-gliders are unreliable seems a safe bet.

Dan Marotta

September 16th 20, 09:16 PM

We owned one for a couple of years.Â* It's very light and was a handful
at Moriarty during our windier months.Â* It will thermal and gain
altitude, but not with a sailplane.Â* It's a great cruiser, capable of
exceeding redline in level flight, so be careful with the throttle.Â* The
Rotax ULS delivered 100 hp with no more than around 7 gallons/hour at
max power, IIRC, and it cruise it burned under 4 gph.Â* Oh, and it has a
ballistic parachute.

On 9/16/2020 5:56 AM, wrote:
> Thoughts on the Pipistrel Sinus?

--
Dan, 5J

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 16th 20, 10:20 PM

Dave Walsh wrote on 9/16/2020 1:11 PM:
> Despite the reported lack of vibration the bolts holding
> some Wankel engines together seem to have a habit of falling out?
> Assuming all motor-gliders are unreliable seems a safe bet.

The 26E was not affected, so I am not an expert on it; however, my understanding
is it's a bolt problem, not vibration related. Seriously, it has so little
vibration, I can't imagine that it could break a bolt. Vibration is simply not an
issue in our Wankel powered gliders.

It is a bad bet to assume all motor-gliders are unreliable, when so many are quite
good. I have had fewer lost soaring days because I couldn't self-launch than when
I had to use tows, and I'm very glad to be a FORMER owner of towplane!

It is not a good bet to assume the engine will start when it is your only chance
of avoiding a crash. It's not just the engine that may malfunction, but the pilot
might make a mistake.

--
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

John Cochrane[_3_]

September 16th 20, 10:51 PM

The question comes down to what do you want, power-plane flying with some soaring ability or self-launch, self retrieve cross country sailplane? And how much money do you have?
For the latter mission, the ASH31 is right now a great glider. (Of course, my toy.) Strong climb performance -- I self-launch at Truckee, often 8000+ density altitude, with full water ballast, and no trouble. It has great cross country performance, keeping up well with 18m contest gliders. Its one limitation is not quite enough water ballast (legally), 10.8 lbs/sq foot. The 26 is a good substitute if you don't have lots of money. No 21 meter wings, top about 9.2 lbs, for much less money you lose a few MPH on your friend in a 31. The engine is very reliable.
I would not choose it though if I routinely wanted to fly 100s of miles under power and occasionally soar a bit.
John Cochrane BB

[email protected]

September 16th 20, 10:56 PM

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> We owned one for a couple of years. It's very light and was a handful
> at Moriarty during our windier months. It will thermal and gain
> altitude, but not with a sailplane. It's a great cruiser, capable of
> exceeding redline in level flight, so be careful with the throttle. The
> Rotax ULS delivered 100 hp with no more than around 7 gallons/hour at
> max power, IIRC, and it cruise it burned under 4 gph. Oh, and it has a
> ballistic parachute.
> On 9/16/2020 5:56 AM, charles wrote:
> > Thoughts on the Pipistrel Sinus?
> --
> Dan, 5J

I was thinking to use it as a long distance low cost/hr cruiser. Sort of like sailboat cruising. Not in a hurry to get where I'm going.

What do you think about its thermaling ability? Do you agree that visibility in, say, 45 degree banked turns is terrible? or is it like, say a Cessna 152 (not great but not terrible)? I wouldn't be soaring it with other gliders in gaggles or such. Just cruise-thermaling to save fuel.

Was also thinking to use it to teach off-field landing approaches at various clubs around the US.

Glide ratio appears to vary depending on config. 30:1 is advertised but tech data shows 27:1 for one model and 23:1 for the heavier model:

https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/sinus/

Ben

danlj

September 17th 20, 12:08 AM

> > On 9/16/2020 5:56 AM, charles wrote:
> > > Thoughts on the Pipistrel Sinus?

> Glide ratio appears to vary depending on config. 30:1 is advertised but tech data shows 27:1 for one model and 23:1 for the heavier model:
>
> https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/sinus/
>
> Ben
My flights in a Pipistrel Sinus showed that in a 45-degree bank, the sink rate is quite dramatic, and it takes strong thermals to soar effectively. I enjoyed giving rides to power pilots in which we'd fly around for awhile in airplane ,mode; then I'd stop the engine and feather the prop, and let the airplane pilot glide to a landing (they always handed it back to me at pattern altitude).
Lots of fun, but not a "sailplane" in the XC sense. I can't imagine flying it in weak conditions.
Dan J

Dan Marotta

September 17th 20, 12:35 AM

Very astute, Eric.

On 9/16/2020 3:20 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> It's not just the engine that may malfunction, but the pilot might
> make a mistake.

--
Dan, 5J

Ramy[_2_]

September 17th 20, 01:56 AM

The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.

Ramy

jfitch

September 17th 20, 03:16 AM

I'll just say you need to do a little more research (and not just on English) before you post. Most of what you have said is wrong, or in modern parlance, "alternative facts".

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 1:15:05 PM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
> At 19:27 16 September 2020, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >Dave Walsh wrote on 9/16/2020 9:06 AM:
> >> I can't think of anything polite to say about Wankel engines... a
> >> vibration free engineers nightmare?
> >
> >How is "vibration free" an "engineers nightmare"? It's certainly a
> pilots
> >dream!
> >After 200 engine hours spread over 25 years, I have not had a
> significant
> >vibration induced problem! Try achieving that with a two stroke.
> >
> >Here's some actual comparisons: a while ago, I searched the postings
> on the
> >Wankel
> >powered Schleicher glider group for key words like "vibration", and
> also on
> >the
> >DG/Solo group. There were few to found for the Wankel engine, and
> they were
> >a
> >small minority of the issues discussed. The search of the DG/Solo
> group
> >found a
> >LOT "vibration" issues, and they were the big majority problems.
> >
> >--
> >Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email
> >me)
> My poor use of English, perhaps I should have said the Wankel is an
> engineering nightmare (without vibration problems)? Clearly some
> pilots have reliable Wankel engines; others are not so fortunate. Luckily
> we're in a democracy so we can choose which (unreliable) engine to
> buy. Current DG models have Solo not Rotax engines. I don't like any of
> them. There are some nice Japanese two strokes out there, just not in
> any sailplane. Despite the reported lack of vibration the bolts holding
> some Wankel engines together seem to have a habit of falling out?
> Assuming all motor-gliders are unreliable seems a safe bet.

September 17th 20, 05:10 AM

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:56:25 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
> For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
> I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
> Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
> Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.
>
> Ramy

Personally, I am not satisfied with the reliability and safety of the FES batteries and would not fly with them. The percentage of installations that have had fires is unacceptably high. Eventually, the glider community will acquire millions of hours of operational data to establish its reliability (or lack thereof).

Tom

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 17th 20, 01:48 PM

2G wrote on 9/16/2020 9:10 PM:
> On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:56:25 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>> The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
>> For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
>> I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
>> Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
>> Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.
>>
>> Ramy
>
> Personally, I am not satisfied with the reliability and safety of the FES batteries and would not fly with them. The percentage of installations that have had fires is unacceptably high. Eventually, the glider community will acquire millions of hours of operational data to establish its reliability (or lack thereof).
>
> Tom
>
What is the percentage of installations that have had fires? What would be an
acceptable percentage of installations with fires? And are the hours you mention
motor hours or airframe hours?

--
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

John Iacobucci

September 17th 20, 01:51 PM

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 1:48:13 PM UTC-4, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
> This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
>
> When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
> Say for Western Great Basin flying.
>
> I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
> CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well.
>
> FACTORS
>
> Reliability
> Maintenance required to keep it running
> XC flyability, performance and control feel
> Storability
> Rigging
> Initial cost
> High density climb performance
> Range
> Cockpit layout and seating
> Parts availability
> Insurance cost
> Landing gear complexity
> Overall quality
> Nick
> T

I would give a shout for the Ventus 2CXM. Great performance. Only one minor problem with the self launch mechanism (it wasn't the motor) that our AP mechanic could fix in two hours. Up and flying same day. Extremely reliable.
One can argue the Wankle is less vibration on the whole, but maintenance for problems would be problematic. Pluses and minuses.
I chose the servicable Solo and the handling of the Ventus 2CX

Peter van Schoonhoven

September 17th 20, 03:39 PM

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:51:39 AM UTC-7, John Iacobucci wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 1:48:13 PM UTC-4, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
> > This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
> >
> > When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
> > Say for Western Great Basin flying.
> >
> > I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
> > CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well..
> >
> > FACTORS
> >
> > Reliability
> > Maintenance required to keep it running
> > XC flyability, performance and control feel
> > Storability
> > Rigging
> > Initial cost
> > High density climb performance
> > Range
> > Cockpit layout and seating
> > Parts availability
> > Insurance cost
> > Landing gear complexity
> > Overall quality
> > Nick
> > T
>
> I would give a shout for the Ventus 2CXM. Great performance. Only one minor problem with the self launch mechanism (it wasn't the motor) that our AP mechanic could fix in two hours. Up and flying same day. Extremely reliable.
> One can argue the Wankle is less vibration on the whole, but maintenance for problems would be problematic. Pluses and minuses.
> I chose the servicable Solo and the handling of the Ventus 2CX

Regarding the Pipistrel Sinus Flex:
Soaring performance claims are not consistent in all places where advertised and published in the owners manual, L/D numbers range from 21 to 30 . After flying mine a short time I believe with short wing tips (40 feet) the glide ratio is around 20-21, long tips (50 feet) around 25-27.

Visibility in turns while thermalling is very bad, in a Cessna 150 you can at least lean forward and look around the corner of the leading edge. In the SInus your head is behind the spar, you can not lean forward far enough to see. You would have to lift the wing to see where you are going in a turn and of course that would move the center of the circle you are flying. I am mounting cameras on top of the wing to give me a view above the wing. Hopefully that will help.

On the other hand, the SInus is fun to fly, extremely stable , roomy and very comfortable cockpit, makes a great two place airplane that easily cruises at 110 knots on 3 GPH , and you can operate from essentially every airport easily.

Peter van Schoonhoven
Battle Ground, WA

[email protected]

September 17th 20, 04:23 PM

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 8:48:10 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 2G wrote on 9/16/2020 9:10 PM:
> > On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:56:25 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> >> The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
> >> For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
> >> I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
> >> Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
> >> Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.
> >>
> >> Ramy
> >
> > Personally, I am not satisfied with the reliability and safety of the FES batteries and would not fly with them. The percentage of installations that have had fires is unacceptably high. Eventually, the glider community will acquire millions of hours of operational data to establish its reliability (or lack thereof).
> >
> > Tom
> >
> What is the percentage of installations that have had fires? What would be an
> acceptable percentage of installations with fires? And are the hours you mention
> motor hours or airframe hours?
>
> --
> 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

Airframe hours, years, charge cycles...

Anecdotally I got the impression that there have been more battery fires in FES gliders than fires in gliders with gasoline-fueled engines, at least in recent years, and the number of FES gliders is relatively small. Li-ion seems risky. Personally I hope better battery chemistry will be developed, that is both safer and has the needed energy density. LiFePO4 is safer, and its energy density is improving, some electric cars are switching to it. Other chemistries are in the pipeline.

jfitch

September 17th 20, 04:24 PM

So, you've owned the Wankel and had problematic maintenance? Or you are guessing? The Wankel is an ICE, it has a fuel system, ignition system, cooling system, and belt drive reduction system as they all do. Maintenance tasks are identical in most respects with any glider ICE. Only if you have to tear the engine down completely will you see the differences (and here the Wankel is somewhat simpler, having 2 moving parts).

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:51:39 AM UTC-7, John Iacobucci wrote:
> One can argue the Wankle is less vibration on the whole, but maintenance for problems would be problematic. Pluses and minuses.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 17th 20, 05:01 PM

wrote on 9/17/2020 8:23 AM:
> On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 8:48:10 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> 2G wrote on 9/16/2020 9:10 PM:
>>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:56:25 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>>>> The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
>>>> For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
>>>> I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
>>>> Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
>>>> Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.
>>>>
>>>> Ramy
>>>
>>> Personally, I am not satisfied with the reliability and safety of the FES batteries and would not fly with them. The percentage of installations that have had fires is unacceptably high. Eventually, the glider community will acquire millions of hours of operational data to establish its reliability (or lack thereof).
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>> What is the percentage of installations that have had fires? What would be an
>> acceptable percentage of installations with fires? And are the hours you mention
>> motor hours or airframe hours?
>>

> Airframe hours, years, charge cycles...
>
> Anecdotally I got the impression that there have been more battery fires in FES gliders than fires in gliders with gasoline-fueled engines, at least in recent years, and the number of FES gliders is relatively small. Li-ion seems risky. Personally I hope better battery chemistry will be developed, that is both safer and has the needed energy density. LiFePO4 is safer, and its energy density is improving, some electric cars are switching to it. Other chemistries are in the pipeline.
>
Because there were significant changes in the FES batteries after the fires, I
think the current reliability should be estimated using the number of fires
post-updates. I'm not aware of any, but perhaps there are not enough
hours/flights/years on the revised batteries to have a good estimate.

--
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

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 17th 20, 05:10 PM

Ramy wrote on 9/16/2020 5:56 PM:
> The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
> For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
> I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
> Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
> Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.
>
> Ramy
>
You make a persuasive analysis for installing an FES, and I'm sure you will enjoy
the independence and freedom to explore in your flying. Too bad, though, for the
pilots that now occasionally finish above you on the OLC, who will disappointed
that you will push even harder than before :^)

--
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

Matthew Scutter

September 17th 20, 05:33 PM

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:23:05 PM UTC+2, wrote:
> On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 8:48:10 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > 2G wrote on 9/16/2020 9:10 PM:
> > > On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:56:25 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> > >> The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
> > >> For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
> > >> I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
> > >> Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
> > >> Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.
> > >>
> > >> Ramy
> > >
> > > Personally, I am not satisfied with the reliability and safety of the FES batteries and would not fly with them. The percentage of installations that have had fires is unacceptably high. Eventually, the glider community will acquire millions of hours of operational data to establish its reliability (or lack thereof).
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > What is the percentage of installations that have had fires? What would be an
> > acceptable percentage of installations with fires? And are the hours you mention
> > motor hours or airframe hours?
> >
> > --
> > 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
> Airframe hours, years, charge cycles...
>
> Anecdotally I got the impression that there have been more battery fires in FES gliders than fires in gliders with gasoline-fueled engines, at least in recent years, and the number of FES gliders is relatively small. Li-ion seems risky. Personally I hope better battery chemistry will be developed, that is both safer and has the needed energy density. LiFePO4 is safer, and its energy density is improving, some electric cars are switching to it. Other chemistries are in the pipeline.

The UK AAIB/EASA did an investigation into the fires, which is a great and thorough read : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f5a3f27e90e07208106a72c/HPH_Glasflugel_304_eS_G-GSGS_09-18.pdf
30 word summary: Suspected either metal contamination at manufacture or owner physical damage to the battery, recommended all batteries be withdrawn from use and redesigned/refurbished, which they .

Don't think there have been any since the redesign in ~2018. There is a fire warning system in new FES gliders now.

Mike Schumann[_2_]

September 17th 20, 10:23 PM

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 6:57:02 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Thoughts on the Pipistrel Sinus?
If you are interested in a Touring Motorglider, the Phoenix is the way to go. With the wing tips removed (takes 30 seconds, each weighing 15 lbs) the wingspan is 35 ft and the plane will comfortably fit in any standard T hangar. The Sinus wingspan with tips removed is over 40â€™ making it a challenge to fit in a regular size T hangar.

discus239

September 17th 20, 11:36 PM

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 3:23:30 PM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 6:57:02 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Thoughts on the Pipistrel Sinus?
> If you are interested in a Touring Motorglider, the Phoenix is the way to go. With the wing tips removed (takes 30 seconds, each weighing 15 lbs) the wingspan is 35 ft and the plane will comfortably fit in any standard T hangar. The Sinus wingspan with tips removed is over 40â€™ making it a challenge to fit in a regular size T hangar.

My Phoenix is not a substitute for a hi performance sailplane, I've owned a few, but it is a substitute for a light airplane, it is easy to live with, has the big canopy sailplane view, 2 seats side by side, doesn't need a towplane, of which I've owned a few, and climbs nicely in good lift.
Mine has the optional tow hook, haven't used it yet, but its there in case I ever want another sailplane, nearest tow for me is way too far away,
living on an airport means in a few minutes I can be checking out the clouds or taking a sunset flight down the beach.

Nick Kennedy[_3_]

September 18th 20, 01:06 AM

Hey There Russ Owens
Hello to you and yours!
Thanks for the response.
Question on the ASH25E
It the Rotary engine eats itself up and you drop it off at Rex's shop to fix it, whats your educated guess to completely replace it with all the extra bits.
Nick
T

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 18th 20, 01:17 AM

Nick Kennedy wrote on 9/17/2020 5:06 PM:
> Hey There Russ Owens
> Hello to you and yours!
> Thanks for the response.
> Question on the ASH25E
> It the Rotary engine eats itself up and you drop it off at Rex's shop to fix it, whats your educated guess to completely replace it with all the extra bits.
> Nick
> T
>
Probably should ask Rex, or pilot that's had to do it, and not somebody like Russ
(or me) that hasn't had any problems.

--
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

September 18th 20, 01:54 AM

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:48:10 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 2G wrote on 9/16/2020 9:10 PM:
> > On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:56:25 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> >> The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
> >> For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
> >> I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
> >> Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
> >> Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.
> >>
> >> Ramy
> >
> > Personally, I am not satisfied with the reliability and safety of the FES batteries and would not fly with them. The percentage of installations that have had fires is unacceptably high. Eventually, the glider community will acquire millions of hours of operational data to establish its reliability (or lack thereof).
> >
> > Tom
> >
> What is the percentage of installations that have had fires? What would be an
> acceptable percentage of installations with fires? And are the hours you mention
> motor hours or airframe hours?
>
> --
> 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

Would have to know the total number of installations and fires, and I don't know either, but it is going to be in the one or two percent range. An acceptable number would be 0.1% or less.

Tom

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 18th 20, 02:33 AM

2G wrote on 9/17/2020 5:54 PM:
> On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:48:10 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> 2G wrote on 9/16/2020 9:10 PM:
>>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:56:25 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>>>> The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
>>>> For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
>>>> I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
>>>> Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
>>>> Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.
>>>>
>>>> Ramy
>>>
>>> Personally, I am not satisfied with the reliability and safety of the FES batteries and would not fly with them. The percentage of installations that have had fires is unacceptably high. Eventually, the glider community will acquire millions of hours of operational data to establish its reliability (or lack thereof).
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>> What is the percentage of installations that have had fires? What would be an
>> acceptable percentage of installations with fires? And are the hours you mention
>> motor hours or airframe hours?
>>

>
> Would have to know the total number of installations and fires, and I don't know either, but it is going to be in the one or two percent range. An acceptable number would be 0.1% or less.
>
> Tom

0.1%? How did you choose that? It's not that good on Schleicher Wankel
installations, like you and I fly. There are about 600 Wankel powered gliders, and
at least 4 fires I know of, which is about 0.6%.

--
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

September 18th 20, 03:20 AM

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 6:34:01 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 2G wrote on 9/17/2020 5:54 PM:
> > On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:48:10 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> 2G wrote on 9/16/2020 9:10 PM:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:56:25 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> >>>> The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
> >>>> For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
> >>>> I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
> >>>> Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
> >>>> Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ramy
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I am not satisfied with the reliability and safety of the FES batteries and would not fly with them. The percentage of installations that have had fires is unacceptably high. Eventually, the glider community will acquire millions of hours of operational data to establish its reliability (or lack thereof).
> >>>
> >>> Tom
> >>>
> >> What is the percentage of installations that have had fires? What would be an
> >> acceptable percentage of installations with fires? And are the hours you mention
> >> motor hours or airframe hours?
> >>
>
> >
> > Would have to know the total number of installations and fires, and I don't know either, but it is going to be in the one or two percent range. An acceptable number would be 0.1% or less.
> >
> > Tom
>
> 0.1%? How did you choose that? It's not that good on Schleicher Wankel
> installations, like you and I fly. There are about 600 Wankel powered gliders, and
> at least 4 fires I know of, which is about 0.6%.
>
> --
> 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

Well, if I was going to fly today and the odds of dying were worse than 1 in a 1000 I probably wouldn't.

Tom

September 18th 20, 03:32 AM

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 6:34:01 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 2G wrote on 9/17/2020 5:54 PM:
> > On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:48:10 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> 2G wrote on 9/16/2020 9:10 PM:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:56:25 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> >>>> The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
> >>>> For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
> >>>> I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
> >>>> Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
> >>>> Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ramy
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I am not satisfied with the reliability and safety of the FES batteries and would not fly with them. The percentage of installations that have had fires is unacceptably high. Eventually, the glider community will acquire millions of hours of operational data to establish its reliability (or lack thereof).
> >>>
> >>> Tom
> >>>
> >> What is the percentage of installations that have had fires? What would be an
> >> acceptable percentage of installations with fires? And are the hours you mention
> >> motor hours or airframe hours?
> >>
>
> >
> > Would have to know the total number of installations and fires, and I don't know either, but it is going to be in the one or two percent range. An acceptable number would be 0.1% or less.
> >
> > Tom
>
> 0.1%? How did you choose that? It's not that good on Schleicher Wankel
> installations, like you and I fly. There are about 600 Wankel powered gliders, and
> at least 4 fires I know of, which is about 0.6%.
>
> --
> 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

You have to calculate the odds on a per flight basis. With Schleicher motorgliders I would guess that to be something in the neighborhood of 1 in 100,000. And none of the fires that did occur did resulted in the loss of the glider.

The bottom line is we have a lot more operational experience with internal combustion motorgliders than with electric. The incidents I have seen with the FES are disturbing to me: I wouldn't fly one at this point, but I am open to being presented with more data on the issue in the future. I had one FES owner explicitly say to me that he is disturbed by its poor reliability, but is willing to trust his emergency parachute!

Tom

Randy Acree

September 18th 20, 04:30 PM

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 10:48:13 AM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
> This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
>
> When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
> Say for Western Great Basin flying.
>
> I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
> CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well.
>
> FACTORS
>
> Reliability
> Maintenance required to keep it running
> XC flyability, performance and control feel
> Storability
> Rigging
> Initial cost
> High density climb performance
> Range
> Cockpit layout and seating
> Parts availability
> Insurance cost
> Landing gear complexity
> Overall quality
> Nick
> T
I have been flying my Carat for 3 yrs now and have no regrets. I purchased it for retirement so I can go to the local airport when I travel to fly. Scarcity of towplanes was the driving factor. The Carat is the Discus wing and tail mounted on their fuselage. I have never had a problem with the Sauer engine. Performance has been great with summer time launches in Tucson and Moriarty. One other flies out of Parowan, Ely and Nephi. I love the upright seating and the convenentional gear makes taxiing a breeze since neither wing is down. The only two negatives have been high wing loading in weak conditions and it tends to do poorly in heavy sink. Falls out of the sky if you have to fly above 90 kias. Super easy assembly and great trailer. I'm told it sounds like a J3 cub. Love it.

Russ Owens

September 20th 20, 05:09 AM

On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 10:48:13 AM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> > Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
> > This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
> >
> > When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
> > Say for Western Great Basin flying.
> >
> > I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
> > CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well..
> >
> > FACTORS
> >
> > Reliability
> > Maintenance required to keep it running
> > XC flyability, performance and control feel
> > Storability
> > Rigging
> > Initial cost
> > High density climb performance
> > Range
> > Cockpit layout and seating
> > Parts availability
> > Insurance cost
> > Landing gear complexity
> > Overall quality
> > Nick
> > T
> I have been flying my Carat for 3 yrs now and have no regrets. I purchased it for retirement so I can go to the local airport when I travel to fly. Scarcity of towplanes was the driving factor. The Carat is the Discus wing and tail mounted on their fuselage. I have never had a problem with the Sauer engine. Performance has been great with summer time launches in Tucson and Moriarty. One other flies out of Parowan, Ely and Nephi. I love the upright seating and the convenentional gear makes taxiing a breeze since neither wing is down. The only two negatives have been high wing loading in weak conditions and it tends to do poorly in heavy sink. Falls out of the sky if you have to fly above 90 kias. Super easy assembly and great trailer. I'm told it sounds like a J3 cub. Love it.

Sorry Nick, I can't help with the cost to replace an ASH-26E engine with all the bits. Fortunately, I haven't had to find out! I do hope to see you again sometime in the Great Basin. It's been a long time. Maybe someone that's been thru this exercise could help. Painful, I'm sure!
Russ

kevin anderson

September 20th 20, 03:22 PM

Love my DG 400. I have had to do a little work but able to get parts so far. No motor breakdown work.

On the gear, there is a service bulletin that covers a number of the DG models. It was done to my glider and makes the mechanism more robust with a positive catch and spring on the handle. Also changing the gas spring on the gear is important if not done in years.

Vibration, I have had the prop balanced by Russel Brown at Seminole when flying at the Seniors. Took about an hour using a Dynavibe. Put small washers in different locations around the prop hub where it bolts together. Very significant vibration reduction, pitch of prop changed, and even got a couple hundred RPM on static run.

Great bird for the money.

Kevin
92

waremark

September 22nd 20, 10:09 PM

If you are considering a high end new or newish high performance glider, the obvious choice is between an ASH 31 and a Ventus 3M (shows my prejudice against DG's and full size open class gliders)!. At significantly lower cost it could be an ASH 26E or Ventus 2 CM. I think I would choose a Ventus 3M

I have had two motorgliders, a Wankel engined ASH 26E and a Solo engined Arcus M. The engine technologies have pros and cons. The Wankel is as others have said perfectly smooth but it needs warming up and cooling down. The Solo engine may be fractionally less smooth but I really don't find an issue with it in practise. I think most of the problems experienced with either type have been from causes which have nothing to do with the internals of the engine - things like pylon position sensors out of position or going wrong, exhaust issues, or aspects of the electrics. Most of the time either type will do a good job of self-launching or self-retrieving, and an adequate though not great job of repositioning.

In considering the advantages of an ASH 31 over an ASH 26, apart from the availability of 21m tips as well as 18m tips, consider that 26's are getting to an age where they are likely to be less reliable (the one I used to own currently has wiring issues, not for the first time) and may need refinishing now or before long. The 31 also has injection whereas the 26 has a somewhat mickey mouse carburettor, which should make the 31 more suited to high altitude flight as well as more reliable.

Currently, I would not be ready to buy an electric self-launcher - I would want more endurance if buying a self-launcher. My calculations suggested that the petrol Arcus has about 8 times the endurance of the electric version (of which extremely few have been built) and I heard of someone switching off the motor after climbing to 500 feet in order to preserve battery for a potential self-retrieve. Admittedly that was for flight in very hostile terrain, but I like to think I have enough fuel on board to climb to a reasonable height, to relight if necessary, and to self-retrieve at the end of the day. I must admit that I have never needed to do all that! But I have certainly enjoyed being able to taxi back after tailing to stay up and immediately take a relight without worrying about the endurance I have left. I expect that as the energy density of batteries improves electric engines will become dominant, and I worry that this will affect the sale-ability of petrol engined self-launchers.

Ramy[_2_]

September 22nd 20, 11:18 PM

I consider FES as primarily a sustainer with a bonus self launch capability.. You donâ€™t get both in the same flight. The self launch is primarily for the occasional situation you canâ€™t otherwise get a tow (mid week, tow plane down, tow pilot unavailable etc]. The self launch may get you in the air when you otherwise canâ€™t, but probably wouldnâ€™t be sufficient for a relight at the end of the day.

Ramy

September 23rd 20, 03:42 AM

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 3:18:06 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> I consider FES as primarily a sustainer with a bonus self launch capability. You donâ€™t get both in the same flight. The self launch is primarily for the occasional situation you canâ€™t otherwise get a tow (mid week, tow plane down, tow pilot unavailable etc]. The self launch may get you in the air when you otherwise canâ€™t, but probably wouldnâ€™t be sufficient for a relight at the end of the day.
>
> Ramy

The guy with a MiniLAK FES at Ely, NV this year took tows. On his first flight, he got stuck 60 miles out. He knew that the energy in the battery did not permit climbing to an altitude to clear the mountain ranges between him and the airport, and cruise the 60 mi back to Ely, so he used his battery capacity to, wisely, search for a landable area (which can be hard to find in this area of NV). He landed out successfully and was retrieved by ground.. This is yet another story. Personally, I would not fly any electric glider out of Ely.

Tom

kinsell

September 23rd 20, 04:10 PM

On 9/22/20 3:09 PM, waremark wrote:

> I expect that as the energy density of batteries improves electric engines will become dominant, and I worry that this will affect the sale-ability of petrol engined self-launchers.

Even without advances like dilithium crystal batteries, we have the
prospect of politicians getting into power who have sworn to get rid of
fossil fuels altogether. That brings up the prospect of electric
towplanes that can do one or two launches a day, then back to the hangar
for their recharge.

Dan Daly[_2_]

September 23rd 20, 04:29 PM

On Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 11:10:57 AM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
> On 9/22/20 3:09 PM, waremark wrote:
>
>
> > I expect that as the energy density of batteries improves electric engines will become dominant, and I worry that this will affect the sale-ability of petrol engined self-launchers.
>
> Even without advances like dilithium crystal batteries, we have the
> prospect of politicians getting into power who have sworn to get rid of
> fossil fuels altogether. That brings up the prospect of electric
> towplanes that can do one or two launches a day, then back to the hangar
> for their recharge.

Or electric winches tied into main distribution, or perhaps solar power to batteries. Or electric car tow to 1,000', then FES.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 23rd 20, 04:44 PM

kinsell wrote on 9/23/2020 8:10 AM:
> On 9/22/20 3:09 PM, waremark wrote:
>
>
>> I expect that as the energy density of batteries improves electric engines will
>> become dominant, and I worry that this will affect the sale-ability of petrol
>> engined self-launchers.
>
> Even without advances like dilithium crystal batteries, we have the prospect of
> politicians getting into power who have sworn to get rid of fossil fuels
> altogether.* That brings up the prospect of electric towplanes that can do one or
> two launches a day, then back to the hangar for their recharge.

Electric towplanes? An odd response to the question of the Best Overall
Motorglider available today, where the idea is to get rid of the towplane entirely.

--
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 Walsh[_2_]

September 24th 20, 01:11 PM

You won't need tow planes or winches when everyone has an electric self
launch: everyone just has to get a lot richer.
It's not a problem, our politicians have it all under control, look at how

well we Europeans are doing with Brexit & Covid.....
And, yes, it's raining.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 24th 20, 01:59 PM

Dave Walsh wrote on 9/24/2020 5:11 AM:
> You won't need tow planes or winches when everyone has an electric self
> launch: everyone just has to get a lot richer.
> It's not a problem, our politicians have it all under control, look at how
>
> well we Europeans are doing with Brexit & Covid.....
> And, yes, it's raining.
>
There is an alternative to getting a lot richer: clubs and partnerships. With just
two people in a partnership, your purchase cost is one half, and you no longer
have to support a tow plane or pay tow fees. If you can fly near your home, you
can avoid travel and motel costs, too. The partners can fly whenever their
schedule and the weather permit, and even take advantage of marginal soaring
conditions without the inconvenience or expense of a retrieve, so the utilization
of the glider is higher than a towed glider.

So, instead of "a lot richer", you only have to be "modestly richer", and with
three owners of a glider, maybe not even richer at all, especially as the used
market for FES gliders increases in the next few years. A club might find an FES
glider a good value, particularly if they want to encourage cross-country soaring.

--
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

Dan Marotta

September 24th 20, 04:04 PM

Well, then...Â* You'll need one or more old fart partners because there
are only two days in a weekend. :-D

Signed,
Dan (an old fart)

On 9/24/2020 6:59 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Dave Walsh wrote on 9/24/2020 5:11 AM:
>> You won't need tow planes or winches when everyone has an electric self
>> launch: everyone just has to get a lot richer.
>> It's not a problem, our politicians have it all under control, look
>> at how
>>
>> well we Europeans are doing with Brexit & Covid.....
>> And, yes, it's raining.
>>
> There is an alternative to getting a lot richer: clubs and
> partnerships. With just two people in a partnership, your purchase
> cost is one half, and you no longer have to support a tow plane or pay
> tow fees. If you can fly near your home, you can avoid travel and
> motel costs, too. The partners can fly whenever their schedule and the
> weather permit, and even take advantage of marginal soaring conditions
> without the inconvenience or expense of a retrieve, so the utilization
> of the glider is higher than a towed glider.
>
> So, instead of "a lot richer", you only have to be "modestly richer",
> and with three owners of a glider, maybe not even richer at all,
> especially as the used market for FES gliders increases in the next
> few years. A club might find an FES glider a good value, particularly
> if they want to encourage cross-country soaring.
>

--
Dan, 5J

September 24th 20, 04:39 PM

On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Dave Walsh wrote on 9/24/2020 5:11 AM:
> > You won't need tow planes or winches when everyone has an electric self
> > launch: everyone just has to get a lot richer.
> > It's not a problem, our politicians have it all under control, look at how
> >
> > well we Europeans are doing with Brexit & Covid.....
> > And, yes, it's raining.
> >
> There is an alternative to getting a lot richer: clubs and partnerships. With just
> two people in a partnership, your purchase cost is one half, and you no longer
> have to support a tow plane or pay tow fees. If you can fly near your home, you
> can avoid travel and motel costs, too. The partners can fly whenever their
> schedule and the weather permit, and even take advantage of marginal soaring
> conditions without the inconvenience or expense of a retrieve, so the utilization
> of the glider is higher than a towed glider.
>
> So, instead of "a lot richer", you only have to be "modestly richer", and with
> three owners of a glider, maybe not even richer at all, especially as the used
> market for FES gliders increases in the next few years. A club might find an FES
> glider a good value, particularly if they want to encourage cross-country soaring.
>
> --
> 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

That strategy has been in use since the Wright Brothers started selling aircraft, so it is not going to change anything. If an electric towplane can only make 2 launches per day you will need more towplanes and the much higher cost would have to be passed on to the same number of club members.

Tom

Martin Gregorie[_6_]

September 24th 20, 08:02 PM

On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 08:39:05 -0700, 2G wrote:

> On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:
>> Dave Walsh wrote on 9/24/2020 5:11 AM:
>> > You won't need tow planes or winches when everyone has an electric
>> > self launch: everyone just has to get a lot richer.
>> > It's not a problem, our politicians have it all under control, look
>> > at how
>> >
>> > well we Europeans are doing with Brexit & Covid.....
>> > And, yes, it's raining.
>> >
>> There is an alternative to getting a lot richer: clubs and
>> partnerships. With just two people in a partnership, your purchase cost
>> is one half, and you no longer have to support a tow plane or pay tow
>> fees. If you can fly near your home, you can avoid travel and motel
>> costs, too. The partners can fly whenever their schedule and the
>> weather permit, and even take advantage of marginal soaring conditions
>> without the inconvenience or expense of a retrieve, so the utilization
>> of the glider is higher than a towed glider.
>>
>> So, instead of "a lot richer", you only have to be "modestly richer",
>> and with three owners of a glider, maybe not even richer at all,
>> especially as the used market for FES gliders increases in the next few
>> years. A club might find an FES glider a good value, particularly if
>> they want to encourage cross-country soaring.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> That strategy has been in use since the Wright Brothers started selling
> aircraft, so it is not going to change anything. If an electric towplane
> can only make 2 launches per day you will need more towplanes and the
> much higher cost would have to be passed on to the same number of club
> members.
>
The least exploited strategy is electric winches, since they can be run
off the mains and, with a battery bank you get off-peak charging and/or
to ability operate off a relatively small trailer generator.

We looked at using electric winches a few years back, but dropped the
idea when we found out what wiring up our usual winch points would be
(we'd ideally wire up three or four, with two being at the opposite end
of the runs to the clubhouse & mains supply, (we are on an ex-RAF bomber
field and regularly launch on 04, 22, less frequently on 340 and
occasionally on 160). We have a pair of Skylaunch winches that run on LPG.

--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 24th 20, 08:56 PM

Exactly! And us OF's are ready to do our part! But, we may not need to: these
days, with so many people working remotely, or can otherwise shift their working
hours around, it's not just OF's that can fly during the week. You don't have to
live near each other, either: rotate the glider among the owners' airports every
week or so, making it practical to have owners that don't live in the same town.

Dan Marotta wrote on 9/24/2020 8:04 AM:
> Well, then...* You'll need one or more old fart partners because there are only
> two days in a weekend. :-D
>
> Signed,
> Dan (an old fart)
>
> On 9/24/2020 6:59 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Dave Walsh wrote on 9/24/2020 5:11 AM:
>>> You won't need tow planes or winches when everyone has an electric self
>>> launch: everyone just has to get a lot richer.
>>> It's not a problem, our politicians have it all under control, look at how
>>>
>>> well we Europeans are doing with Brexit & Covid.....
>>> And, yes, it's raining.
>>>
>> There is an alternative to getting a lot richer: clubs and partnerships. With
>> just two people in a partnership, your purchase cost is one half, and you no
>> longer have to support a tow plane or pay tow fees. If you can fly near your
>> home, you can avoid travel and motel costs, too. The partners can fly whenever
>> their schedule and the weather permit, and even take advantage of marginal
>> soaring conditions without the inconvenience or expense of a retrieve, so the
>> utilization of the glider is higher than a towed glider.
>>
>> So, instead of "a lot richer", you only have to be "modestly richer", and with
>> three owners of a glider, maybe not even richer at all, especially as the used
>> market for FES gliders increases in the next few years. A club might find an FES
>> glider a good value, particularly if they want to encourage cross-country soaring.
>>
>

--
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

[email protected]

September 26th 20, 01:01 AM

> There is an alternative to getting a lot richer: clubs and partnerships.

I've been in several partnerships, and they all were much better in every way, than owning a glider alone (which I also have done). Better financially, and by having helpers, and when I landed out the nice feeling that someone else had a large interest in getting the glider (and me) back home.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 26th 20, 04:50 AM

wrote on 9/25/2020 5:01 PM:
>
>> There is an alternative to getting a lot richer: clubs and partnerships.
>
> I've been in several partnerships, and they all were much better in every way, than owning a glider alone (which I also have done). Better financially, and by having helpers, and when I landed out the nice feeling that someone else had a large interest in getting the glider (and me) back home.
>
Join a partnership in an FES glider, and when you fly you will have the nice
feeling that you will not land out :^)

--
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

Slawek Piela[_2_]

September 28th 20, 07:18 AM

Why nobody mentioned Antares 20/21E?

S

Dave Walsh[_2_]

September 28th 20, 02:57 PM

At 06:18 28 September 2020, Slawek Piela wrote:
>Why nobody mentioned Antares 20/21E?
>
The Antares 20E is a very nice handling machine with a good high speed
glide angle, comfortable (crash resistant) cockpit and excellent simple
engine controls (one lever does it all). The climb rate is very good (a
large, 2m diameter, slow revving prop and engine doors that are closed
during climb all help). The build quality is very nice.
In EASA land you can extend the actual ARC inspection to every three
years; the A/C can generate its own system reports which can be sent to
your inspector, if all is well a physical inspection is not required
annually.
However the total full power engine run time is only about 13 minutes so
after a ~3000 foot climb (I've averaged 6 minutes/launch over the last 5
years) you might have 50 - 60% battery capacity remaining: realistically
this will give you one further good climb so for many pilots the limited
battery capacity is seen as a problem.
The A/C is electrically/electronically very complex, the engine doors, the

engine erection/retraction and the U/C are all electro-hydraulic: even in
Europe any serious issue might mean a trip to Lange Aviation,
Zweibrucken, NW Germany.
It's expensive; it's the nicest motor glider I've owned/operated. Things
that could be better: -
(i) Engineers & inspectors with experience of Antares maintenance are
thin on the ground.
(ii) The official Flight & Maintenance Manuals are in still in German!
>

Dave Nadler

September 28th 20, 03:04 PM

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 2:18:07 AM UTC-4, Slawek Piela wrote:
> Why nobody mentioned Antares 20/21E?

Before you purchase any motorglider, you will want to talk to a few owners
about their ownership experience, especially reliability and factory support.

Dave Walsh[_2_]

September 28th 20, 05:22 PM

At 14:04 28 September 2020, Dave Nadler wrote:
>On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 2:18:07 AM UTC-4, Slawek Piela
wrote:
>> Why nobody mentioned Antares 20/21E?
>
>Before you purchase any motorglider, you will want to talk to a few
owners
>about their ownership experience, especially reliability and factory
>support.
>
>I agree totally: what you might well discover is that the reliable motor
glider does not yet exist. Given this, good factory support is very
desirable.

jfitch

September 28th 20, 06:19 PM

At least individual examples do exist. I've owned mine for 20 years, in that time I have had exactly 1 failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plugs), and no inflight failures at all. Other than scheduled maintenance per the manual, the list of repairs in 20 years has been:

* replaced exhaust muffler per A/D
* replaced water pump due to progressively worsening seal
* preemptively replaced belt idler bearings which were judged to be noisy
* replaced coil #1, internally intermittent

I've rarely owned a car that had fewer repairs. I'm not going to argue that this glider is as reliable as a modern car, but with vigilant maintenance, reliability has not been bad relatively speaking. Perhaps I have been lucky, but I know other owners who are equally lucky. I own two boats, each of which has required more unscheduled maintenance than has the glider. Boats and gliders are both made in prototype quantities, an expectation of reliability equal to an automobile (made in millions) is naive. But of course, even in an automobile, good factory support is desirable.

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 9:30:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
> >I agree totally: what you might well discover is that the reliable motor
> glider does not yet exist. Given this, good factory support is very
> desirable.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 28th 20, 06:44 PM

jfitch wrote on 9/28/2020 10:19 AM:
> At least individual examples do exist. I've owned mine for 20 years, in that time I have had exactly 1 failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plugs), and no inflight failures at all. Other than scheduled maintenance per the manual, the list of repairs in 20 years has been:
>
> * replaced exhaust muffler per A/D
> * replaced water pump due to progressively worsening seal
> * preemptively replaced belt idler bearings which were judged to be noisy
> * replaced coil #1, internally intermittent
>
> I've rarely owned a car that had fewer repairs. I'm not going to argue that this glider is as reliable as a modern car, but with vigilant maintenance, reliability has not been bad relatively speaking. Perhaps I have been lucky, but I know other owners who are equally lucky. I own two boats, each of which has required more unscheduled maintenance than has the glider. Boats and gliders are both made in prototype quantities, an expectation of reliability equal to an automobile (made in millions) is naive. But of course, even in an automobile, good factory support is desirable.
>
> On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 9:30:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
>>> I agree totally: what you might well discover is that the reliable motor
>> glider does not yet exist. Given this, good factory support is very
>> desirable.

My experience with my ASH 26E parallels Jon's: over 26 years, 4000+ hours, 200
engine hours, except for these engine related issues...

-I've had one failure to start in-flight; probably my fault as it started
immediately on the ground shortly after landing
-replaced the propeller drive belt after 20 years "just because"
-the air spring on the mast was replaced once
-oil sensor leaked, replaced
-I have not replaced a coil, but I did replace the flywheel per an AD the second
year or so.
-I've only lost two or three soaring days due to propulsion system issues, as most
maintenance could be deferred to non-soaring periods (like winter)

I flew towed gliders for about 3000 hours, and lost many days due to towplane
issues: no pilot or towplane down for various mechanical problems. I can take my
26E to almost any airport, where I can expect to launch and then return 5-6 hours
later, even the weather doesn't cooperate. That's my idea of a reliable glider!
Try that with a towed glider, and your "reliability" will be much worse.

--
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

[email protected]

September 29th 20, 10:24 PM

You did not say which aircraft you own...

Matt

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 1:19:30 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> At least individual examples do exist. I've owned mine for 20 years, in that time I have had exactly 1 failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plugs), and no inflight failures at all. Other than scheduled maintenance per the manual, the list of repairs in 20 years has been:
>
> * replaced exhaust muffler per A/D
> * replaced water pump due to progressively worsening seal
> * preemptively replaced belt idler bearings which were judged to be noisy
> * replaced coil #1, internally intermittent
>
> I've rarely owned a car that had fewer repairs. I'm not going to argue that this glider is as reliable as a modern car, but with vigilant maintenance, reliability has not been bad relatively speaking. Perhaps I have been lucky, but I know other owners who are equally lucky. I own two boats, each of which has required more unscheduled maintenance than has the glider. Boats and gliders are both made in prototype quantities, an expectation of reliability equal to an automobile (made in millions) is naive. But of course, even in an automobile, good factory support is desirable.

jfitch

September 30th 20, 12:54 AM

ASH26Mi. Eric's story reminds me that I have had to replace the oil sender as well (though that was done at the scheduled annual, no down time). I have lost only one day of soaring, the failure to start after winter layup. I have flown it twice without the engine installed, once when the water pump was being replaced just to see how it would fly, and once in the midst of my engine conversion when the soaring looked too good to pass up and the new engine wasn't ready. When the coil became intermittent the engine ran fine on the other coil, but I chose to take a tow that day out of an abundance of caution. Those occasions are the only instances of it being towed. Like Eric, I have flown numerous days when either there was no tow plane, or the wait was so long several pilots gave up and drank beer. So I think I can truthfully say it has gotten me launched more reliably than an engineless glider. Picking my own launch time has been the best benefit though.

I've been meticulous about maintenance, and make no mistake, there is much more maintenance on a motorglider than one without.

On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 2:24:40 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> You did not say which aircraft you own...
>
> Matt
> On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 1:19:30 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > At least individual examples do exist. I've owned mine for 20 years, in that time I have had exactly 1 failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plugs), and no inflight failures at all. Other than scheduled maintenance per the manual, the list of repairs in 20 years has been:
> >
> > * replaced exhaust muffler per A/D
> > * replaced water pump due to progressively worsening seal
> > * preemptively replaced belt idler bearings which were judged to be noisy
> > * replaced coil #1, internally intermittent
> >
> > I've rarely owned a car that had fewer repairs. I'm not going to argue that this glider is as reliable as a modern car, but with vigilant maintenance, reliability has not been bad relatively speaking. Perhaps I have been lucky, but I know other owners who are equally lucky. I own two boats, each of which has required more unscheduled maintenance than has the glider. Boats and gliders are both made in prototype quantities, an expectation of reliability equal to an automobile (made in millions) is naive. But of course, even in an automobile, good factory support is desirable.

[email protected]

September 30th 20, 08:35 PM

Thanks! I am familiar with the ASH-26E, but I haven't seen much online about the -Mi. Are these quite different?

Matt

On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 7:54:06 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> ASH26Mi. Eric's story reminds me that I have had to replace the oil sender as well (though that was done at the scheduled annual, no down time). I have lost only one day of soaring, the failure to start after winter layup. I have flown it twice without the engine installed, once when the water pump was being replaced just to see how it would fly, and once in the midst of my engine conversion when the soaring looked too good to pass up and the new engine wasn't ready. When the coil became intermittent the engine ran fine on the other coil, but I chose to take a tow that day out of an abundance of caution. Those occasions are the only instances of it being towed. Like Eric, I have flown numerous days when either there was no tow plane, or the wait was so long several pilots gave up and drank beer. So I think I can truthfully say it has gotten me launched more reliably than an engineless glider. Picking my own launch time has been the best benefit though.

waremark

October 1st 20, 12:28 AM

Presumably an ASH26 Mi is a 26 which has had an engine conversion to the engine introduced in the ASH31 - with fuel injection increasing quoted power from 50 hp to 57 hp.

kinsell

October 1st 20, 03:27 AM

On 9/30/20 5:28 PM, waremark wrote:
> Presumably an ASH26 Mi is a 26 which has had an engine conversion to the engine introduced in the ASH31 - with fuel injection increasing quoted power from 50 hp to 57 hp.
>

Basically right, but the FI motor was available in the ASH-25Mi well
before the '31 cam along.

Probably should note that there's plenty of items that can and do go
wrong on the wankel and its accessories, the iron apex seals are weak
points, drive belts break, bearings go bad. If a great motorglider
propulsion system existed, everyone would be using it.

jfitch

October 1st 20, 05:48 PM

Waremark is correct, it was a 26E for my first 17 years of ownership, I swapped in the Mi motor. The injected motor starts quicker, runs a little smoother, has a little more power, and of course is altitude corrected. Climb rate is improved by about 25%. Other than the injection, the propulsion system is the same. It is a bit more work than might be apparent due to the changes in the wiring harness necessary to support the injection control, and the two high pressure fuel pumps replacing the low pressure ones. The 31 and 26 fuselage are otherwise identical, so everything fits and works properly. To the extent that there are mechanical problems with the engine, they will be the same between E and Mi. I've just not had that many, with either engine.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 12:35:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Thanks! I am familiar with the ASH-26E, but I haven't seen much online about the -Mi. Are these quite different?
>
> Matt
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 7:54:06 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > ASH26Mi. Eric's story reminds me that I have had to replace the oil sender as well (though that was done at the scheduled annual, no down time). I have lost only one day of soaring, the failure to start after winter layup.. I have flown it twice without the engine installed, once when the water pump was being replaced just to see how it would fly, and once in the midst of my engine conversion when the soaring looked too good to pass up and the new engine wasn't ready. When the coil became intermittent the engine ran fine on the other coil, but I chose to take a tow that day out of an abundance of caution. Those occasions are the only instances of it being towed. Like Eric, I have flown numerous days when either there was no tow plane, or the wait was so long several pilots gave up and drank beer. So I think I can truthfully say it has gotten me launched more reliably than an engineless glider. Picking my own launch time has been the best benefit though.

waremark

October 2nd 20, 04:47 PM

Yes to the difference between the 26E engine and the Mi engine. I had a 26E and have flown a 31. If you operate in the flatlands the engine upgrade is not a reason to change, at low elevations the 26 has good take-off and climb performance (better than the more powerful and injected Arcus M which I fly now, but not as good as the DG 808). If you might need to cross high mountains the injected version would be much more suitable (there is no in-flight mixture adjustment on the carburetor 26E version) and of course the extra power is appropriate for the heavier 31.

The Schleicher gliders have used fine pitched propellers for best take-off performance since a few years after the 26 came out - the quoted ground roll reduced from 300m to 200m (from memory) when Schleicher changed the prop from the original Technoflug prop to their own prop. If you want to fly level under power for your self-retrieve the Arcus cruises faster than the 26, I presume as a result of a coarser prop.

jfitch

October 2nd 20, 05:46 PM

While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate for high altitude operation. I did not adjust the carburetor between sea level and high altitude, it would climb to 13,000 ft. well and begin to run a bit rough between there and 14,000 ft. I have calculated the climb rate for the first 1000 ft on all of my flights out of Truckee (typical density altitude at takeoff is 8800 - 9200 ft.). With the E engine it was around 430 ft/min average, with the Mi engine it has been about 550 ft/min. It out climbs a Pawnee towplane towing a similar glider. My E engine had the original Technoflug prop, however comparing Technoflug and AS props, the climb rate is similar (acceleration is better with the AS). Climb rate at sea level is over 800 ft/min.

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 8:47:35 AM UTC-7, waremark wrote:
> Yes to the difference between the 26E engine and the Mi engine. I had a 26E and have flown a 31. If you operate in the flatlands the engine upgrade is not a reason to change, at low elevations the 26 has good take-off and climb performance (better than the more powerful and injected Arcus M which I fly now, but not as good as the DG 808). If you might need to cross high mountains the injected version would be much more suitable (there is no in-flight mixture adjustment on the carburetor 26E version) and of course the extra power is appropriate for the heavier 31.
>
> The Schleicher gliders have used fine pitched propellers for best take-off performance since a few years after the 26 came out - the quoted ground roll reduced from 300m to 200m (from memory) when Schleicher changed the prop from the original Technoflug prop to their own prop. If you want to fly level under power for your self-retrieve the Arcus cruises faster than the 26, I presume as a result of a coarser prop.

Dave Nadler

October 3rd 20, 01:41 AM

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate

Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?

Thanks,
Best Regards, Dave

John Galloway[_2_]

October 3rd 20, 08:30 AM

I flew an ASH26e for 2 seasons and now have a V3M which matches its advertised climb rate of 630fpm with its 62hp fuel injected Solo engine taking off from 360ft msl. The 26e with the carb engine got around 500pm so I surprised me to hear the the 26Mi, with a lower power engine than my V3M, will manage 800fpm from sea level. 800fpm seems an extraordinary increase.

The 26e is a lovely glider and the engine is, of course, much quieter smoother than 2 cylinder 2-strokes but the rotary engine is too vulnerable to catastrophic internal damage if anything goes wrong with the marginal at the best of times rotor air cooling and the internal oil misting. The saying about self launching glider IC engines is - "with the Solo you will probably get lots of relatively small problems, with the rotary you'll get fewer problems but when you do it could be a very big one". There are certainly a few replaced rotaries in gliders that I know of and that is a big bill. I had the fan belt fall off and the engine rotor air rapidly overheat but got away with it.

Paul T[_4_]

October 3rd 20, 08:56 AM

Is there a rec.aviation.mortorglider for all these boys that don't fly
sailplanes???

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 3rd 20, 02:07 PM

Paul T wrote on 10/3/2020 12:56 AM:
> Is there a rec.aviation.mortorglider for all these boys that don't fly
> sailplanes???
>
You are asking about what we call "touring motorgliders". The best place to start
is the Touring Motorglider Association forums:

https://www.motorgliders.org

--
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

Dan Marotta

October 3rd 20, 03:28 PM

Touring motorgliders seem to be simply airplanes with longer wings.

On 10/3/2020 7:07 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Paul T wrote on 10/3/2020 12:56 AM:
>> Is there a rec.aviation.mortorglider for all these boys that don't fly
>> sailplanes???
>>
> You are asking about what we call "touring motorgliders". The best
> place to start is the Touring Motorglider Association forums:
>
> https://www.motorgliders.org
>

--
Dan, 5J

jfitch

October 3rd 20, 04:59 PM

Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
> Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
> Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?
>
> Thanks,
> Best Regards, Dave

jfitch

October 3rd 20, 05:10 PM

I have written an application that will analyze an IGC file (or many IGC files at once) to calculate time to climb and climb rate. I dumped 20 years worth of my IGC files into it. The climb rate at sea level with the E engine was a bit over 600 if memory serves, and a bit over 800 with the Mi (I do not fly often at sea level). About the same percentage increase at high altitude. If you want to send me some IGC files, I can throw them into the same app.

There have been a couple of instances of fan belt failures on the rotary, a few of us have installed warning indicators for this possibility.

On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 12:30:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> I flew an ASH26e for 2 seasons and now have a V3M which matches its advertised climb rate of 630fpm with its 62hp fuel injected Solo engine taking off from 360ft msl. The 26e with the carb engine got around 500pm so I surprised me to hear the the 26Mi, with a lower power engine than my V3M, will manage 800fpm from sea level. 800fpm seems an extraordinary increase.
>
> The 26e is a lovely glider and the engine is, of course, much quieter smoother than 2 cylinder 2-strokes but the rotary engine is too vulnerable to catastrophic internal damage if anything goes wrong with the marginal at the best of times rotor air cooling and the internal oil misting. The saying about self launching glider IC engines is - "with the Solo you will probably get lots of relatively small problems, with the rotary you'll get fewer problems but when you do it could be a very big one". There are certainly a few replaced rotaries in gliders that I know of and that is a big bill. I had the fan belt fall off and the engine rotor air rapidly overheat but got away with it.

October 3rd 20, 05:33 PM

On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:00:01 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.
>
> On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
> > Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
> > Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Best Regards, Dave

I think if you factored in the cost of the engine and the cost of the labor you would be better off selling your 26e and buying a new 31Mi. You definitely can't get your money back when you sell your converted 26Mi (which really doesn't exist as it is not an AS model).

Tom

kinsell

October 3rd 20, 06:01 PM

On 10/3/20 7:07 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Paul T wrote on 10/3/2020 12:56 AM:
>> Is there a rec.aviation.mortorglider for all these boys that don't fly
>> sailplanes???
>>
> You are asking about what we call "touring motorgliders". The best place
> to start is the Touring Motorglider Association forums:
>
> https://www.motorgliders.org
>

I believe he was saying that motorgliders aren't really sailplanes and
would like discussions on such to move elsewhere.

Maybe if he doesn't want to read about motorgliders, he could avoid
clicking on threads mentioning motorgliders?

Paul T[_4_]

October 3rd 20, 10:43 PM

At 17:01 03 October 2020, kinsell wrote:
>On 10/3/20 7:07 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Paul T wrote on 10/3/2020 12:56 AM:
>>> Is there a rec.aviation.mortorglider for all these boys that don't fly
>>> sailplanes???
>>>
>> You are asking about what we call "touring motorgliders". The best
place
>> to start is the Touring Motorglider Association forums:
>>
>> https://www.motorgliders.org
>>
>
>I believe he was saying that motorgliders aren't really sailplanes and
>would like discussions on such to move elsewhere.
>
>Maybe if he doesn't want to read about motorgliders, he could avoid
>clicking on threads mentioning motorgliders?
>

Such a cynic - but no, anything with an engine in it is not a sailplane -
its a
different game - maybe better, maybe worse, but definitely different - but

personally I'd have a JS2/5 if I win the lottery.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 3rd 20, 11:42 PM

Paul T wrote on 10/3/2020 2:43 PM:
> At 17:01 03 October 2020, kinsell wrote:
>> On 10/3/20 7:07 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>> Paul T wrote on 10/3/2020 12:56 AM:
>>>> Is there a rec.aviation.mortorglider for all these boys that don't fly
>>>> sailplanes???
>>>>
>>> You are asking about what we call "touring motorgliders". The best
> place
>>> to start is the Touring Motorglider Association forums:
>>>
>>> https://www.motorgliders.org
>>>
>>
>> I believe he was saying that motorgliders aren't really sailplanes and
>> would like discussions on such to move elsewhere.
>>
>> Maybe if he doesn't want to read about motorgliders, he could avoid
>> clicking on threads mentioning motorgliders?
>>
>
> Such a cynic - but no, anything with an engine in it is not a sailplane -
> its a
> different game - maybe better, maybe worse, but definitely different - but
>
> personally I'd have a JS2/5 if I win the lottery.

Equipment does change the game: 1-26 vs Nimbus 4 is a different game.

The area also changes the game: Appalachian ridges vs Argentina wave is a
different game.

The launch availability changes the game: Daily access to a tow vs weekend only is
a different game.

Retrieve ease changes the game: a very dedicated (or paid) crew vs the unassisted
pilot is a different game.

My point: The common factor is we are all flying sailplanes, and there are many
factors affecting the "game". To argue a Nimbus 4 is a sailplane and a Nimbus 4M
isn't ignores what happens between the start and finish of the soaring.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to em"l me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

jfitch

October 4th 20, 02:58 AM

On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:33:33 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:00:01 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.
> >
> > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
> > > Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
> > > Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Best Regards, Dave
> I think if you factored in the cost of the engine and the cost of the labor you would be better off selling your 26e and buying a new 31Mi. You definitely can't get your money back when you sell your converted 26Mi (which really doesn't exist as it is not an AS model).
>
> Tom
The cost of the parts wasn't that high and the labor was free. Certainly far less than the $100K or so difference. I considered a 31 but prefer the one piece wings, leaving the only advantage (for me) of the 31 the higher wing loading on rare occasions when I could be bothered with water. Nevertheless, it isn't wise to look too closely at the cost of soaring, it is phenomenally expensive at this level. Everyone makes their own decisions, and I made mine with full knowledge.

Regarding auxiliary motors, this prejudice will die away eventually. Sailboats with auxiliaries are now universal and are thought of as sailboats, but it took about 50 years to get there. With motorgliders currently outselling non-engined gliders by about 5:1, it may not take that long.

kinsell

October 4th 20, 04:39 PM

Obviously it wasn't trivial, but look at what they did with the '25.
Sold as a straight glider, a sustainer with a Solo engine, and a
self-launch with a carbureted Wankel, an injected Wankel, and a twin
jet. So much re-engineering went into that ship, but not the '26.

On 10/3/20 9:59 AM, jfitch wrote:
> Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.
>
> On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
>>> While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
>> Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
>> Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Best Regards, Dave

[email protected]

October 4th 20, 09:01 PM

I don't believe the '25 was ever sold as a twin jet, but there was one converted by the owner. (in Australia, I believe)

Matthew Scutter

October 4th 20, 11:01 PM

On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 10:01:09 PM UTC+2, wrote:
> I don't believe the '25 was ever sold as a twin jet, but there was one converted by the owner. (in Australia, I believe)
Which subsequently ended in tragedy :(

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2018/aair/ao-2018-009/

jfitch

October 5th 20, 12:11 AM

The 26 was re-engineered into the 31. The fuselage is the same, the Mi motor drops in and bolts up to the 26 fuselage without any structural or mechanical changes at all. Only the wiring and fuel system has to be upgraded to match the induction system. To fit an engine into the originally engineless 25 was, I'm sure, a much larger job. I don't think converting an engineless 25 into a 25Mi is practical, without purchasing a new fuselage. I believe it has been tried on a 22, the cost is prohibitive.

On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:39:22 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> Obviously it wasn't trivial, but look at what they did with the '25.
> Sold as a straight glider, a sustainer with a Solo engine, and a
> self-launch with a carbureted Wankel, an injected Wankel, and a twin
> jet. So much re-engineering went into that ship, but not the '26.
> On 10/3/20 9:59 AM, jfitch wrote:
> > Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.
> >
> > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >> On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> >>> While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
> >> Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
> >> Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Best Regards, Dave

October 5th 20, 01:04 AM

On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 6:58:32 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:33:33 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:00:01 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > > Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.
> > >
> > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
> > > > Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
> > > > Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Best Regards, Dave
> > I think if you factored in the cost of the engine and the cost of the labor you would be better off selling your 26e and buying a new 31Mi. You definitely can't get your money back when you sell your converted 26Mi (which really doesn't exist as it is not an AS model).
> >
> > Tom
> The cost of the parts wasn't that high and the labor was free. Certainly far less than the $100K or so difference. I considered a 31 but prefer the one piece wings, leaving the only advantage (for me) of the 31 the higher wing loading on rare occasions when I could be bothered with water. Nevertheless, it isn't wise to look too closely at the cost of soaring, it is phenomenally expensive at this level. Everyone makes their own decisions, and I made mine with full knowledge.
>
> Regarding auxiliary motors, this prejudice will die away eventually. Sailboats with auxiliaries are now universal and are thought of as sailboats, but it took about 50 years to get there. With motorgliders currently outselling non-engined gliders by about 5:1, it may not take that long.

The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him! I was down below ridge height scratching and he easily connected with a thermal and was gone. The better glide of the 31 is really substantial as is the engine performance at high-density altitudes.

Valuing your labor at zero doesn't make sense as you can always work at your profession and pay someone else to do the work. If you make less than what it will cost in labor, then do it yourself, but set the labor cost at your deferred labor rate. Even worse, when it is time to sell potential buyers will consider it to be a 26e, not a 26Mi (which doesn't exist).

I've stopped worrying about the obscene cost of these toys a long time ago. If it bothered me, I could just play golf at zero additional cost (I have an annual membership at the course I play whether I fly or not).

Tom

RW[_2_]

October 5th 20, 04:07 AM

On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:04:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 6:58:32 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:33:33 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:00:01 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
> > > > > Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
> > > > > Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Best Regards, Dave
> > > I think if you factored in the cost of the engine and the cost of the labor you would be better off selling your 26e and buying a new 31Mi. You definitely can't get your money back when you sell your converted 26Mi (which really doesn't exist as it is not an AS model).
> > >
> > > Tom
> > The cost of the parts wasn't that high and the labor was free. Certainly far less than the $100K or so difference. I considered a 31 but prefer the one piece wings, leaving the only advantage (for me) of the 31 the higher wing loading on rare occasions when I could be bothered with water. Nevertheless, it isn't wise to look too closely at the cost of soaring, it is phenomenally expensive at this level. Everyone makes their own decisions, and I made mine with full knowledge.
> >
> > Regarding auxiliary motors, this prejudice will die away eventually. Sailboats with auxiliaries are now universal and are thought of as sailboats, but it took about 50 years to get there. With motorgliders currently outselling non-engined gliders by about 5:1, it may not take that long.
> The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him! I was down below ridge height scratching and he easily connected with a thermal and was gone. The better glide of the 31 is really substantial as is the engine performance at high-density altitudes.
>
> Valuing your labor at zero doesn't make sense as you can always work at your profession and pay someone else to do the work. If you make less than what it will cost in labor, then do it yourself, but set the labor cost at your deferred labor rate. Even worse, when it is time to sell potential buyers will consider it to be a 26e, not a 26Mi (which doesn't exist).
>
> I've stopped worrying about the obscene cost of these toys a long time ago. If it bothered me, I could just play golf at zero additional cost (I have an annual membership at the course I play whether I fly or not).
>
> Tom
Tom,
Energy line is not big highway.
Your friend read a line a bit better.
We all trying the best, but we sometimes miss.
Its not a glider !
Ryszard

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 5th 20, 04:44 AM

2G wrote on 10/4/2020 5:04 PM:
ling non-engined gliders by about 5:1, it may not take that long.
>
> The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him! I was down below ridge height scratching and he easily connected with a thermal and was gone. The better glide of the 31 is really substantial as is the engine performance at high-density altitudes.
>
If he was getting 50:1, that suggests you were only getting 27:1. What speed were
you flying? What were the respective wing loadings? Did you follow closely behind?
Did you have a lot of bugs?

--
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

Carlo Orsini

October 5th 20, 08:17 AM

I thought the same thing...............before checking width between shoulders on JS2!

> >> Paul T wrote on 10/3/2020 12:56 AM:
....................
> personally I'd have a JS2/5 if I win the lottery.

John Galloway[_2_]

October 5th 20, 10:31 AM

The JS1 and ASH26 I used to fly were noticeably more roomy around the shoulders and upper arms than the V3M and I would be amazed if the JS2 wasn't similar. The Ventus Performance fuselage has a vertical side wall for a few inches below the cockpit rim whereas the JS gliders follow the Schleicher concept of a reinforcing inward curvature of the cockpit rim beneath which the shoulder and elbow-moving space is quite roomy. I wouldn't reject the JS2 on cockpit size alone without sitting in it first. Oscar Goudrian fits according to the picture on the JS FB page.

Carlo Orsini

October 5th 20, 03:38 PM

JS2 spec:
Cockpit shoulder width
525 mm

ASH31Mi spec:
Cockpit width
660 mm

Yes, there is a photo of Goudriaan in the cockpit: his position is completely lying down with shoulders under the rims. I don't think you could fly 10 hours in that position IMHO.

When talking about aerodynamic drag the fuselage frontal area is an important factor, especially at high speeds (when induced drag is less).

A pilot must take a decision: top performance or compromise & comfort ? Both is simply impossible.

(This was a factor when I had to choose between ASH31Mi and Ventus2CxM)

jfitch

October 5th 20, 04:21 PM

The glide on a 29 and a 26 at the same wing loading is nearly identical, proven by numerous side-by-side 30 mi + glides. As is a 31 with 18m tips. Now if you are comparing a 29 or 31 at 11 lb/ft to a 26 at 9, all running 85 knots, yeah there will be a difference. If you like to load up, this is the 26 weak spot, wing loading limited by European paperwork.

Your concern for my money is touching, but don't worry about it - I'm not.

On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 5:04:18 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 6:58:32 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:33:33 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:00:01 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
> > > > > Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
> > > > > Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Best Regards, Dave
> > > I think if you factored in the cost of the engine and the cost of the labor you would be better off selling your 26e and buying a new 31Mi. You definitely can't get your money back when you sell your converted 26Mi (which really doesn't exist as it is not an AS model).
> > >
> > > Tom
> > The cost of the parts wasn't that high and the labor was free. Certainly far less than the $100K or so difference. I considered a 31 but prefer the one piece wings, leaving the only advantage (for me) of the 31 the higher wing loading on rare occasions when I could be bothered with water. Nevertheless, it isn't wise to look too closely at the cost of soaring, it is phenomenally expensive at this level. Everyone makes their own decisions, and I made mine with full knowledge.
> >
> > Regarding auxiliary motors, this prejudice will die away eventually. Sailboats with auxiliaries are now universal and are thought of as sailboats, but it took about 50 years to get there. With motorgliders currently outselling non-engined gliders by about 5:1, it may not take that long.
> The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him! I was down below ridge height scratching and he easily connected with a thermal and was gone. The better glide of the 31 is really substantial as is the engine performance at high-density altitudes.
>
> Valuing your labor at zero doesn't make sense as you can always work at your profession and pay someone else to do the work. If you make less than what it will cost in labor, then do it yourself, but set the labor cost at your deferred labor rate. Even worse, when it is time to sell potential buyers will consider it to be a 26e, not a 26Mi (which doesn't exist).
>
> I've stopped worrying about the obscene cost of these toys a long time ago. If it bothered me, I could just play golf at zero additional cost (I have an annual membership at the course I play whether I fly or not).
>
> Tom

October 5th 20, 04:41 PM

On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:07:16 PM UTC-7, RW wrote:
> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:04:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 6:58:32 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:33:33 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:00:01 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
> > > > > > Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
> > > > > > Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Best Regards, Dave
> > > > I think if you factored in the cost of the engine and the cost of the labor you would be better off selling your 26e and buying a new 31Mi. You definitely can't get your money back when you sell your converted 26Mi (which really doesn't exist as it is not an AS model).
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > The cost of the parts wasn't that high and the labor was free. Certainly far less than the $100K or so difference. I considered a 31 but prefer the one piece wings, leaving the only advantage (for me) of the 31 the higher wing loading on rare occasions when I could be bothered with water. Nevertheless, it isn't wise to look too closely at the cost of soaring, it is phenomenally expensive at this level. Everyone makes their own decisions, and I made mine with full knowledge.
> > >
> > > Regarding auxiliary motors, this prejudice will die away eventually. Sailboats with auxiliaries are now universal and are thought of as sailboats, but it took about 50 years to get there. With motorgliders currently outselling non-engined gliders by about 5:1, it may not take that long.
> > The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him! I was down below ridge height scratching and he easily connected with a thermal and was gone. The better glide of the 31 is really substantial as is the engine performance at high-density altitudes.
> >
> > Valuing your labor at zero doesn't make sense as you can always work at your profession and pay someone else to do the work. If you make less than what it will cost in labor, then do it yourself, but set the labor cost at your deferred labor rate. Even worse, when it is time to sell potential buyers will consider it to be a 26e, not a 26Mi (which doesn't exist).
> >
> > I've stopped worrying about the obscene cost of these toys a long time ago. If it bothered me, I could just play golf at zero additional cost (I have an annual membership at the course I play whether I fly or not).
> >
> > Tom
> Tom,
> Energy line is not big highway.
> Your friend read a line a bit better.
> We all trying the best, but we sometimes miss.
> Its not a glider !
> Ryszard

Ryszard, you might consider rephrasing your comment as it just doesn't make any sense.

Tom

RW[_2_]

October 5th 20, 05:13 PM

On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 11:41:41 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:07:16 PM UTC-7, RW wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:04:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 6:58:32 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:33:33 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:00:01 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
> > > > > > > Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
> > > > > > > Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Best Regards, Dave
> > > > > I think if you factored in the cost of the engine and the cost of the labor you would be better off selling your 26e and buying a new 31Mi. You definitely can't get your money back when you sell your converted 26Mi (which really doesn't exist as it is not an AS model).
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom
> > > > The cost of the parts wasn't that high and the labor was free. Certainly far less than the $100K or so difference. I considered a 31 but prefer the one piece wings, leaving the only advantage (for me) of the 31 the higher wing loading on rare occasions when I could be bothered with water. Nevertheless, it isn't wise to look too closely at the cost of soaring, it is phenomenally expensive at this level. Everyone makes their own decisions, and I made mine with full knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding auxiliary motors, this prejudice will die away eventually.. Sailboats with auxiliaries are now universal and are thought of as sailboats, but it took about 50 years to get there. With motorgliders currently outselling non-engined gliders by about 5:1, it may not take that long.
> > > The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him! I was down below ridge height scratching and he easily connected with a thermal and was gone. The better glide of the 31 is really substantial as is the engine performance at high-density altitudes.
> > >
> > > Valuing your labor at zero doesn't make sense as you can always work at your profession and pay someone else to do the work. If you make less than what it will cost in labor, then do it yourself, but set the labor cost at your deferred labor rate. Even worse, when it is time to sell potential buyers will consider it to be a 26e, not a 26Mi (which doesn't exist).
> > >
> > > I've stopped worrying about the obscene cost of these toys a long time ago. If it bothered me, I could just play golf at zero additional cost (I have an annual membership at the course I play whether I fly or not).
> > >
> > > Tom
> > Tom,
> > Energy line is not big highway.
> > Your friend read a line a bit better.
> > We all trying the best, but we sometimes miss.
> > Its not a glider !
> > Ryszard
>
> Ryszard, you might consider rephrasing your comment as it just doesn't make any sense.
>
> Tom
Tom, I believe, best energy line is narrow, like British roads can handle one car.
Flying side by side 200 ft apart will not bring same results.
Ryszard

John Galloway[_2_]

October 5th 20, 05:22 PM

On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 15:38:53 UTC+1, Carlo Orsini wrote:
> JS2 spec:
> Cockpit shoulder width
> 525 mm
>
> ASH31Mi spec:
> Cockpit width
> 660 mm
>
> Yes, there is a photo of Goudriaan in the cockpit: his position is completely lying down with shoulders under the rims. I don't think you could fly 10 hours in that position IMHO.
>
> When talking about aerodynamic drag the fuselage frontal area is an important factor, especially at high speeds (when induced drag is less).
>
> A pilot must take a decision: top performance or compromise & comfort ? Both is simply impossible.
>
> (This was a factor when I had to choose between ASH31Mi and Ventus2CxM)

Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are clearly not be comparable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The 525mm shoulder width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure for the JS1 (and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the ASH26/31 from which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in the ASH 26e and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which cockpit I was in with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs it obvious that its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26 and JS1. JS do not make small cockpits.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 5th 20, 05:39 PM

RW wrote on 10/5/2020 9:13 AM:
> On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 11:41:41 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:07:16 PM UTC-7, RW wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:04:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:

>>>> I've stopped worrying about the obscene cost of these toys a long time ago. If it bothered me, I could just play golf at zero additional cost (I have an annual membership at the course I play whether I fly or not).
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>> Tom,
>>> Energy line is not big highway.
>>> Your friend read a line a bit better.
>>> We all trying the best, but we sometimes miss.
>>> Its not a glider !
>>> Ryszard
>>
>> Ryszard, you might consider rephrasing your comment as it just doesn't make any sense.
>>
>> Tom
> Tom, I believe, best energy line is narrow, like British roads can handle one car.
> Flying side by side 200 ft apart will not bring same results.
> Ryszard
>
And a glider is a thousand feet lower than the other glider, it is just luck if
the two pilots are in the same air.

--
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

kinsell

October 5th 20, 05:48 PM

On 10/4/20 4:01 PM, Matthew Scutter wrote:
> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 10:01:09 PM UTC+2, wrote:
>> I don't believe the '25 was ever sold as a twin jet, but there was one converted by the owner. (in Australia, I believe)
> Which subsequently ended in tragedy :(
>
> https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2018/aair/ao-2018-009/
>

Wikipedia showed an AH-25J, but yeah that was likely the 25M conversion.

They also do list a self-launch with a bigger Solo engine, which would
make sense since the wankel has always been marginal for the larger
ships, particularly at higher altitude airports. Anyway you cut it, a
lot of engines for one ship.

-Dave

John Galloway[_2_]

October 5th 20, 07:05 PM

On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 17:48:52 UTC+1, kinsell wrote:
> On 10/4/20 4:01 PM, Matthew Scutter wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 10:01:09 PM UTC+2, wrote:
> >> I don't believe the '25 was ever sold as a twin jet, but there was one converted by the owner. (in Australia, I believe)
> > Which subsequently ended in tragedy :(
> >
> > https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2018/aair/ao-2018-009/
> >
>
> Wikipedia showed an AH-25J, but yeah that was likely the 25M conversion.
>
> They also do list a self-launch with a bigger Solo engine, which would
> make sense since the wankel has always been marginal for the larger
> ships, particularly at higher altitude airports. Anyway you cut it, a
> lot of engines for one ship.
>
> -Dave

The Solo engined version is the AS25/EB28 which is really a Binder EB model leading on to their EB28 then EB28 Edition models.

jfitch

October 5th 20, 08:16 PM

It should not come as a surprise that the JS1/JS2 cockpits are similar to the ASH26, given that they took a splash mold off of a 26 fuselage to build them. They seem identical because they are.

On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 9:22:34 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 15:38:53 UTC+1, Carlo Orsini wrote:
> > JS2 spec:
> > Cockpit shoulder width
> > 525 mm
> >
> > ASH31Mi spec:
> > Cockpit width
> > 660 mm
> >
> > Yes, there is a photo of Goudriaan in the cockpit: his position is completely lying down with shoulders under the rims. I don't think you could fly 10 hours in that position IMHO.
> >
> > When talking about aerodynamic drag the fuselage frontal area is an important factor, especially at high speeds (when induced drag is less).
> >
> > A pilot must take a decision: top performance or compromise & comfort ? Both is simply impossible.
> >
> > (This was a factor when I had to choose between ASH31Mi and Ventus2CxM)
> Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are clearly not be comparable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The 525mm shoulder width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure for the JS1 (and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the ASH26/31 from which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in the ASH 26e and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which cockpit I was in with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs it obvious that its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26 and JS1. JS do not make small cockpits.

John Galloway[_2_]

October 5th 20, 08:55 PM

On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 20:16:15 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
> It should not come as a surprise that the JS1/JS2 cockpits are similar to the ASH26, given that they took a splash mold off of a 26 fuselage to build them. They seem identical because they are.
> On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 9:22:34 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 15:38:53 UTC+1, Carlo Orsini wrote:
> > > JS2 spec:
> > > Cockpit shoulder width
> > > 525 mm
> > >
> > > ASH31Mi spec:
> > > Cockpit width
> > > 660 mm
> > >
> > > Yes, there is a photo of Goudriaan in the cockpit: his position is completely lying down with shoulders under the rims. I don't think you could fly 10 hours in that position IMHO.
> > >
> > > When talking about aerodynamic drag the fuselage frontal area is an important factor, especially at high speeds (when induced drag is less).
> > >
> > > A pilot must take a decision: top performance or compromise & comfort ? Both is simply impossible.
> > >
> > > (This was a factor when I had to choose between ASH31Mi and Ventus2CxM)
> > Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are clearly not be comparable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The 525mm shoulder width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure for the JS1 (and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the ASH26/31 from which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in the ASH 26e and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which cockpit I was in with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs it obvious that its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26 and JS1. JS do not make small cockpits.

Indeed they are - as I said.

Dave Nadler

October 5th 20, 11:37 PM

On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:04:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e
> with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him!

Apologies all, I guess Tom's '26 perhaps isn't the "Best Overall Motorglider Available Today"...

jfitch

October 6th 20, 01:11 AM

On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:44:11 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 2G wrote on 10/4/2020 5:04 PM:
> ling non-engined gliders by about 5:1, it may not take that long.
> >
> > The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him! I was down below ridge height scratching and he easily connected with a thermal and was gone. The better glide of the 31 is really substantial as is the engine performance at high-density altitudes.
> >
> If he was getting 50:1, that suggests you were only getting 27:1. What speed were
> you flying? What were the respective wing loadings? Did you follow closely behind?
> Did you have a lot of bugs?
>
> --
> 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
If he forgot to put his motor away, that'd about do it.

October 6th 20, 01:57 AM

On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 9:13:16 AM UTC-7, RW wrote:
> On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 11:41:41 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:07:16 PM UTC-7, RW wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:04:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 6:58:32 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:33:33 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:00:01 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider.. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
> > > > > > > > Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
> > > > > > > > Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Best Regards, Dave
> > > > > > I think if you factored in the cost of the engine and the cost of the labor you would be better off selling your 26e and buying a new 31Mi.. You definitely can't get your money back when you sell your converted 26Mi (which really doesn't exist as it is not an AS model).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom
> > > > > The cost of the parts wasn't that high and the labor was free. Certainly far less than the $100K or so difference. I considered a 31 but prefer the one piece wings, leaving the only advantage (for me) of the 31 the higher wing loading on rare occasions when I could be bothered with water. Nevertheless, it isn't wise to look too closely at the cost of soaring, it is phenomenally expensive at this level. Everyone makes their own decisions, and I made mine with full knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding auxiliary motors, this prejudice will die away eventually. Sailboats with auxiliaries are now universal and are thought of as sailboats, but it took about 50 years to get there. With motorgliders currently outselling non-engined gliders by about 5:1, it may not take that long.
> > > > The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him! I was down below ridge height scratching and he easily connected with a thermal and was gone. The better glide of the 31 is really substantial as is the engine performance at high-density altitudes.
> > > >
> > > > Valuing your labor at zero doesn't make sense as you can always work at your profession and pay someone else to do the work. If you make less than what it will cost in labor, then do it yourself, but set the labor cost at your deferred labor rate. Even worse, when it is time to sell potential buyers will consider it to be a 26e, not a 26Mi (which doesn't exist).
> > > >
> > > > I've stopped worrying about the obscene cost of these toys a long time ago. If it bothered me, I could just play golf at zero additional cost (I have an annual membership at the course I play whether I fly or not).
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > Tom,
> > > Energy line is not big highway.
> > > Your friend read a line a bit better.
> > > We all trying the best, but we sometimes miss.
> > > Its not a glider !
> > > Ryszard
> >
> > Ryszard, you might consider rephrasing your comment as it just doesn't make any sense.
> >
> > Tom
> Tom, I believe, best energy line is narrow, like British roads can handle one car.
> Flying side by side 200 ft apart will not bring same results.
> Ryszard

Perhaps if you have a convergence zone, but that is questionable and we were not flying in a convergence zone on that glide.

Tom

kinsell

October 6th 20, 05:49 AM

On 10/5/20 12:05 PM, John Galloway wrote:
> On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 17:48:52 UTC+1, kinsell wrote:
>> On 10/4/20 4:01 PM, Matthew Scutter wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 10:01:09 PM UTC+2, wrote:
>>>> I don't believe the '25 was ever sold as a twin jet, but there was one converted by the owner. (in Australia, I believe)
>>> Which subsequently ended in tragedy :(
>>>
>>> https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2018/aair/ao-2018-009/
>>>
>>
>> Wikipedia showed an AH-25J, but yeah that was likely the 25M conversion.
>>
>> They also do list a self-launch with a bigger Solo engine, which would
>> make sense since the wankel has always been marginal for the larger
>> ships, particularly at higher altitude airports. Anyway you cut it, a
>> lot of engines for one ship.
>>
>> -Dave
>
> The Solo engined version is the AS25/EB28 which is really a Binder EB model leading on to their EB28 then EB28 Edition models.
>

Pardon the continued drift, but Garret Willat once posted a humorous
"Woe is Me" type video about flying an ASH25/Eb28 in a world's
competition, their lithium batteries went out and left them without
motor capability and no power on the panel.

Not having an adequate backup navigation system, they were flying around
in a foreign country, using a paper tourist map for guidance, and
avoiding rain showers. I think this was only on FaceBook, never saw it
elsewhere.

Drifting back closer to the original topic of the thread, I personally
haven't lost a bit a sleep over how much Jon spent on his conversion,
but want to point out that buying a used 26E and dropping an injected
engine into it is not economically practical. Nick unfortunately didn't
provide guidance on how much he was willing to spend on a glider, so
it's not clear if a used '31Mi is in the running. Shorter trailer,
18/21 meter wing configuration, better weight capability are other
advantages, but they ain't cheap.

Asking "what's the best motorglider" is a bit like asking "what's the
best book to read".

-Dave

Carlo Orsini

October 6th 20, 08:53 AM

Thank you for your first hand infos, those are good news for me (I don't understand why they advertise these dimensions in a different way). JS2 seems to be a nice project overall. Hard to me to understand where they streched out those +4 points of efficency in 21m, according to their calculated polars, compared to ASH31 (yes I know that '31 profiles are a bit superseeded and the aspect ratio is a factor too but 4 points are a huge amount!!).
> Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are clearly not be comparable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The 525mm shoulder width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure for the JS1 (and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the ASH26/31 from which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in the ASH 26e and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which cockpit I was in with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs it obvious that its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26 and JS1. JS do not make small cockpits.

October 6th 20, 04:33 PM

On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 3:37:33 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:04:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e
> > with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him!
>
> Apologies all, I guess Tom's '26 perhaps isn't the "Best Overall Motorglider Available Today"...

Moral of the story: wing loading matters.

Tom

jfitch

October 6th 20, 04:39 PM

They are claiming 63:1, that is 7 points higher than AS claim of 56:1. I think it is best explained by a mistake in their math. I'd be interested in seeing the test data proving it.

On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:53:25 AM UTC-7, Carlo Orsini wrote:
> Thank you for your first hand infos, those are good news for me (I don't understand why they advertise these dimensions in a different way). JS2 seems to be a nice project overall. Hard to me to understand where they streched out those +4 points of efficency in 21m, according to their calculated polars, compared to ASH31 (yes I know that '31 profiles are a bit superseeded and the aspect ratio is a factor too but 4 points are a huge amount!!).
> > Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are clearly not be comparable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The 525mm shoulder width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure for the JS1 (and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the ASH26/31 from which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in the ASH 26e and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which cockpit I was in with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs it obvious that its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26 and JS1. JS do not make small cockpits.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 6th 20, 05:48 PM

2G wrote on 10/6/2020 8:33 AM:
> On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 3:37:33 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:04:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
>>> The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e
>>> with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him!
>>
>> Apologies all, I guess Tom's '26 perhaps isn't the "Best Overall Motorglider Available Today"...
>
> Moral of the story: wing loading matters.
>
> Tom
>
So, you were flying too fast for your wing loading, trying to keep up with the 29?

--
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

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 6th 20, 06:08 PM

The EB29 with 25M span is listed at 63, same as the 21 M span JS2. Four more
meters doesn't buy you what it used to!

jfitch wrote on 10/6/2020 8:39 AM:
> They are claiming 63:1, that is 7 points higher than AS claim of 56:1. I think it is best explained by a mistake in their math. I'd be interested in seeing the test data proving it.
>
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:53:25 AM UTC-7, Carlo Orsini wrote:
>> Thank you for your first hand infos, those are good news for me (I don't understand why they advertise these dimensions in a different way). JS2 seems to be a nice project overall. Hard to me to understand where they streched out those +4 points of efficency in 21m, according to their calculated polars, compared to ASH31 (yes I know that '31 profiles are a bit superseeded and the aspect ratio is a factor too but 4 points are a huge amount!!).
>>> Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are clearly not be comparable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The 525mm shoulder width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure for the JS1 (and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the ASH26/31 from which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in the ASH 26e and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which cockpit I was in with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs it obvious that its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26 and JS1. JS do not make small cockpits.

--
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

Paul T[_4_]

October 6th 20, 06:45 PM

At 15:39 06 October 2020, jfitch wrote:
>They are claiming 63:1, that is 7 points higher than AS claim of 56:1. I
>th=
>ink it is best explained by a mistake in their math. I'd be interested in
>s=
>eeing the test data proving it.=20
>
>On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:53:25 AM UTC-7, Carlo Orsini
wrote:
>> Thank you for your first hand infos, those are good news for me (I
don't
>=
>understand why they advertise these dimensions in a different way).
JS2
>see=
>ms to be a nice project overall. Hard to me to understand where they
>strech=
>ed out those +4 points of efficency in 21m, according to their
calculated
>p=
>olars, compared to ASH31 (yes I know that '31 profiles are a bit
>superseede=
>d and the aspect ratio is a factor too but 4 points are a huge
amount!!).
>> > Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are clearly not
be
>compa=
>rable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The 525mm
>should=
>er width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure for the
JS1
>(=
>and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the ASH26/31
from
>=
>which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in the ASH
26e
>=
>and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which cockpit I
was
>i=
>n with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs it
obvious
>th=
>at its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26 and JS1.
JS
>=
>do not make small cockpits.

I believe the Idafleig measured a JS1C at 63:1......so the JS2 witH its
few improvements on the JS1C should achieve that....
>

jfitch

October 6th 20, 09:37 PM

Link? Google produces zero results.
On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 1
1:00:06 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
> At 15:39 06 October 2020, jfitch wrote:
> >They are claiming 63:1, that is 7 points higher than AS claim of 56:1. I
> >th=
> >ink it is best explained by a mistake in their math. I'd be interested in
> >s=
> >eeing the test data proving it.=20
> >
> >On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:53:25 AM UTC-7, Carlo Orsini
> wrote:
> >> Thank you for your first hand infos, those are good news for me (I
> don't
> >=
> >understand why they advertise these dimensions in a different way).
> JS2
> >see=
> >ms to be a nice project overall. Hard to me to understand where they
> >strech=
> >ed out those +4 points of efficency in 21m, according to their
> calculated
> >p=
> >olars, compared to ASH31 (yes I know that '31 profiles are a bit
> >superseede=
> >d and the aspect ratio is a factor too but 4 points are a huge
> amount!!).
> >> > Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are clearly not
> be
> >compa=
> >rable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The 525mm
> >should=
> >er width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure for the
> JS1
> >(=
> >and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the ASH26/31
> from
> >=
> >which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in the ASH
> 26e
> >=
> >and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which cockpit I
> was
> >i=
> >n with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs it
> obvious
> >th=
> >at its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26 and JS1.
> JS
> >=
> >do not make small cockpits.
> I believe the Idafleig measured a JS1C at 63:1......so the JS2 witH its
> few improvements on the JS1C should achieve that....
> >

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 6th 20, 09:58 PM

The JS website says it's 60 for the JS1C/21M; 63 for the JS2/21M.

jfitch wrote on 10/6/2020 1:37 PM:
> Link? Google produces zero results.
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 1
> 1:00:06 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
>> At 15:39 06 October 2020, jfitch wrote:
>>> They are claiming 63:1, that is 7 points higher than AS claim of 56:1. I
>>> th=
>>> ink it is best explained by a mistake in their math. I'd be interested in
>>> s=
>>> eeing the test data proving it.=20
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:53:25 AM UTC-7, Carlo Orsini
>> wrote:
>>>> Thank you for your first hand infos, those are good news for me (I
>> don't
>>> =
>>> understand why they advertise these dimensions in a different way).
>> JS2
>>> see=
>>> ms to be a nice project overall. Hard to me to understand where they
>>> strech=
>>> ed out those +4 points of efficency in 21m, according to their
>> calculated
>>> p=
>>> olars, compared to ASH31 (yes I know that '31 profiles are a bit
>>> superseede=
>>> d and the aspect ratio is a factor too but 4 points are a huge
>> amount!!).
>>>>> Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are clearly not
>> be
>>> compa=
>>> rable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The 525mm
>>> should=
>>> er width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure for the
>> JS1
>>> (=
>>> and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the ASH26/31
>> from
>>> =
>>> which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in the ASH
>> 26e
>>> =
>>> and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which cockpit I
>> was
>>> i=
>>> n with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs it
>> obvious
>>> th=
>>> at its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26 and JS1.
>> JS
>>> =
>>> do not make small cockpits.
>> I believe the Idafleig measured a JS1C at 63:1......so the JS2 witH its
>> few improvements on the JS1C should achieve that....
>>>

--
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

Ventus_a

October 6th 20, 10:37 PM

[QUOTE='Eric Greenwell[_4_];1030860']The EB29 with 25M span is listed at 63, same as the 21 M span JS2. Four more
meters doesn't buy you what it used to!

Only a lower span loading

:-) Colin

Paul T[_4_]

October 6th 20, 11:14 PM

At 20:58 06 October 2020, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>The JS website says it's 60 for the JS1C/21M; 63 for the JS2/21M.
>
>jfitch wrote on 10/6/2020 1:37 PM:
>> Link? Google produces zero results.
>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 1
>> 1:00:06 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
>>> At 15:39 06 October 2020, jfitch wrote:
>>>> They are claiming 63:1, that is 7 points higher than AS claim of
56:1.
>I
>>>> th=
>>>> ink it is best explained by a mistake in their math. I'd be
interested
>in
>>>> s=
>>>> eeing the test data proving it.=20
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:53:25 AM UTC-7, Carlo Orsini
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Thank you for your first hand infos, those are good news for me
(I
>>> don't
>>>> =
>>>> understand why they advertise these dimensions in a different
way).
>>> JS2
>>>> see=
>>>> ms to be a nice project overall. Hard to me to understand where
they
>>>> strech=
>>>> ed out those +4 points of efficency in 21m, according to their
>>> calculated
>>>> p=
>>>> olars, compared to ASH31 (yes I know that '31 profiles are a bit
>>>> superseede=
>>>> d and the aspect ratio is a factor too but 4 points are a huge
>>> amount!!).
>>>>>> Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are clearly
not
>>> be
>>>> compa=
>>>> rable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The
525mm
>>>> should=
>>>> er width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure for
the
>>> JS1
>>>> (=
>>>> and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the
ASH26/31
>>> from
>>>> =
>>>> which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in the
ASH
>>> 26e
>>>> =
>>>> and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which
cockpit I
>>> was
>>>> i=
>>>> n with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs it
>>> obvious
>>>> th=
>>>> at its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26 and
JS1.
>>> JS
>>>> =
>>>> do not make small cockpits.
>>> I believe the Idafleig measured a JS1C at 63:1......so the JS2 witH
its
>>> few improvements on the JS1C should achieve that....
>>>>
>
>
>--
>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
>

Yes they say 60:1 for the JS1, but Idafleig measured it at 63:1 - there is

a Youtube video where Uys states this somewhere maybe this one
https://youtu.be/yoek1na7L98 - if your that interested contact Jonkers
yourself ..... or buy one and measure it yourself...... the JS5 will be
70:1
with 24m..

October 8th 20, 05:11 AM

On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 9:48:47 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 2G wrote on 10/6/2020 8:33 AM:
> > On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 3:37:33 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> >> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:04:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> >>> The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e
> >>> with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him!
> >>
> >> Apologies all, I guess Tom's '26 perhaps isn't the "Best Overall Motorglider Available Today"...
> >
> > Moral of the story: wing loading matters.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> So, you were flying too fast for your wing loading, trying to keep up with the 29?
>
> --
> 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

No, we were gliding at the same speed, but not flying wingtip to wingtip.

Tom

October 8th 20, 05:12 AM

On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 1:58:06 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> The JS website says it's 60 for the JS1C/21M; 63 for the JS2/21M.
>
> jfitch wrote on 10/6/2020 1:37 PM:
> > Link? Google produces zero results.
> > On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 1
> > 1:00:06 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
> >> At 15:39 06 October 2020, jfitch wrote:
> >>> They are claiming 63:1, that is 7 points higher than AS claim of 56:1. I
> >>> th=
> >>> ink it is best explained by a mistake in their math. I'd be interested in
> >>> s=
> >>> eeing the test data proving it.=20
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:53:25 AM UTC-7, Carlo Orsini
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Thank you for your first hand infos, those are good news for me (I
> >> don't
> >>> =
> >>> understand why they advertise these dimensions in a different way).
> >> JS2
> >>> see=
> >>> ms to be a nice project overall. Hard to me to understand where they
> >>> strech=
> >>> ed out those +4 points of efficency in 21m, according to their
> >> calculated
> >>> p=
> >>> olars, compared to ASH31 (yes I know that '31 profiles are a bit
> >>> superseede=
> >>> d and the aspect ratio is a factor too but 4 points are a huge
> >> amount!!).
> >>>>> Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are clearly not
> >> be
> >>> compa=
> >>> rable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The 525mm
> >>> should=
> >>> er width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure for the
> >> JS1
> >>> (=
> >>> and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the ASH26/31
> >> from
> >>> =
> >>> which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in the ASH
> >> 26e
> >>> =
> >>> and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which cockpit I
> >> was
> >>> i=
> >>> n with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs it
> >> obvious
> >>> th=
> >>> at its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26 and JS1.
> >> JS
> >>> =
> >>> do not make small cockpits.
> >> I believe the Idafleig measured a JS1C at 63:1......so the JS2 witH its
> >> few improvements on the JS1C should achieve that....
> >>>
>
>
> --
> 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

Someone might ask them how they came up with these L/D figures because I understand that they aren't from actual flight tests.

Tom

Paul T[_4_]

October 8th 20, 06:26 AM

At 04:12 08 October 2020, 2G wrote:
>On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 1:58:06 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell
wrote:
>> The JS website says it's 60 for the JS1C/21M; 63 for the JS2/21M.
>>
>> jfitch wrote on 10/6/2020 1:37 PM:
>> > Link? Google produces zero results.
>> > On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 1
>> > 1:00:06 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
>> >> At 15:39 06 October 2020, jfitch wrote:
>> >>> They are claiming 63:1, that is 7 points higher than AS claim of
>56:1. I
>> >>> th=
>> >>> ink it is best explained by a mistake in their math. I'd be
>interested in
>> >>> s=
>> >>> eeing the test data proving it.=20
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:53:25 AM UTC-7, Carlo
Orsini
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>> Thank you for your first hand infos, those are good news for
me (I
>> >> don't
>> >>> =
>> >>> understand why they advertise these dimensions in a different
way).
>> >> JS2
>> >>> see=
>> >>> ms to be a nice project overall. Hard to me to understand
where they
>> >>> strech=
>> >>> ed out those +4 points of efficency in 21m, according to their
>> >> calculated
>> >>> p=
>> >>> olars, compared to ASH31 (yes I know that '31 profiles are a
bit
>> >>> superseede=
>> >>> d and the aspect ratio is a factor too but 4 points are a huge
>> >> amount!!).
>> >>>>> Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are
clearly not
>> >> be
>> >>> compa=
>> >>> rable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The
525mm
>> >>> should=
>> >>> er width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure
for the
>> >> JS1
>> >>> (=
>> >>> and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the
ASH26/31
>> >> from
>> >>> =
>> >>> which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in
the
>ASH
>> >> 26e
>> >>> =
>> >>> and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which
cockpit I
>> >> was
>> >>> i=
>> >>> n with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs
it
>> >> obvious
>> >>> th=
>> >>> at its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26
and
>JS1.
>> >> JS
>> >>> =
>> >>> do not make small cockpits.
>> >> I believe the Idafleig measured a JS1C at 63:1......so the JS2
witH
>its
>> >> few improvements on the JS1C should achieve that....
>> >>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>Someone might ask them how they came up with these L/D figures
because I
>understand that they aren't from actual flight tests.
>
>Tom

THE JS1C TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN MEASURED AT 63:1 BY THE
IDAFLEIG IN ITS FLIGHT TESTS- PROBABLY THE MOST RELIABLE WAY
OF MEASURING A GLIDERS POLAR. (I THINK THE JONKERS BOYS
WHERE SUPRISED BY THAT FIGURE AS IT IS RARE FOR A GLIDER TO
EXCEED ITS THEOROTICAL FIGURE -BUT IT DOES HAPPEN.) ALL
MANUFACTURERS FIGURES ARE AT BEST 'THEORETICAL' UNTIL
MEASURED.................. SOME ARE WILDLY OPTIMISTIC - BUT BEST L/D
DOESNT MEAN MUCH THESE DAYS REALLY................. ITS NOT AS
THOUFGH THIS AIRCRAFT AS NOT PROVED ITSELF IN THE CONTEST
ARENA IS IT.......

Tango Whisky

October 8th 20, 10:59 AM

Idaflieg measurements are never published to the public.

Le mardi 6 octobre 2020 Ã* 22:37:22 UTC+2, jfitch a Ã©critÂ*:
> Link? Google produces zero results.
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 1
> 1:00:06 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
> > At 15:39 06 October 2020, jfitch wrote:
> > >They are claiming 63:1, that is 7 points higher than AS claim of 56:1. I
> > >th=
> > >ink it is best explained by a mistake in their math. I'd be interested in
> > >s=
> > >eeing the test data proving it.=20
> > >
> > >On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:53:25 AM UTC-7, Carlo Orsini
> > wrote:
> > >> Thank you for your first hand infos, those are good news for me (I
> > don't
> > >=
> > >understand why they advertise these dimensions in a different way).
> > JS2
> > >see=
> > >ms to be a nice project overall. Hard to me to understand where they
> > >strech=
> > >ed out those +4 points of efficency in 21m, according to their
> > calculated
> > >p=
> > >olars, compared to ASH31 (yes I know that '31 profiles are a bit
> > >superseede=
> > >d and the aspect ratio is a factor too but 4 points are a huge
> > amount!!).
> > >> > Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are clearly not
> > be
> > >compa=
> > >rable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The 525mm
> > >should=
> > >er width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure for the
> > JS1
> > >(=
> > >and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the ASH26/31
> > from
> > >=
> > >which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in the ASH
> > 26e
> > >=
> > >and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which cockpit I
> > was
> > >i=
> > >n with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs it
> > obvious
> > >th=
> > >at its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26 and JS1..
> > JS
> > >=
> > >do not make small cockpits.
> > I believe the Idafleig measured a JS1C at 63:1......so the JS2 witH its
> > few improvements on the JS1C should achieve that....
> > >

John Galloway[_2_]

October 8th 20, 01:37 PM

On Thursday, 8 October 2020 at 10:59:09 UTC+1, Tango Whisky wrote:
> Idaflieg measurements are never published to the public.

Individuals can get a copy from the Idaflieg polar (but not all the data) on request for a fee no sooner than 5 years after the first flight of the type but you are not allowed to publish them without permission. See:
https://idaflieg.de/?page_id=88

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 8th 20, 02:40 PM

2G wrote on 10/7/2020 9:11 PM:
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 9:48:47 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> 2G wrote on 10/6/2020 8:33 AM:
>>> On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 3:37:33 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:04:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
>>>>> The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e
>>>>> with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him!
>>>>
>>>> Apologies all, I guess Tom's '26 perhaps isn't the "Best Overall Motorglider Available Today"...
>>>
>>> Moral of the story: wing loading matters.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>> So, you were flying too fast for your wing loading, trying to keep up with the 29?
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> No, we were gliding at the same speed, but not flying wingtip to wingtip.

"Wing loading matters": If the gliders had different wing loadings, and that could
have been as much as 3 lb/ft2 (based on the max wing loading each glider is
allowed), one of you was flying at the wrong speed.

The point Jon and I (both 26E owners) are trying make is the 26/29 glide angles
are similar, but the 29 will be faster when ballasted due to it's much higher max
wing loading. Had you flown at a speed appropriate for your 9.3 lb/ft2 max wing
loading, you could have arrived 2000'+ above the ridge, instead of on it,

--
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

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 8th 20, 03:17 PM

Paul T wrote on 10/7/2020 10:26 PM:
> At 04:12 08 October 2020, 2G wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 1:58:06 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:
>>> The JS website says it's 60 for the JS1C/21M; 63 for the JS2/21M.
>>>
>>> jfitch wrote on 10/6/2020 1:37 PM:
>>>> Link? Google produces zero results.
>>>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 1
>>>> 1:00:06 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
>>>>> At 15:39 06 October 2020, jfitch wrote:
>>>>>> They are claiming 63:1, that is 7 points higher than AS claim of
>> 56:1. I
>>>>>> th=
>>>>>> ink it is best explained by a mistake in their math. I'd be
>> interested in
>>>>>> s=
>>>>>> eeing the test data proving it.=20
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:53:25 AM UTC-7, Carlo
> Orsini
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you for your first hand infos, those are good news for
> me (I
>>>>> don't
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> understand why they advertise these dimensions in a different
> way).
>>>>> JS2
>>>>>> see=
>>>>>> ms to be a nice project overall. Hard to me to understand
> where they
>>>>>> strech=
>>>>>> ed out those +4 points of efficency in 21m, according to their
>>>>> calculated
>>>>>> p=
>>>>>> olars, compared to ASH31 (yes I know that '31 profiles are a
> bit
>>>>>> superseede=
>>>>>> d and the aspect ratio is a factor too but 4 points are a huge
>>>>> amount!!).
>>>>>>>> Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are
> clearly not
>>>>> be
>>>>>> compa=
>>>>>> rable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The
> 525mm
>>>>>> should=
>>>>>> er width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure
> for the
>>>>> JS1
>>>>>> (=
>>>>>> and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the
> ASH26/31
>>>>> from
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in
> the
>> ASH
>>>>> 26e
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which
> cockpit I
>>>>> was
>>>>>> i=
>>>>>> n with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs
> it
>>>>> obvious
>>>>>> th=
>>>>>> at its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26
> and
>> JS1.
>>>>> JS
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> do not make small cockpits.
>>>>> I believe the Idafleig measured a JS1C at 63:1......so the JS2
> witH
>> its
>>>>> few improvements on the JS1C should achieve that....
>
>>
>> Someone might ask them how they came up with these L/D figures
> because I
>> understand that they aren't from actual flight tests.
>>
>> Tom
>
>
> THE JS1C TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN MEASURED AT 63:1 BY THE
> IDAFLEIG IN ITS FLIGHT TESTS- PROBABLY THE MOST RELIABLE WAY
> OF MEASURING A GLIDERS POLAR. (I THINK THE JONKERS BOYS
> WHERE SUPRISED BY THAT FIGURE AS IT IS RARE FOR A GLIDER TO
> EXCEED ITS THEOROTICAL FIGURE -BUT IT DOES HAPPEN.) ALL
> MANUFACTURERS FIGURES ARE AT BEST 'THEORETICAL' UNTIL
> MEASURED.................. SOME ARE WILDLY OPTIMISTIC - BUT BEST L/D
> DOESNT MEAN MUCH THESE DAYS REALLY................. ITS NOT AS
> THOUFGH THIS AIRCRAFT AS NOT PROVED ITSELF IN THE CONTEST
> ARENA IS IT.......

It is very hard for me to believe Jonkers calculations are in error by 5% (which
is a lot!), so I suspect the error is the Idaflieg measurement. Jonkers can, and
likely has, easily do comparison glides itself, to confirm the performance of
their gliders. Since they stay with the 60:1 specification, why not accept their
numbers?
Which gliders have wildly optimistic best L/Ds?

--
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

[email protected]

October 8th 20, 03:44 PM

From Gren Seibels' book "After All:"

"MANUFACTURER'S POLAR- An exercise in creative mathematics, embellished with artistic prevarication; a gaudy package of high hopes, bound with a ribbon of fantasy; proclaimed as Gospel by the perpetrators, accepted as such by the feeble-minded and soaring pilots."

Tango Whisky

October 8th 20, 04:45 PM

If you think that inflight measurements are easy to make, you are greatly mistaken.
Idaflieg has refined its procedure for over 40 years, and it is a huge effort:
You have to tow the glider to be measured, and a calibrated reference glider (formerly an Open Cirrus, then a DG300 modified to 17 m, now I think a Discus 2c 18m) in parallel up to 10'000+ ft very early in the morning on a day without convection and fly in free flight at the various speed points. One of the tow planes takes pictures along, with the refernce glider's fuselage length as the measure for the difference in altitude which will gradually develop, and the reference glider's polar as the base line. Typically, multiple flights on different days are conducted in order to get a decent set of data points. Nowadays, this is assisted by differential GPS data.

If you try to do measurements without a reference glider, you can't avoid air movements influencing the measurement (on a high pressure day without convection settled in, the airmass is sinking ever so slighly, and 3 cm/s will make for a huge difference at an L/D of 60.

So no, I wouldn't distrust the Idaflieg measurements, but I would distrust hearsay of the results of those measurements.

Idaflieg will never publish data for a specific reason: Such data could be used for commercial purposes by the manufacturer, or by their competitors (in the 80's, Nimbus 3 ans ASW22 have never been measured because the result would have risked to put one of the companies out of business). Using data for commercial purposes would lead to a situation were 5 years down the road, manufacturers would be very reluctant to put their gliders at disposition for measurements (and they are usually put at disposition by the manufacturers to give them a chance that this would be the serial number with the best shape ever). Idaflieg is about science, not publicity, and its driven by the students of the various Akafliegs.

And yes, you can contact them on their webpage and inquire about specific models, and they'll send you a hardcopy for 10 Euros per set. You are not allowed to spread it - they have no handle on that, but if it happend, nobody would get any copies anymore.

Bert
Ventus cM "TW"
Ex-Akaflieg Braunschweig

Le jeudi 8 octobre 2020 Ã* 16:17:30 UTC+2, Eric Greenwell a Ã©critÂ*:
> It is very hard for me to believe Jonkers calculations are in error by 5% (which
> is a lot!), so I suspect the error is the Idaflieg measurement. Jonkers can, and
> likely has, easily do comparison glides itself, to confirm the performance of
> their gliders. Since they stay with the 60:1 specification, why not accept their
> numbers?
> Which gliders have wildly optimistic best L/Ds?
> --
> 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

jfitch

October 8th 20, 04:56 PM

In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. On older designs, we have the published Dick Johnson's reports. While his methodology was not problem free, it was objective, independent, consistent, repeatable, and fully documented.

On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 10:30:06 PM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
> At 04:12 08 October 2020, 2G wrote:
> >On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 1:58:06 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:
> >> The JS website says it's 60 for the JS1C/21M; 63 for the JS2/21M.
> >>
> >> jfitch wrote on 10/6/2020 1:37 PM:
> >> > Link? Google produces zero results.
> >> > On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 1
> >> > 1:00:06 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
> >> >> At 15:39 06 October 2020, jfitch wrote:
> >> >>> They are claiming 63:1, that is 7 points higher than AS claim of
> >56:1. I
> >> >>> th=
> >> >>> ink it is best explained by a mistake in their math. I'd be
> >interested in
> >> >>> s=
> >> >>> eeing the test data proving it.=20
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:53:25 AM UTC-7, Carlo
> Orsini
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>> Thank you for your first hand infos, those are good news for
> me (I
> >> >> don't
> >> >>> =
> >> >>> understand why they advertise these dimensions in a different
> way).
> >> >> JS2
> >> >>> see=
> >> >>> ms to be a nice project overall. Hard to me to understand
> where they
> >> >>> strech=
> >> >>> ed out those +4 points of efficency in 21m, according to their
> >> >> calculated
> >> >>> p=
> >> >>> olars, compared to ASH31 (yes I know that '31 profiles are a
> bit
> >> >>> superseede=
> >> >>> d and the aspect ratio is a factor too but 4 points are a huge
> >> >> amount!!).
> >> >>>>> Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are
> clearly not
> >> >> be
> >> >>> compa=
> >> >>> rable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The
> 525mm
> >> >>> should=
> >> >>> er width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure
> for the
> >> >> JS1
> >> >>> (=
> >> >>> and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the
> ASH26/31
> >> >> from
> >> >>> =
> >> >>> which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in
> the
> >ASH
> >> >> 26e
> >> >>> =
> >> >>> and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which
> cockpit I
> >> >> was
> >> >>> i=
> >> >>> n with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs
> it
> >> >> obvious
> >> >>> th=
> >> >>> at its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26
> and
> >JS1.
> >> >> JS
> >> >>> =
> >> >>> do not make small cockpits.
> >> >> I believe the Idafleig measured a JS1C at 63:1......so the JS2
> witH
> >its
> >> >> few improvements on the JS1C should achieve that....
> >> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >
> >Someone might ask them how they came up with these L/D figures
> because I
> >understand that they aren't from actual flight tests.
> >
> >Tom
> THE JS1C TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN MEASURED AT 63:1 BY THE
> IDAFLEIG IN ITS FLIGHT TESTS- PROBABLY THE MOST RELIABLE WAY
> OF MEASURING A GLIDERS POLAR. (I THINK THE JONKERS BOYS
> WHERE SUPRISED BY THAT FIGURE AS IT IS RARE FOR A GLIDER TO
> EXCEED ITS THEOROTICAL FIGURE -BUT IT DOES HAPPEN.) ALL
> MANUFACTURERS FIGURES ARE AT BEST 'THEORETICAL' UNTIL
> MEASURED.................. SOME ARE WILDLY OPTIMISTIC - BUT BEST L/D
> DOESNT MEAN MUCH THESE DAYS REALLY................. ITS NOT AS
> THOUFGH THIS AIRCRAFT AS NOT PROVED ITSELF IN THE CONTEST
> ARENA IS IT.......

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 8th 20, 07:39 PM

I was talking about comparison flights to determine performance relative to their
competitors, not absolute L/D measurements. If the JS1C is really a 63:1 glider,
they can relatively easily determine that it's significantly better than an ASG29,
Ventus 3, ASH 31. etc, by borrowing several of those gliders and doing the tests.
They do not need a calibrated glider for this type of test.

Do you find it easy to believe Jonkers calculations of max L/D are wrong and low
by 5%? I think they would have corrected their calculations by now if they
believed the Idaflieg's measurement of 63, so that the numbers for the JS2 would
be accurate, yet that is specified at only 63.

Tango Whisky wrote on 10/8/2020 8:45 AM:
> If you think that inflight measurements are easy to make, you are greatly mistaken.
> Idaflieg has refined its procedure for over 40 years, and it is a huge effort:
> You have to tow the glider to be measured, and a calibrated reference glider (formerly an Open Cirrus, then a DG300 modified to 17 m, now I think a Discus 2c 18m) in parallel up to 10'000+ ft very early in the morning on a day without convection and fly in free flight at the various speed points. One of the tow planes takes pictures along, with the refernce glider's fuselage length as the measure for the difference in altitude which will gradually develop, and the reference glider's polar as the base line. Typically, multiple flights on different days are conducted in order to get a decent set of data points. Nowadays, this is assisted by differential GPS data.
>
> If you try to do measurements without a reference glider, you can't avoid air movements influencing the measurement (on a high pressure day without convection settled in, the airmass is sinking ever so slighly, and 3 cm/s will make for a huge difference at an L/D of 60.
>
> So no, I wouldn't distrust the Idaflieg measurements, but I would distrust hearsay of the results of those measurements.
>
> Idaflieg will never publish data for a specific reason: Such data could be used for commercial purposes by the manufacturer, or by their competitors (in the 80's, Nimbus 3 ans ASW22 have never been measured because the result would have risked to put one of the companies out of business). Using data for commercial purposes would lead to a situation were 5 years down the road, manufacturers would be very reluctant to put their gliders at disposition for measurements (and they are usually put at disposition by the manufacturers to give them a chance that this would be the serial number with the best shape ever). Idaflieg is about science, not publicity, and its driven by the students of the various Akafliegs.
>
> And yes, you can contact them on their webpage and inquire about specific models, and they'll send you a hardcopy for 10 Euros per set. You are not allowed to spread it - they have no handle on that, but if it happend, nobody would get any copies anymore.
>
> Bert
> Ventus cM "TW"
> Ex-Akaflieg Braunschweig
>
> Le jeudi 8 octobre 2020 à 16:17:30 UTC+2, Eric Greenwell a écrit*:
>> It is very hard for me to believe Jonkers calculations are in error by 5% (which
>> is a lot!), so I suspect the error is the Idaflieg measurement. Jonkers can, and
>> likely has, easily do comparison glides itself, to confirm the performance of
>> their gliders. Since they stay with the 60:1 specification, why not accept their
>> numbers?
>> Which gliders have wildly optimistic best L/Ds?
>> --
>> 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

--
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

Mana

October 8th 20, 08:44 PM

Very interesting information Bert, thanks for sharing.
Mana

On Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 5:45:36 PM UTC+2, Tango Whisky wrote:
> If you think that inflight measurements are easy to make, you are greatly mistaken.
> Idaflieg has refined its procedure for over 40 years, and it is a huge effort:
> You have to tow the glider to be measured, and a calibrated reference glider (formerly an Open Cirrus, then a DG300 modified to 17 m, now I think a Discus 2c 18m) in parallel up to 10'000+ ft very early in the morning on a day without convection and fly in free flight at the various speed points. One of the tow planes takes pictures along, with the refernce glider's fuselage length as the measure for the difference in altitude which will gradually develop, and the reference glider's polar as the base line. Typically, multiple flights on different days are conducted in order to get a decent set of data points. Nowadays, this is assisted by differential GPS data.
>
> If you try to do measurements without a reference glider, you can't avoid air movements influencing the measurement (on a high pressure day without convection settled in, the airmass is sinking ever so slighly, and 3 cm/s will make for a huge difference at an L/D of 60.
>
> So no, I wouldn't distrust the Idaflieg measurements, but I would distrust hearsay of the results of those measurements.
>
> Idaflieg will never publish data for a specific reason: Such data could be used for commercial purposes by the manufacturer, or by their competitors (in the 80's, Nimbus 3 ans ASW22 have never been measured because the result would have risked to put one of the companies out of business). Using data for commercial purposes would lead to a situation were 5 years down the road, manufacturers would be very reluctant to put their gliders at disposition for measurements (and they are usually put at disposition by the manufacturers to give them a chance that this would be the serial number with the best shape ever). Idaflieg is about science, not publicity, and its driven by the students of the various Akafliegs.
>
> And yes, you can contact them on their webpage and inquire about specific models, and they'll send you a hardcopy for 10 Euros per set. You are not allowed to spread it - they have no handle on that, but if it happend, nobody would get any copies anymore.

John Galloway[_2_]

October 8th 20, 09:09 PM

On Thursday, 8 October 2020 at 19:39:27 UTC+1, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> I was talking about comparison flights to determine performance relative to their
> competitors, not absolute L/D measurements. If the JS1C is really a 63:1 glider,
> they can relatively easily determine that it's significantly better than an ASG29,
> Ventus 3, ASH 31. etc, by borrowing several of those gliders and doing the tests.
> They do not need a calibrated glider for this type of test.
>
> Do you find it easy to believe Jonkers calculations of max L/D are wrong and low
> by 5%? I think they would have corrected their calculations by now if they
> believed the Idaflieg's measurement of 63, so that the numbers for the JS2 would
> be accurate, yet that is specified at only 63.
> Tango Whisky wrote on 10/8/2020 8:45 AM:
> > If you think that inflight measurements are easy to make, you are greatly mistaken.
> > Idaflieg has refined its procedure for over 40 years, and it is a huge effort:
> > You have to tow the glider to be measured, and a calibrated reference glider (formerly an Open Cirrus, then a DG300 modified to 17 m, now I think a Discus 2c 18m) in parallel up to 10'000+ ft very early in the morning on a day without convection and fly in free flight at the various speed points.. One of the tow planes takes pictures along, with the refernce glider's fuselage length as the measure for the difference in altitude which will gradually develop, and the reference glider's polar as the base line. Typically, multiple flights on different days are conducted in order to get a decent set of data points. Nowadays, this is assisted by differential GPS data.
> >
> > If you try to do measurements without a reference glider, you can't avoid air movements influencing the measurement (on a high pressure day without convection settled in, the airmass is sinking ever so slighly, and 3 cm/s will make for a huge difference at an L/D of 60.
> >
> > So no, I wouldn't distrust the Idaflieg measurements, but I would distrust hearsay of the results of those measurements.
> >
> > Idaflieg will never publish data for a specific reason: Such data could be used for commercial purposes by the manufacturer, or by their competitors (in the 80's, Nimbus 3 ans ASW22 have never been measured because the result would have risked to put one of the companies out of business). Using data for commercial purposes would lead to a situation were 5 years down the road, manufacturers would be very reluctant to put their gliders at disposition for measurements (and they are usually put at disposition by the manufacturers to give them a chance that this would be the serial number with the best shape ever). Idaflieg is about science, not publicity, and its driven by the students of the various Akafliegs.
> >
> > And yes, you can contact them on their webpage and inquire about specific models, and they'll send you a hardcopy for 10 Euros per set. You are not allowed to spread it - they have no handle on that, but if it happend, nobody would get any copies anymore.
> >
> > Bert
> > Ventus cM "TW"
> > Ex-Akaflieg Braunschweig
> >
> > Le jeudi 8 octobre 2020 Ã* 16:17:30 UTC+2, Eric Greenwell a Ã©crit :
> >> It is very hard for me to believe Jonkers calculations are in error by 5% (which
> >> is a lot!), so I suspect the error is the Idaflieg measurement. Jonkers can, and
> >> likely has, easily do comparison glides itself, to confirm the performance of
> >> their gliders. Since they stay with the 60:1 specification, why not accept their
> >> numbers?
> >> Which gliders have wildly optimistic best L/Ds?
> >> --
> >> 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

I don't understand the focus on best LD but when you are dealing with very high performance gliders the difference in sink rate for a difference of 3 points is tiny. Even so why compare a 60:1 (or ?63:1) 21m JS1c with an 18m V3 or ASG29? Judging from Open Class contest results its only relevant competitor is the EB29

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 8th 20, 10:12 PM

John Galloway wrote on 10/8/2020 1:09 PM:
> On Thursday, 8 October 2020 at 19:39:27 UTC+1, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> I was talking about comparison flights to determine performance relative to their
>> competitors, not absolute L/D measurements. If the JS1C is really a 63:1 glider,
>> they can relatively easily determine that it's significantly better than an ASG29,
>> Ventus 3, ASH 31. etc, by borrowing several of those gliders and doing the tests.
>> They do not need a calibrated glider for this type of test.
>>
>> Do you find it easy to believe Jonkers calculations of max L/D are wrong and low
>> by 5%? I think they would have corrected their calculations by now if they
>> believed the Idaflieg's measurement of 63, so that the numbers for the JS2 would
>> be accurate, yet that is specified at only 63.
>> Tango Whisky wrote on 10/8/2020 8:45 AM:
>>> If you think that inflight measurements are easy to make, you are greatly mistaken.
>>> Idaflieg has refined its procedure for over 40 years, and it is a huge effort:
>>> You have to tow the glider to be measured, and a calibrated reference glider (formerly an Open Cirrus, then a DG300 modified to 17 m, now I think a Discus 2c 18m) in parallel up to 10'000+ ft very early in the morning on a day without convection and fly in free flight at the various speed points.. One of the tow planes takes pictures along, with the refernce glider's fuselage length as the measure for the difference in altitude which will gradually develop, and the reference glider's polar as the base line. Typically, multiple flights on different days are conducted in order to get a decent set of data points. Nowadays, this is assisted by differential GPS data.
>>>
>>> If you try to do measurements without a reference glider, you can't avoid air movements influencing the measurement (on a high pressure day without convection settled in, the airmass is sinking ever so slighly, and 3 cm/s will make for a huge difference at an L/D of 60.
>>>
>>> So no, I wouldn't distrust the Idaflieg measurements, but I would distrust hearsay of the results of those measurements.
>>>
>>> Idaflieg will never publish data for a specific reason: Such data could be used for commercial purposes by the manufacturer, or by their competitors (in the 80's, Nimbus 3 ans ASW22 have never been measured because the result would have risked to put one of the companies out of business). Using data for commercial purposes would lead to a situation were 5 years down the road, manufacturers would be very reluctant to put their gliders at disposition for measurements (and they are usually put at disposition by the manufacturers to give them a chance that this would be the serial number with the best shape ever). Idaflieg is about science, not publicity, and its driven by the students of the various Akafliegs.
>>>
>>> And yes, you can contact them on their webpage and inquire about specific models, and they'll send you a hardcopy for 10 Euros per set. You are not allowed to spread it - they have no handle on that, but if it happend, nobody would get any copies anymore.
>>>
>>> Bert
>>> Ventus cM "TW"
>>> Ex-Akaflieg Braunschweig
>>>
>>> Le jeudi 8 octobre 2020 à 16:17:30 UTC+2, Eric Greenwell a écrit :
>>>> It is very hard for me to believe Jonkers calculations are in error by 5% (which
>>>> is a lot!), so I suspect the error is the Idaflieg measurement. Jonkers can, and
>>>> likely has, easily do comparison glides itself, to confirm the performance of
>>>> their gliders. Since they stay with the 60:1 specification, why not accept their
>>>> numbers?
>>>> Which gliders have wildly optimistic best L/Ds?
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>
> I don't understand the focus on best LD but when you are dealing with very high performance gliders the difference in sink rate for a difference of 3 points is tiny. Even so why compare a 60:1 (or ?63:1) 21m JS1c with an 18m V3 or ASG29? Judging from Open Class contest results its only relevant competitor is the EB29
>
My mistake: I looked at the wrong chart on their website. The JS1C/21M (the 60:1
glider) should be compared to other 21M gliders, of course. I agree the full polar
is important when estimating contest performance, but the max L/D is often a good
indication of the rest of the polar for modern sailplanes.

--
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

Jonathon May

October 8th 20, 10:52 PM

At 21:12 08 October 2020, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>John Galloway wrote on 10/8/2020 1:09 PM:
>> On Thursday, 8 October 2020 at 19:39:27 UTC+1, Eric
Greenwell wrote:
>>> I was talking about comparison flights to determine
performance relati=
>ve to their
>>> competitors, not absolute L/D measurements. If the JS1C
is really a 63=
>:1 glider,
>>> they can relatively easily determine that it's significantly
better th=
>an an ASG29,
>>> Ventus 3, ASH 31. etc, by borrowing several of those
gliders and doing=
> the tests.
>>> They do not need a calibrated glider for this type of test.
>>>
>>> Do you find it easy to believe Jonkers calculations of max
L/D are wro=
>ng and low
>>> by 5%? I think they would have corrected their
calculations by now if =
>they
>>> believed the Idaflieg's measurement of 63, so that the
numbers for the=
> JS2 would
>>> be accurate, yet that is specified at only 63.
>>> Tango Whisky wrote on 10/8/2020 8:45 AM:
>>>> If you think that inflight measurements are easy to
make, you are gre=
>atly mistaken.
>>>> Idaflieg has refined its procedure for over 40 years, and
it is a hug=
>e effort:
>>>> You have to tow the glider to be measured, and a
calibrated reference=
> glider (formerly an Open Cirrus, then a DG300 modified to
17 m, now I th=
>ink a Discus 2c 18m) in parallel up to 10'000+ ft very early
in the morni=
>ng on a day without convection and fly in free flight at the
various spee=
>d points.. One of the tow planes takes pictures along, with
the refernce =
>glider's fuselage length as the measure for the difference in
altitude wh=
>ich will gradually develop, and the reference glider's polar as
the base =
>line. Typically, multiple flights on different days are
conducted in orde=
>r to get a decent set of data points. Nowadays, this is
assisted by diffe=
>rential GPS data.
>>>>
>>>> If you try to do measurements without a reference
glider, you can't a=
>void air movements influencing the measurement (on a high
pressure day wi=
>thout convection settled in, the airmass is sinking ever so
slighly, and =
>3 cm/s will make for a huge difference at an L/D of 60.
>>>>
>>>> So no, I wouldn't distrust the Idaflieg measurements,
but I would dis=
>trust hearsay of the results of those measurements.
>>>>
>>>> Idaflieg will never publish data for a specific reason:
Such data cou=
>ld be used for commercial purposes by the manufacturer, or
by their compe=
>titors (in the 80's, Nimbus 3 ans ASW22 have never been
measured because =
>the result would have risked to put one of the companies out
of business)=
>=2E Using data for commercial purposes would lead to a
situation were 5 y=
>ears down the road, manufacturers would be very reluctant
to put their gl=
>iders at disposition for measurements (and they are usually
put at dispos=
>ition by the manufacturers to give them a chance that this
would be the s=
>erial number with the best shape ever). Idaflieg is about
science, not pu=
>blicity, and its driven by the students of the various Akafliegs.
>>>>
>>>> And yes, you can contact them on their webpage and
inquire about spec=
>ific models, and they'll send you a hardcopy for 10 Euros per
set. You ar=
>e not allowed to spread it - they have no handle on that, but
if it happe=
>nd, nobody would get any copies anymore.
>>>>
>>>> Bert
>>>> Ventus cM "TW"
>>>> Ex-Akaflieg Braunschweig
>>>>
>>>> Le jeudi 8 octobre 2020 =E0 16:17:30 UTC+2, Eric
Greenwell a =E9crit =
>:
>>>>> It is very hard for me to believe Jonkers calculations
are in error =
>by 5% (which
>>>>> is a lot!), so I suspect the error is the Idaflieg
measurement. Jonk=
>ers can, and
>>>>> likely has, easily do comparison glides itself, to
confirm the perfo=
>rmance of
>>>>> their gliders. Since they stay with the 60:1
specification, why not =
>accept their
>>>>> numbers?
>>>>> Which gliders have wildly optimistic best L/Ds?
>>>>> --=20
>>>>> 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/downlo
ad-the=
>-guide-1
>>=20
>> I don't understand the focus on best LD but when you are
dealing with v=
>ery high performance gliders the difference in sink rate for a
difference=
> of 3 points is tiny. Even so why compare a 60:1 (or ?63:1)
21m JS1c wi=
>th an 18m V3 or ASG29? Judging from Open Class contest
results its only=
> relevant competitor is the EB29
>>=20
>My mistake: I looked at the wrong chart on their website.
The JS1C/21M (t=
>he 60:1=20
>glider) should be compared to other 21M gliders, of course. I
agree the f=
>ull polar=20
>is important when estimating contest performance, but the
max L/D is ofte=
>n a good=20
>indication of the rest of the polar for modern sailplanes.
>
>--=20
>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/downlo
ad-th=
>e-guide-1
>
>As I understand it, the Js1 only really beats other gliders
when the wing loading is high.At one point I was considering
buying one and talking with the agent about the benefits of the
21 M tips.
Their opinion was 21 M was often slower than a well blasted
18. I looked at the polars and was frankly baffled.
At that time they were only fitting panels and enclosures for
jet engines that still had not been certified.
I opted to save a lot of money and buy a second hand
Ventus2ct which I love but has hardly flown this year because
of Covid.(could of rented a light twin for less by the hour!!!)

Paul T[_4_]

October 9th 20, 07:12 AM

You bunch of ******* don't believe anything do you, argue amongst
yourselves, thats what you are good at , if you don't want to believe it
fine.

kinsell

October 9th 20, 03:47 PM

Now that this discussion is totally off in the weeds, I'm wondering
what the conclusion is?

On 9/15/20 11:48 AM, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
> This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
>
> When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
> Say for Western Great Basin flying.
>
> I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
> CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well.
>
> FACTORS
>
> Reliability
> Maintenance required to keep it running
> XC flyability, performance and control feel
> Storability
> Rigging
> Initial cost
> High density climb performance
> Range
> Cockpit layout and seating
> Parts availability
> Insurance cost
> Landing gear complexity
> Overall quality
> Nick
> T
>

Tango Whisky

October 9th 20, 04:43 PM

42.

Le vendredi 9 octobre 2020 Ã* 16:47:37 UTC+2, kinsell a Ã©critÂ*:
> Now that this discussion is totally off in the weeds, I'm wondering
> what the conclusion is?

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 9th 20, 07:08 PM

kinsell wrote on 10/9/2020 7:47 AM:
> Now that this discussion is totally off in the* weeds, I'm wondering what the
> conclusion is?
>
>
>
> On 9/15/20 11:48 AM, Nick Kennedy wrote:
>> Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
>> This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
>>
>> When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
>> Say for Western Great Basin flying.
>>
>> I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
>> CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing
>> its been a endless battle to keep it running.* But it does climb well.
>>
>> FACTORS
>>
>> Reliability
>> Maintenance required* to keep it running
>> XC flyability, performance and control feel
>> Storability
>> Rigging
>> Initial cost
>> High density climb performance
>> Range
>> Cockpit layout and seating
>> Parts availability
>> Insurance cost
>> Landing gear complexity
>> Overall quality
>> Nick
>> T
>>
>
Well, the weeds were interesting at times :^)

I hope Nick will tell us _his_ conclusion, since he asked the question. Given his
list of unprioritized factors, the rest of us can't give him the answer. The
discussion illustrates there are many acceptable choices that you have to rank
using your priorities. It also illustrates how motorgliders have a much wider
appeal than 25 years ago, when I got my ASH26E. Back then, the discussion often
focused on whether they were "real" sailplanes; now it's about "which one should I
get". And some, no longer interested in the "real" sailplane argument, are now
eager to argue where to draw a line between "real" self-launchers and "just"
self-retrievers!

--
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

Nicholas Kennedy

October 9th 20, 11:59 PM

On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 12:08:08 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> kinsell wrote on 10/9/2020 7:47 AM:
> > Now that this discussion is totally off in the weeds, I'm wondering what the
> > conclusion is?
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/15/20 11:48 AM, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> >> Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
> >> This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
> >>
> >> When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
> >> Say for Western Great Basin flying.
> >>
> >> I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
> >> CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing
> >> its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well.
> >>
> >> FACTORS
> >>
> >> Reliability
> >> Maintenance required to keep it running
> >> XC flyability, performance and control feel
> >> Storability
> >> Rigging
> >> Initial cost
> >> High density climb performance
> >> Range
> >> Cockpit layout and seating
> >> Parts availability
> >> Insurance cost
> >> Landing gear complexity
> >> Overall quality
> >> Nick
> >> T
> >>
> >
> Well, the weeds were interesting at times :^)
>
> Thank you to all that replied to this thread!
Given the above criteria I think probably the best value is the ASH 26E.
They seen to be fairly reliable, go great, service is available.
But a JFitch pointed out these things are expensive, by any benchmark.
Best Regards
Nick
T

Darren Braun

October 10th 20, 03:43 AM

What are the issues people are finding with the 31? I talked to a couple of owners that didn't like them and then moved on but never understood what the issues were.
Darren

Nicholas Kennedy

October 10th 20, 10:15 PM

Darren
I don't know but one of them might be a spouse who is ****ed at a .25 mil asset that sits unused 95-98% of the time.
Nick
T

RW[_2_]

October 11th 20, 04:20 AM

On Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 5:15:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Darren
> I don't know but one of them might be a spouse who is ****ed at a .25 mil asset that sits unused 95-98% of the time.
> Nick
> T
Nick,
This is US soaring problem.
Speed To Fly used in reverse.
If Duo is expensive you have to buy it by yourself.
If 1-26 is cheap we use club buying power.
Europe has this in reverse.
They sure miss something :)
Ryszard
ps. my favorite motor-glider is Arcus M,
engine is ****,
but glider is soo crazy good if you know how to use its "super glider" flaps,
and you can always find the listener to you long story on a long flight,
and if you old like me, somebody always will bring you home safe .
But It is so expensive, I would loose my wive if I would try to buy one.
Thank you Al and Nico for a chance.

Dan Marotta

October 11th 20, 03:29 PM

If you own a glider as an investment, perhaps you should consider buying
the Brooklyn Bridge for diversification...

On 10/10/2020 3:15 PM, Nicholas Kennedy wrote:
> Darren
> I don't know but one of them might be a spouse who is ****ed at a .25 mil asset that sits unused 95-98% of the time.
> Nick
> T

--
Dan, 5J

Ramy[_2_]

October 12th 20, 01:47 AM

I donâ€™t think anyone mentioned the AS34ME. While not available yet, it sounds like it has good potential. The web site claims total of 9000+ feet of potential climb, or 2000 self launch and 75 miles range using it as a sustainer, which is pretty much double the FES capability.
I am not clear on the charging process. Since the batteries are in the wing, it sounds like you canâ€™t recharge between flights without taking the wings apart?
Will be interesting to hear thoughts if this is a good candidate for best overall motorglider?

Ramy

Dave Nadler

October 12th 20, 02:11 AM

On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 8:47:08 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> I donâ€™t think anyone mentioned the AS34ME. While not available yet...

Always an issue ;-)

> I am not clear on the charging process. Since the batteries are in the
> wing, it sounds like you canâ€™t recharge between flights without taking
> the wings apart?

Planes with batteries in wing typically have a connector in fuselage
to permit easy charging whilst assembled (mine does).

Do ask however if charging system is set up for 110V as commonly available
in USA - reduced voltage means double current for same charge rate,
and unless all wiring and connectors are sized appropriately for USA
you get to double the charge time to keep the current within design limits.
Ask me how I know ;-)
Usually not a big problem if its "overnight charge" anyway.

If you have to buy a high-power 110V to 240V converter that's a nuisance!

See ya, Dave

Ramy[_2_]

October 12th 20, 02:57 AM

Charging from the fuselage will make it impossible to charge overnight under most circumstances unless you tie down near a hangar or use your own generator. Perhaps using a generator is a reasonable practical method?

Ramy

Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)

October 12th 20, 03:03 AM

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 1:48:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
> This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
>
> When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
> Say for Western Great Basin flying.
>
> I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
> CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well.
>
> FACTORS
>
> Reliability
> Maintenance required to keep it running
> XC flyability, performance and control feel
> Storability
> Rigging
> Initial cost
> High density climb performance
> Range
> Cockpit layout and seating
> Parts availability
> Insurance cost
> Landing gear complexity
> Overall quality
> Nick
> T

Best answer...a sailplane someone else owns, insures and maintains that does what you need...but you can still fly when you want.....

Nicholas Kennedy

October 12th 20, 01:59 PM

On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 8:03:57 PM UTC-6, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
Ramy
I've tied down next to RV with his Antares in Ephrata a couple of years now.
He ties it on the ramp and has a very small Honda generator to charge it back up. The generator is very small and quiet, you can barely hear it running. If your out on the road I think this is how your going to charge your electric glider.
He loves the way that Antares's flys, he does not love the lack of factory support and all the problems he's had with the power unit's various components.
I'm sure Nadler could write a small book on the Antares problems.
It looks to me that the manufacture's can get the glider right, the electric propulsion system, not so much.
The AS34 looks good on paper, its such a huge claim of power I wonder if it is possible, and rigging those things day in day out with those heavy wings, and when your flying and run out of amps, your still heavy.
You show up at Tonopah at 9 am and you've got to rig by yourself, it might be a challenge, your not 29 years old any more.
Personally I've always wondered why you did not transition to a ASH 26E a long time ago.
I would think it would have matched your style.
Nick
T

Herbert kilian

October 12th 20, 02:06 PM

On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 7:47:08 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
> I donâ€™t think anyone mentioned the AS34ME. While not available yet, it sounds like it has good potential. The web site claims total of 9000+ feet of potential climb, or 2000 self launch and 75 miles range using it as a sustainer, which is pretty much double the FES capability.
> I am not clear on the charging process. Since the batteries are in the wing, it sounds like you canâ€™t recharge between flights without taking the wings apart?
> Will be interesting to hear thoughts if this is a good candidate for best overall motorglider?
>
> Ramy
The specs for the '34 leave me wanting. Regarding performance, I would rather fly my wonderful LS8-18 or an 18m Discus 2, I doubt the '34 can keep up with those gliders. Pricing is shockingly high, the '34 will run you fully equipped and delivered in a metal trailer close to $200k. In Europe, it is marketed as a "Genussflieger" or pleasure glider for club pilots. You'd be very likely disappointed, Ramy.

Dave Nadler

October 12th 20, 02:17 PM

On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 9:57:23 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> Charging from the fuselage will make it impossible to charge overnight
> under most circumstances unless you tie down near a hangar or use your
> own generator. Perhaps using a generator is a reasonable practical method?

For 13 years I've mostly found a place near power at contests,
and carry a portable generator for sites where that is not possible.
Not a big deal. Especially at sites where they're nice enough to
reserve a tie-down near an adequate power outlet (special thanks to Rich
and Jayne). At Minden I've sometimes been able to rent a hangar
with power during a contest, sometimes tied down in front of office.
And so forth. Like I said, not a big deal.

Bigger problem is keeping the machine working ;-(

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 12th 20, 04:07 PM

Ramy wrote on 10/11/2020 6:57 PM:
> Charging from the fuselage will make it impossible to charge overnight under most circumstances unless you tie down near a hangar or use your own generator. Perhaps using a generator is a reasonable practical method?
>
> Ramy

I've thought about this, since I expect to have that problem next year with the GP15. Here's
what I've considered:

- At home, I may have access to the power from friend's hangar and a place to tie down down
beside it, instead of the ramp tiedowns

- Typically, only a partial charge would be required, taking an hour or two, so power at a
tiedown is usually not needed; eg, Parowan and Ely have RV and hangar outlets that can be used
to charge in the evening after landing, then the glider moved to the tiedown after dinner. Or,
in the morning before flying

- My motorhome has a generator that could be used to charge the glider at the tiedown when
there is no 120VAC available on the field. It can even charge the glider in the trailer while
traveling

- The 15M GP15 should be easy to derig each night, instead of covering and tying down, and
parked near power for the charger; alternatively, once it's derigged, the batteries can be slid
out of the wings and taken to the RV/FBO/motel/etc for charging.

--
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

Dan Marotta

October 12th 20, 05:21 PM

I know of one that can climb directly to 18,000' (33,000', according to
the POH) and then cruise at 140 KTAS for 600 miles or so, and has two
seats.Â* Oh, and it has a 50:1 glide ratio with the engine stowed.Â* Not
much of a contest ship, though.

On 10/11/2020 6:47 PM, Ramy wrote:
> I donâ€™t think anyone mentioned the AS34ME. While not available yet, it sounds like it has good potential. The web site claims total of 9000+ feet of potential climb, or 2000 self launch and 75 miles range using it as a sustainer, which is pretty much double the FES capability.
> I am not clear on the charging process. Since the batteries are in the wing, it sounds like you canâ€™t recharge between flights without taking the wings apart?
> Will be interesting to hear thoughts if this is a good candidate for best overall motorglider?
>
> Ramy

--
Dan, 5J

Ramy[_2_]

October 12th 20, 06:40 PM

The price tag of close to 200K for a new self launcher does not surprise me as I donâ€™t think you canâ€™t find much cheaper for any new motorglider?
What surprises me is the expectation that the 34 will not perform as well as the top standard class such as LS8 and Discus 2 and is marketed as a club glider. After all the claim of 48:1 glide ratio is as high as you can expect from a non flap ship, which is not bad. So why do you expect it will not perform as well?
I wonder why they donâ€™t offer the same option in the 33?
I would like to hear thoughts on it.
As for why I did not switch to a motorglider myself so far, part of it is enjoying the â€œpureâ€ and adventure aspect of pure gliders, part is that in the places I fly and with the support I have, pure gliders worked well for me, part is shying away from complexity, maintainace and extra cost. But I am getting older, and electric solution appeal the most to me, but I havenâ€™t found the silver lining I am looking for so far.

Ramy

BG[_4_]

October 12th 20, 06:47 PM

On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 6:57:23 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> Charging from the fuselage will make it impossible to charge overnight under most circumstances unless you tie down near a hangar or use your own generator. Perhaps using a generator is a reasonable practical method?
>
> Ramy
I heard it takes roughly 10 gallons of fuel to recharge an empty Antares with a Honda generator. This ran all night long with a mid night refueling. They encourage every one in RV park to not run their generator and night because of the noise. If I was camping at an airfield and had to listen to a generator, I would be pretty unhappy especially if the owner was sleeping in another location.

Anybody thinking of owning an electric glider should understand the challenges. Those with removable battery packs are on the right path for general use.. Those with built in batteries are not seeing the big picture clearly..

I own DG 800b and fully admit this plane is not for everyone. I have been racing cars and 2 strokes all my life and found that experience has been vital to keep ahead of problems, and thanks to the forums for sharing. In the USA we are very challenged to find qualified people to work and maintain these unique machines. Every time a read about an owner taking his ship back to the factory for an annual in Europe, it is a stark reminder that even there, finding good qualified help is not easy.

Buzz

Dave Walsh[_2_]

October 12th 20, 07:20 PM

It's not only the electric glider that's the problem, it is that many
(most)
gliding Clubs do not have a reliable available power supply. Even with
conventional pure gliders it's not uncommon to see a maze of extension
leads snaking across the (wet) grass.
The Clubs could perhaps improve and adapt.

[email protected]

October 12th 20, 07:39 PM

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 1:40:52 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> The price tag of close to 200K for a new self launcher does not surprise me as I donâ€™t think you canâ€™t find much cheaper for any new motorglider?
> What surprises me is the expectation that the 34 will not perform as well as the top standard class such as LS8 and Discus 2 and is marketed as a club glider. After all the claim of 48:1 glide ratio is as high as you can expect from a non flap ship, which is not bad. So why do you expect it will not perform as well?
> I wonder why they donâ€™t offer the same option in the 33?
> I would like to hear thoughts on it.
> As for why I did not switch to a motorglider myself so far, part of it is enjoying the â€œpureâ€ and adventure aspect of pure gliders, part is that in the places I fly and with the support I have, pure gliders worked well for me, part is shying away from complexity, maintainace and extra cost. But I am getting older, and electric solution appeal the most to me, but I havenâ€™t found the silver lining I am looking for so far.
>
> Ramy

'33 has a very small wing which would lead to a very high minimum wing loading. Additionally, fitting the batteries in the wings and getting a water system in the thin wing would(will?) be a real challenge.
FWIW
UH

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 12th 20, 09:13 PM

BG wrote on 10/12/2020 10:47 AM:
> On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 6:57:23 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>> Charging from the fuselage will make it impossible to charge overnight under most circumstances unless you tie down near a hangar or use your own generator. Perhaps using a generator is a reasonable practical method?
>>
>> Ramy
> I heard it takes roughly 10 gallons of fuel to recharge an empty Antares with a Honda generator. This ran all night long with a mid night refueling. They encourage every one in RV park to not run their generator and night because of the noise. If I was camping at an airfield and had to listen to a generator, I would be pretty unhappy especially if the owner was sleeping in another location.
>
> Anybody thinking of owning an electric glider should understand the challenges. Those with removable battery packs are on the right path for general use.. Those with built in batteries are not seeing the big picture clearly..

Already there are several models of electric gliders with batteries in the wings, with more
coming in the future, because that allows the fuselage to hold a more powerful motor with a
larger propeller. The good news is they do not need to cause you to lose any sleep, because
they can be recharged without running a noisy generator all night, for several reasons:

- very quiet portable generators are readily available now
- the charging can be done for about 4 hours after landing, and 4 hours in the morning, giving
you a 10 pm - 7 am quiet time. That 8 hours of charging at 1.5kw, is 12 kWh, more than enough
to charge the GP15 I've ordered (8.2kWh battery), the AS34 (8.6kWh), and even the Antares (~10kWh)
- And especially because they will typically return with over half their capacity unused,
reducing the charge time to less than 4 hours.

And, if all else fails: earplugs, a white noise generator, maybe even a motel :^(

--
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

Darren Braun

October 12th 20, 10:19 PM

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 1:14:01 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> BG wrote on 10/12/2020 10:47 AM:
> > On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 6:57:23 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> >> Charging from the fuselage will make it impossible to charge overnight under most circumstances unless you tie down near a hangar or use your own generator. Perhaps using a generator is a reasonable practical method?
> >>
> >> Ramy
> > I heard it takes roughly 10 gallons of fuel to recharge an empty Antares with a Honda generator. This ran all night long with a mid night refueling. They encourage every one in RV park to not run their generator and night because of the noise. If I was camping at an airfield and had to listen to a generator, I would be pretty unhappy especially if the owner was sleeping in another location.
> >
> > Anybody thinking of owning an electric glider should understand the challenges. Those with removable battery packs are on the right path for general use.. Those with built in batteries are not seeing the big picture clearly..
>
> Already there are several models of electric gliders with batteries in the wings, with more
> coming in the future, because that allows the fuselage to hold a more powerful motor with a
> larger propeller. The good news is they do not need to cause you to lose any sleep, because
> they can be recharged without running a noisy generator all night, for several reasons:
>
> - very quiet portable generators are readily available now

eco mode(quiet mode) on a Honda 2000(about 50lbs of generator) coughs and sputters around 500W. So for any significant charging session you'll need the noisier max rpm mode on the typical medium sized generator. So running 7pm to 10pm and in the morning is a good plan.

Dave Walsh[_2_]

October 12th 20, 10:26 PM

Not at all sure I'd consider having to lug heavy batteries out of the
glider,
putting them in a car, transporting them and then recharging them in
your RV/Gite/hotel/hangar/caravan/whatever could be viewed as a
universally good solution.
Then reversing the process next morning?

Simply plugging a single mains power lead into the Antares type 'battery
in wing' is a bit simpler, no? (The Antares has a built in charger system).

Plus if the whole shooting match bursts into flames it's not in your
RV/car/hotel/Gite......

Some European gliding clubs even now do not allow electric gliders to be
charged in their club hangars: fire risk, insurance problems?

Interesting times.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 12th 20, 11:23 PM

Dave Walsh wrote on 10/12/2020 2:26 PM:
> Not at all sure I'd consider having to lug heavy batteries out of the
> glider,
> putting them in a car, transporting them and then recharging them in
> your RV/Gite/hotel/hangar/caravan/whatever could be viewed as a
> universally good solution.
> Then reversing the process next morning?
>
> Simply plugging a single mains power lead into the Antares type 'battery
> in wing' is a bit simpler, no? (The Antares has a built in charger system).

Of course, that is the most desirable solution. The other solutions, including removing the
wing batteries, are for the times there isn't mains power near the glider parking area - the
usual situation I encounter. The only airfield I recall having convenient 120VAC sockets near
the aircraft was in Canada, so pilots could plug in their engine heaters during the winter.

For most pilots with wing batteries, I think a quiet, 2kW portable generator will be the
easiest answer to independent charging of their glider. They are priced in the $400-$1000
range, so cheap enough.

--
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

October 12th 20, 11:26 PM

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 4:14:01 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> ...Those with removable battery packs are on the right path for general use..
> Those with built in batteries are not seeing the big picture clearly..

Seriously? Removable batteries are heavy and susceptible to damage (as proven).

Tango Eight

October 13th 20, 01:12 AM

If you think there is such a thing as a quiet generator you are either indulging in wishful thinking at the expense of your neighbors or you need your hearing evaluated, or both. Maybe it doesn't matter at some uninhabitable hellhole of a soaring site, but it would sure kill the ambiance at most of the (beautiful, quiet, wonderfully suitable for tent camping) sites I frequent.

T8

kinsell

October 13th 20, 01:26 AM

On 10/12/20 4:26 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 4:14:01 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> ...Those with removable battery packs are on the right path for general use..
>> Those with built in batteries are not seeing the big picture clearly..
>
> Seriously? Removable batteries are heavy and susceptible to damage (as proven).
>

That quote came from Buzz, not Eric. Eric is all-in with batteries less
conveniently removed, in the wings. He'll be flying his Jeta next year.
Maybe just on Condor :-)

I remember an Electro Taurus that showed up at Parowan a few years ago,
solar cells covering his trailer. Supposedly the cells would charge a
staging battery in the trailer during the day, then they would
cross-charge the ship batteries at night.

Pilot told me in reality it took three days of sunshine to get adequate
charge, and was wondering about the availability of a 220 volt outlet.

Also, during shipping the weight of the solar cells had caused the
trailer top to sag, and damaged his canopy.

Sometimes things that sound great on paper don't work out as planned in
reality. Speaking of such, why has no one recommended the Sunseeker for
Nick?

-Dave

Nicholas Kennedy

October 13th 20, 01:52 AM

Ya Know what would be / Is the ultimate Great Basin ship IMHO?
The EB 29
Kinda big at a 96' wingspan but the 68/1 LD would be nice.
I was in Ely several years ago when there were two there, one flown by a gent I think named John Bally? and his buddy. I checked those planes out, very well finished. Beautiful.
Those guys said they were very nice to fly.
Actually Bally had the 2 seat EB 28 and took my brother Mike XC in it.
I think Binder has been a leader in suppling other manufactures with complete ICE systems for a long time.
At Moriarity NM this spring Keith Essex said this plane was on his radar as his next ship, after he wore out his JS3.
Any guess's on what these go for all decked out with a metal Cobra?
Nick
T

Dan Daly[_2_]

October 13th 20, 02:42 AM

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 8:52:22 PM UTC-4, Nicholas Kennedy wrote:
> Ya Know what would be / Is the ultimate Great Basin ship IMHO?
> The EB 29
> Kinda big at a 96' wingspan but the 68/1 LD would be nice.
> I was in Ely several years ago when there were two there, one flown by a gent I think named John Bally? and his buddy. I checked those planes out, very well finished. Beautiful.
> Those guys said they were very nice to fly.
> Actually Bally had the 2 seat EB 28 and took my brother Mike XC in it.
> I think Binder has been a leader in suppling other manufactures with complete ICE systems for a long time.
> At Moriarity NM this spring Keith Essex said this plane was on his radar as his next ship, after he wore out his JS3.
> Any guess's on what these go for all decked out with a metal Cobra?
> Nick
> T

from a search of ras: "On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:23:07 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
- show quoted text -
PS the EB28 Edition and the EB29 are about $300,000 with trailer and
the usual equipment - neither have automatic control hookups - both gliders
are incredibly good climbers even when very heavy - the handling is superb
and they are a pleasure to fly - "

I searched on "eb29 glider price"

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 13th 20, 04:59 AM

Tango Eight wrote on 10/12/2020 5:12 PM:
> If you think there is such a thing as a quiet generator you are either indulging in wishful thinking at the expense of your neighbors or you need your hearing evaluated, or both. Maybe it doesn't matter at some uninhabitable hellhole of a soaring site, but it would sure kill the ambiance at most of the (beautiful, quiet, wonderfully suitable for tent camping) sites I frequent.
>
Have you listened to a Honda EU2200i? It's rated at 57dba at full output, which is variously
described as normal conversation or a refrigerator running. If you are sleeping right next to
the glider being charged, it might seem loud (haven't tried it), but a 100' away, probably not.
But, I don't support running them at night, but between 7 am and 10 pm, or similar, so there is
a quiet time at night. Based on my flying, where I typically use the ASH26E engine for just the
launch, a similar electric glider would only need an hour of charging, so easily done in the
morning while preparing for the day's flight.

--
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

Matthew Scutter

October 13th 20, 10:24 AM

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:42:43 AM UTC+2, Dan Daly wrote:
> On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 8:52:22 PM UTC-4, Nicholas Kennedy wrote:
> > Ya Know what would be / Is the ultimate Great Basin ship IMHO?
> > The EB 29
> > Kinda big at a 96' wingspan but the 68/1 LD would be nice.
> > I was in Ely several years ago when there were two there, one flown by a gent I think named John Bally? and his buddy. I checked those planes out, very well finished. Beautiful.
> > Those guys said they were very nice to fly.
> > Actually Bally had the 2 seat EB 28 and took my brother Mike XC in it.
> > I think Binder has been a leader in suppling other manufactures with complete ICE systems for a long time.
> > At Moriarity NM this spring Keith Essex said this plane was on his radar as his next ship, after he wore out his JS3.
> > Any guess's on what these go for all decked out with a metal Cobra?
> > Nick
> > T
> from a search of ras: "On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:23:07 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> - show quoted text -
> PS the EB28 Edition and the EB29 are about $300,000 with trailer and
> the usual equipment - neither have automatic control hookups - both gliders
> are incredibly good climbers even when very heavy - the handling is superb
> and they are a pleasure to fly - "
>
> I searched on "eb29 glider price"

Last I heard the price was nearer 400k all in.
They do make an EB29E though with an electric engine and allegedly 3000m of climb. It can't take the new R wings though.
The best electric glider I ever flew was the Arcus E. I wish the concept had been developed further. Some newer/higher density batteries, and a few more evolutions of the Lange control systems would be the ultimate system in my opinion.

Tango Eight

October 13th 20, 01:14 PM

It's not about "loud", Eric, it's about "peace and quiet".

On a still morning at New Castle, anyone with decent hearing will hear it at a 1/2 mile and it will not enhance the experience. At someplace like Hobbs or Ephrata, maybe one doesn't care as much.

T8

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:00:02 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Tango Eight wrote on 10/12/2020 5:12 PM:
> > If you think there is such a thing as a quiet generator you are either indulging in wishful thinking at the expense of your neighbors or you need your hearing evaluated, or both. Maybe it doesn't matter at some uninhabitable hellhole of a soaring site, but it would sure kill the ambiance at most of the (beautiful, quiet, wonderfully suitable for tent camping) sites I frequent.
> >
> Have you listened to a Honda EU2200i? It's rated at 57dba at full output, which is variously
> described as normal conversation or a refrigerator running. If you are sleeping right next to
> the glider being charged, it might seem loud (haven't tried it), but a 100' away, probably not.
> But, I don't support running them at night, but between 7 am and 10 pm, or similar, so there is
> a quiet time at night. Based on my flying, where I typically use the ASH26E engine for just the
> launch, a similar electric glider would only need an hour of charging, so easily done in the
> morning while preparing for the day's flight.
> --
> 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

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 13th 20, 02:18 PM

Have you listened to one? If it ran after 8 am, would it still be offensive?

You are right that it would not bother people at Ephrata, Hobbs, Parowan, Ely, or Minden, and
most of the places I fly. It's been a long time since I've been to Newcastle, so tell me: is
power available for several gliders to tie down where they could recharge from hangar outlets?
Could they be parked at one end of the tiedowns, far enough away that 57 dba generators would
not annoy people after 7 or 8 am?

Eric

Tango Eight wrote on 10/13/2020 5:14 AM:
> It's not about "loud", Eric, it's about "peace and quiet".
>
> On a still morning at New Castle, anyone with decent hearing will hear it at a 1/2 mile and it will not enhance the experience. At someplace like Hobbs or Ephrata, maybe one doesn't care as much.
>
> T8
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:00:02 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Tango Eight wrote on 10/12/2020 5:12 PM:
>>> If you think there is such a thing as a quiet generator you are either indulging in wishful thinking at the expense of your neighbors or you need your hearing evaluated, or both. Maybe it doesn't matter at some uninhabitable hellhole of a soaring site, but it would sure kill the ambiance at most of the (beautiful, quiet, wonderfully suitable for tent camping) sites I frequent.
>>>
>> Have you listened to a Honda EU2200i? It's rated at 57dba at full output, which is variously
>> described as normal conversation or a refrigerator running. If you are sleeping right next to
>> the glider being charged, it might seem loud (haven't tried it), but a 100' away, probably not.
>> But, I don't support running them at night, but between 7 am and 10 pm, or similar, so there is
>> a quiet time at night. Based on my flying, where I typically use the ASH26E engine for just the
>> launch, a similar electric glider would only need an hour of charging, so easily done in the
>> morning while preparing for the day's flight.
>> --
>> 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

--
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

Craig Reinholt

October 13th 20, 03:55 PM

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 5:52:22 PM UTC-7, Nicholas Kennedy wrote:
> Ya Know what would be / Is the ultimate Great Basin ship IMHO?
> The EB 29
> Kinda big at a 96' wingspan but the 68/1 LD would be nice.
> I was in Ely several years ago when there were two there, one flown by a gent I think named John Bally? and his buddy. I checked those planes out, very well finished. Beautiful.
> Those guys said they were very nice to fly.
> Actually Bally had the 2 seat EB 28 and took my brother Mike XC in it.
> I think Binder has been a leader in suppling other manufactures with complete ICE systems for a long time.
> At Moriarity NM this spring Keith Essex said this plane was on his radar as his next ship, after he wore out his JS3.
> Any guess's on what these go for all decked out with a metal Cobra?
> Nick
> T

Nick, Kelvyn Flaval (KF) bought an EB29R this year. It was over $400k. He, along with Mitch Polinsky will be flying them at Ely next season. Sibylle and Ingo Andresen from Germany are Ely regulars and will probably be at Ely too. Ingo flies the 29R. Sibylle flies a 31.

Dave Walsh[_2_]

October 13th 20, 05:11 PM

Not sure how many EB29E actually exist? There was one at Sisteron
2018, the rear seat was tiny, really a one and a half seater?
It was taking aerotows, some problem with the battery charger and
smoke production? Reputed cost north of 400Kâ‚¬.....

Andrzej Kobus

October 13th 20, 05:42 PM

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 5:24:19 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:42:43 AM UTC+2, Dan Daly wrote:
> > On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 8:52:22 PM UTC-4, Nicholas Kennedy wrote:
> > > Ya Know what would be / Is the ultimate Great Basin ship IMHO?
> > > The EB 29
> > > Kinda big at a 96' wingspan but the 68/1 LD would be nice.
> > > I was in Ely several years ago when there were two there, one flown by a gent I think named John Bally? and his buddy. I checked those planes out, very well finished. Beautiful.
> > > Those guys said they were very nice to fly.
> > > Actually Bally had the 2 seat EB 28 and took my brother Mike XC in it.
> > > I think Binder has been a leader in suppling other manufactures with complete ICE systems for a long time.
> > > At Moriarity NM this spring Keith Essex said this plane was on his radar as his next ship, after he wore out his JS3.
> > > Any guess's on what these go for all decked out with a metal Cobra?
> > > Nick
> > > T
> > from a search of ras: "On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:23:07 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> > - show quoted text -
> > PS the EB28 Edition and the EB29 are about $300,000 with trailer and
> > the usual equipment - neither have automatic control hookups - both gliders
> > are incredibly good climbers even when very heavy - the handling is superb
> > and they are a pleasure to fly - "
> >
> > I searched on "eb29 glider price"
>
> Last I heard the price was nearer 400k all in.
> They do make an EB29E though with an electric engine and allegedly 3000m of climb. It can't take the new R wings though.
> The best electric glider I ever flew was the Arcus E. I wish the concept had been developed further. Some newer/higher density batteries, and a few more evolutions of the Lange control systems would be the ultimate system in my opinion.

By the time you bring it home it is much higher than $400k

Andrzej Kobus

October 13th 20, 05:45 PM

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-4, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 5:52:22 PM UTC-7, Nicholas Kennedy wrote:
> > Ya Know what would be / Is the ultimate Great Basin ship IMHO?
> > The EB 29
> > Kinda big at a 96' wingspan but the 68/1 LD would be nice.
> > I was in Ely several years ago when there were two there, one flown by a gent I think named John Bally? and his buddy. I checked those planes out, very well finished. Beautiful.
> > Those guys said they were very nice to fly.
> > Actually Bally had the 2 seat EB 28 and took my brother Mike XC in it.
> > I think Binder has been a leader in suppling other manufactures with complete ICE systems for a long time.
> > At Moriarity NM this spring Keith Essex said this plane was on his radar as his next ship, after he wore out his JS3.
> > Any guess's on what these go for all decked out with a metal Cobra?
> > Nick
> > T
>
> Nick, Kelvyn Flaval (KF) bought an EB29R this year. It was over $400k. He, along with Mitch Polinsky will be flying them at Ely next season. Sibylle and Ingo Andresen from Germany are Ely regulars and will probably be at Ely too. Ingo flies the 29R. Sibylle flies a 31.

Ingo does not fly the EB29 anymore.

Tango Eight

October 13th 20, 05:52 PM

Honestly no, I have no experience with that specific model.

57 dBa, while not loud, is very clearly audible, and in still, stable air (especially still, humid, stable air) sound carries a very long way.

If electric gliders (and electric tow vehicles) become the norm, then I'm sure infrastructure will be built to accommodate.

I'm not a New Castle member, just their biggest fan. There's power all over the airport, but since it wasn't put there with electric vehicles in mind, it wouldn't take too many before limits of power and accessibility were reached.

T8

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:18:20 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Have you listened to one? If it ran after 8 am, would it still be offensive?
>
> You are right that it would not bother people at Ephrata, Hobbs, Parowan, Ely, or Minden, and
> most of the places I fly. It's been a long time since I've been to Newcastle, so tell me: is
> power available for several gliders to tie down where they could recharge from hangar outlets?
> Could they be parked at one end of the tiedowns, far enough away that 57 dba generators would
> not annoy people after 7 or 8 am?
>
> Eric
> Tango Eight wrote on 10/13/2020 5:14 AM:
> > It's not about "loud", Eric, it's about "peace and quiet".
> >
> > On a still morning at New Castle, anyone with decent hearing will hear it at a 1/2 mile and it will not enhance the experience. At someplace like Hobbs or Ephrata, maybe one doesn't care as much.
> >
> > T8
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:00:02 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> Tango Eight wrote on 10/12/2020 5:12 PM:
> >>> If you think there is such a thing as a quiet generator you are either indulging in wishful thinking at the expense of your neighbors or you need your hearing evaluated, or both. Maybe it doesn't matter at some uninhabitable hellhole of a soaring site, but it would sure kill the ambiance at most of the (beautiful, quiet, wonderfully suitable for tent camping) sites I frequent.
> >>>
> >> Have you listened to a Honda EU2200i? It's rated at 57dba at full output, which is variously
> >> described as normal conversation or a refrigerator running. If you are sleeping right next to
> >> the glider being charged, it might seem loud (haven't tried it), but a 100' away, probably not.
> >> But, I don't support running them at night, but between 7 am and 10 pm, or similar, so there is
> >> a quiet time at night. Based on my flying, where I typically use the ASH26E engine for just the
> >> launch, a similar electric glider would only need an hour of charging, so easily done in the
> >> morning while preparing for the day's flight.
> >> --
> >> 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
>
>
> --
> 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

krasw

October 14th 20, 09:02 AM

On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 20:40:52 UTC+3, Ramy wrote:
> The price tag of close to 200K for a new self launcher does not surprise me as I donâ€™t think you canâ€™t find much cheaper for any new motorglider?
> What surprises me is the expectation that the 34 will not perform as well as the top standard class such as LS8 and Discus 2 and is marketed as a club glider. After all the claim of 48:1 glide ratio is as high as you can expect from a non flap ship, which is not bad. So why do you expect it will not perform as well?
> I wonder why they donâ€™t offer the same option in the 33?
> I would like to hear thoughts on it.
> As for why I did not switch to a motorglider myself so far, part of it is enjoying the â€œpureâ€ and adventure aspect of pure gliders, part is that in the places I fly and with the support I have, pure gliders worked well for me, part is shying away from complexity, maintainace and extra cost. But I am getting older, and electric solution appeal the most to me, but I havenâ€™t found the silver lining I am looking for so far.
>
> Ramy

To be totally honest, pilots who contemplate over performance differences between LS8-18, D2c and AS34 are not going to fly a mile longer or knot faster with any of these types, or with LS4 for that matter. We are talking about gliders that are sold to sunday afternoon pilots doing 99% of the time few hour pleasure flights. Who cares if one of these is 0.001% better and 81..3 knot "speed range" than other?

If you want a glider that goes, you need to look at 18m racers such as V3, JS3 or AS33.

jfitch

October 14th 20, 06:12 PM

The difference between gliders designed in the last 20 years is quite small.. Some of the difference is explainable by wing loading. Here are the handicaps used in the US for a sample of gliders (in the US, lower numbers are faster):

JS3 - 0.83
ASH31-18 - 0.835
V3 - 0.84
ASG29-18 - 0.845
V2b-18 - 0.85
ASH26 - 0.855
LS6c-18 - 0.868
ASW27 - 0.878
LS8-18. - 0.88
Vb16.6 - 0.883

That means that on an 80 knot average day for the JS3, the ASH26 will do 78, and an LS8-18 75 knots. Put another way in a 4 hours flight the JS3 will arrive 7 minutes ahead of the ASH26 and 14 minutes ahead of the LS8. That is a lot of time in a race, but for pleasure flying nearly nothing. 7 minutes will be lost or gained many times in a 4 hour flight by luck or skill. If the 26 is leaching the JS3 it will be slowly left behind (which may be mentally disheartening, even if the difference is small) but will still be within Flarm range by the end of the day. If the S3 is loaded to 12 lbs/ft the difference is much greater - but primarily due to wing loading, not aerodynamic design. The science was pretty far advanced even 20 years ago. There has been more gained by increasing wing loadings than wing profiles. If you are racing at top levels, or the money is of little consequence to you, then by all means the newest gliders are faster. For the rest of us, hard to find the value proposition.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 1:02:34 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 20:40:52 UTC+3, Ramy wrote:
> > The price tag of close to 200K for a new self launcher does not surprise me as I donâ€™t think you canâ€™t find much cheaper for any new motorglider?
> > What surprises me is the expectation that the 34 will not perform as well as the top standard class such as LS8 and Discus 2 and is marketed as a club glider. After all the claim of 48:1 glide ratio is as high as you can expect from a non flap ship, which is not bad. So why do you expect it will not perform as well?
> > I wonder why they donâ€™t offer the same option in the 33?
> > I would like to hear thoughts on it.
> > As for why I did not switch to a motorglider myself so far, part of it is enjoying the â€œpureâ€ and adventure aspect of pure gliders, part is that in the places I fly and with the support I have, pure gliders worked well for me, part is shying away from complexity, maintainace and extra cost. But I am getting older, and electric solution appeal the most to me, but I havenâ€™t found the silver lining I am looking for so far..
> >
> > Ramy
> To be totally honest, pilots who contemplate over performance differences between LS8-18, D2c and AS34 are not going to fly a mile longer or knot faster with any of these types, or with LS4 for that matter. We are talking about gliders that are sold to sunday afternoon pilots doing 99% of the time few hour pleasure flights. Who cares if one of these is 0.001% better and 81.3 knot "speed range" than other?
>
> If you want a glider that goes, you need to look at 18m racers such as V3, JS3 or AS33.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 14th 20, 06:54 PM

The ASH 26E is actually a 27+ year old design, since the first US delivery was in 1994, meaning
the design was completed at least a year earlier. Also 27+ years for the ASW27.

jfitch wrote on 10/14/2020 10:12 AM:
> The difference between gliders designed in the last 20 years is quite small.. Some of the difference is explainable by wing loading. Here are the handicaps used in the US for a sample of gliders (in the US, lower numbers are faster):
>
> JS3 - 0.83
> ASH31-18 - 0.835
> V3 - 0.84
> ASG29-18 - 0.845
> V2b-18 - 0.85
> ASH26 - 0.855
> LS6c-18 - 0.868
> ASW27 - 0.878
> LS8-18. - 0.88
> Vb16.6 - 0.883
>
> That means that on an 80 knot average day for the JS3, the ASH26 will do 78, and an LS8-18 75 knots. Put another way in a 4 hours flight the JS3 will arrive 7 minutes ahead of the ASH26 and 14 minutes ahead of the LS8. That is a lot of time in a race, but for pleasure flying nearly nothing. 7 minutes will be lost or gained many times in a 4 hour flight by luck or skill. If the 26 is leaching the JS3 it will be slowly left behind (which may be mentally disheartening, even if the difference is small) but will still be within Flarm range by the end of the day. If the S3 is loaded to 12 lbs/ft the difference is much greater - but primarily due to wing loading, not aerodynamic design. The science was pretty far advanced even 20 years ago. There has been more gained by increasing wing loadings than wing profiles. If you are racing at top levels, or the money is of little consequence to you, then by all means the newest gliders are faster. For the rest of us, hard to find the value proposition.
>
> On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 1:02:34 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
>> On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 20:40:52 UTC+3, Ramy wrote:
>>> The price tag of close to 200K for a new self launcher does not surprise me as I don’t think you can’t find much cheaper for any new motorglider?
>>> What surprises me is the expectation that the 34 will not perform as well as the top standard class such as LS8 and Discus 2 and is marketed as a club glider. After all the claim of 48:1 glide ratio is as high as you can expect from a non flap ship, which is not bad. So why do you expect it will not perform as well?
>>> I wonder why they don’t offer the same option in the 33?
>>> I would like to hear thoughts on it.
>>> As for why I did not switch to a motorglider myself so far, part of it is enjoying the “pure” and adventure aspect of pure gliders, part is that in the places I fly and with the support I have, pure gliders worked well for me, part is shying away from complexity, maintainace and extra cost. But I am getting older, and electric solution appeal the most to me, but I haven’t found the silver lining I am looking for so far..
>>>
>>> Ramy
>> To be totally honest, pilots who contemplate over performance differences between LS8-18, D2c and AS34 are not going to fly a mile longer or knot faster with any of these types, or with LS4 for that matter. We are talking about gliders that are sold to sunday afternoon pilots doing 99% of the time few hour pleasure flights. Who cares if one of these is 0.001% better and 81.3 knot "speed range" than other?
>>
>> If you want a glider that goes, you need to look at 18m racers such as V3, JS3 or AS33.

--
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 Walsh[_2_]

October 14th 20, 07:03 PM

Interesting discussion. I recall an anecdote I heard from a EB29E pilot,
she described the evening after flight discussions at a well known
Namibian site.
She said "the glider pilots sat around after dinner and discussed their
flights, the motor glider pilots sat around and discussed engines".
Says it all really!
Dave W

At 17:12 14 October 2020, jfitch wrote:
>The difference between gliders designed in the last 20 years is quite
>small=
>.. Some of the difference is explainable by wing loading. Here are the
>handi=
>caps used in the US for a sample of gliders (in the US, lower numbers
are
>f=
>aster):
>
>JS3 - 0.83
>ASH31-18 - 0.835
>V3 - 0.84
>ASG29-18 - 0.845
>V2b-18 - 0.85
>ASH26 - 0.855
>LS6c-18 - 0.868
>ASW27 - 0.878
>LS8-18. - 0.88
>Vb16.6 - 0.883
>
>That means that on an 80 knot average day for the JS3, the ASH26
will do
>78=
>, and an LS8-18 75 knots. Put another way in a 4 hours flight the JS3
will
>=
>arrive 7 minutes ahead of the ASH26 and 14 minutes ahead of the
LS8. That
>i=
>s a lot of time in a race, but for pleasure flying nearly nothing. 7
>minute=
>s will be lost or gained many times in a 4 hour flight by luck or skill.
>If=
> the 26 is leaching the JS3 it will be slowly left behind (which may be
>men=
>tally disheartening, even if the difference is small) but will still be
>wit=
>hin Flarm range by the end of the day. If the S3 is loaded to 12 lbs/ft
>the=
> difference is much greater - but primarily due to wing loading, not
>aerody=
>namic design. The science was pretty far advanced even 20 years
ago. There
>=
>has been more gained by increasing wing loadings than wing profiles.
If
>you=
> are racing at top levels, or the money is of little consequence to you,
>th=
>en by all means the newest gliders are faster. For the rest of us, hard
to
>=
>find the value proposition.=20
>
>On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 1:02:34 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
>> On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 20:40:52 UTC+3, Ramy wrote:=20
>> > The price tag of close to 200K for a new self launcher does not
>surpris=
>e me as I don=E2=80=99t think you can=E2=80=99t find much
cheaper for any
>n=
>ew motorglider?=20
>> > What surprises me is the expectation that the 34 will not perform
as
>we=
>ll as the top standard class such as LS8 and Discus 2 and is marketed
as a
>=
>club glider. After all the claim of 48:1 glide ratio is as high as you
can
>=
>expect from a non flap ship, which is not bad. So why do you expect it
>will=
> not perform as well?=20
>> > I wonder why they don=E2=80=99t offer the same option in the
33?=20
>> > I would like to hear thoughts on it.=20
>> > As for why I did not switch to a motorglider myself so far, part of
it
>=
>is enjoying the =E2=80=9Cpure=E2=80=9D and adventure aspect of
pure
>gliders=
>, part is that in the places I fly and with the support I have, pure
>glider=
>s worked well for me, part is shying away from complexity,
maintainace and
>=
>extra cost. But I am getting older, and electric solution appeal the
most
>t=
>o me, but I haven=E2=80=99t found the silver lining I am looking for
so
>far=
>..=20
>> >=20
>> > Ramy
>> To be totally honest, pilots who contemplate over performance
>differences=
> between LS8-18, D2c and AS34 are not going to fly a mile longer or
knot
>fa=
>ster with any of these types, or with LS4 for that matter. We are
talking
>a=
>bout gliders that are sold to sunday afternoon pilots doing 99% of the
>time=
> few hour pleasure flights. Who cares if one of these is 0.001% better
and
>=
>81.3 knot "speed range" than other?=20
>>=20
>> If you want a glider that goes, you need to look at 18m racers such
as
>V3=
>, JS3 or AS33.
>

John Galloway[_2_]

October 14th 20, 08:12 PM

On Wednesday, 14 October 2020 at 19:15:07 UTC+1, Dave Walsh wrote:
> Interesting discussion. I recall an anecdote I heard from a EB29E pilot,
> she described the evening after flight discussions at a well known
> Namibian site.
> She said "the glider pilots sat around after dinner and discussed their
> flights, the motor glider pilots sat around and discussed engines".
> Says it all really!
> Dave W
> At 17:12 14 October 2020, jfitch wrote:
> >The difference between gliders designed in the last 20 years is quite
> >small=
> >.. Some of the difference is explainable by wing loading. Here are the
> >handi=
> >caps used in the US for a sample of gliders (in the US, lower numbers
> are
> >f=
> >aster):
> >
> >JS3 - 0.83
> >ASH31-18 - 0.835
> >V3 - 0.84
> >ASG29-18 - 0.845
> >V2b-18 - 0.85
> >ASH26 - 0.855
> >LS6c-18 - 0.868
> >ASW27 - 0.878
> >LS8-18. - 0.88
> >Vb16.6 - 0.883
> >
> >That means that on an 80 knot average day for the JS3, the ASH26
> will do
> >78=
> >, and an LS8-18 75 knots. Put another way in a 4 hours flight the JS3
> will
> >=
> >arrive 7 minutes ahead of the ASH26 and 14 minutes ahead of the
> LS8. That
> >i=
> >s a lot of time in a race, but for pleasure flying nearly nothing. 7
> >minute=
> >s will be lost or gained many times in a 4 hour flight by luck or skill.
> >If=
> > the 26 is leaching the JS3 it will be slowly left behind (which may be
> >men=
> >tally disheartening, even if the difference is small) but will still be
> >wit=
> >hin Flarm range by the end of the day. If the S3 is loaded to 12 lbs/ft
> >the=
> > difference is much greater - but primarily due to wing loading, not
> >aerody=
> >namic design. The science was pretty far advanced even 20 years
> ago. There
> >=
> >has been more gained by increasing wing loadings than wing profiles.
> If
> >you=
> > are racing at top levels, or the money is of little consequence to you,
> >th=
> >en by all means the newest gliders are faster. For the rest of us, hard
> to
> >=
> >find the value proposition.=20
> >
> >On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 1:02:34 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> >> On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 20:40:52 UTC+3, Ramy wrote:=20
> >> > The price tag of close to 200K for a new self launcher does not
> >surpris=
> >e me as I don=E2=80=99t think you can=E2=80=99t find much
> cheaper for any
> >n=
> >ew motorglider?=20
> >> > What surprises me is the expectation that the 34 will not perform
> as
> >we=
> >ll as the top standard class such as LS8 and Discus 2 and is marketed
> as a
> >=
> >club glider. After all the claim of 48:1 glide ratio is as high as you
> can
> >=
> >expect from a non flap ship, which is not bad. So why do you expect it
> >will=
> > not perform as well?=20
> >> > I wonder why they don=E2=80=99t offer the same option in the
> 33?=20
> >> > I would like to hear thoughts on it.=20
> >> > As for why I did not switch to a motorglider myself so far, part of
> it
> >=
> >is enjoying the =E2=80=9Cpure=E2=80=9D and adventure aspect of
> pure
> >gliders=
> >, part is that in the places I fly and with the support I have, pure
> >glider=
> >s worked well for me, part is shying away from complexity,
> maintainace and
> >=
> >extra cost. But I am getting older, and electric solution appeal the
> most
> >t=
> >o me, but I haven=E2=80=99t found the silver lining I am looking for
> so
> >far=
> >..=20
> >> >=20
> >> > Ramy
> >> To be totally honest, pilots who contemplate over performance
> >differences=
> > between LS8-18, D2c and AS34 are not going to fly a mile longer or
> knot
> >fa=
> >ster with any of these types, or with LS4 for that matter. We are
> talking
> >a=
> >bout gliders that are sold to sunday afternoon pilots doing 99% of the
> >time=
> > few hour pleasure flights. Who cares if one of these is 0.001% better
> and
> >=
> >81.3 knot "speed range" than other?=20
> >>=20
> >> If you want a glider that goes, you need to look at 18m racers such
> as
> >V3=
> >, JS3 or AS33.
> >

Might have been a boring evening - I thought all the gliding in Namibia was with seasonally imported self-launchers!

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 14th 20, 08:55 PM

Maybe it says something about Namibia flying, but it says nothing about the Parowan motorglider
event I've been going to for over 10 years. We discuss the flights, rarely the motors. Ditto
for when I fly at Ely following the Parowan event.

Seriously, the motors work very well most of the time, and there is little reason to discuss
them at dinner! Use it for 5-10 minutes to launch, put it away and fly. There is more
discussion about the towed gliders landing out and needing retrieves than engines: do they need
a towplane, who will drive the trailer to them, etc.

Eric

Dave Walsh wrote on 10/14/2020 11:03 AM:
> Interesting discussion. I recall an anecdote I heard from a EB29E pilot,
> she described the evening after flight discussions at a well known
> Namibian site.
> She said "the glider pilots sat around after dinner and discussed their
> flights, the motor glider pilots sat around and discussed engines".
> Says it all really!
> Dave W
>
>
>
> At 17:12 14 October 2020, jfitch wrote:
>> The difference between gliders designed in the last 20 years is quite
>> small=
>> .. Some of the difference is explainable by wing loading. Here are the
>> handi=
>> caps used in the US for a sample of gliders (in the US, lower numbers
> are
>> f=
>> aster):
>>
>> JS3 - 0.83
>> ASH31-18 - 0.835
>> V3 - 0.84
>> ASG29-18 - 0.845
>> V2b-18 - 0.85
>> ASH26 - 0.855
>> LS6c-18 - 0.868
>> ASW27 - 0.878
>> LS8-18. - 0.88
>> Vb16.6 - 0.883
>>
>> That means that on an 80 knot average day for the JS3, the ASH26
> will do
>> 78=
>> , and an LS8-18 75 knots. Put another way in a 4 hours flight the JS3
> will
>> =
>> arrive 7 minutes ahead of the ASH26 and 14 minutes ahead of the
> LS8. That
>> i=
>> s a lot of time in a race, but for pleasure flying nearly nothing. 7
>> minute=
>> s will be lost or gained many times in a 4 hour flight by luck or skill.
>> If=
>> the 26 is leaching the JS3 it will be slowly left behind (which may be
>> men=
>> tally disheartening, even if the difference is small) but will still be
>> wit=
>> hin Flarm range by the end of the day. If the S3 is loaded to 12 lbs/ft
>> the=
>> difference is much greater - but primarily due to wing loading, not
>> aerody=
>> namic design. The science was pretty far advanced even 20 years
> ago. There
>> =
>> has been more gained by increasing wing loadings than wing profiles.
> If
>> you=
>> are racing at top levels, or the money is of little consequence to you,
>> th=
>> en by all means the newest gliders are faster. For the rest of us, hard
> to
>> =
>> find the value proposition.=20
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 1:02:34 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
>>> On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 20:40:52 UTC+3, Ramy wrote:=20
>>>> The price tag of close to 200K for a new self launcher does not
>> surpris=
>> e me as I don=E2=80=99t think you can=E2=80=99t find much
> cheaper for any
>> n=
>> ew motorglider?=20
>>>> What surprises me is the expectation that the 34 will not perform
> as
>> we=
>> ll as the top standard class such as LS8 and Discus 2 and is marketed
> as a
>> =
>> club glider. After all the claim of 48:1 glide ratio is as high as you
> can
>> =
>> expect from a non flap ship, which is not bad. So why do you expect it
>> will=
>> not perform as well?=20
>>>> I wonder why they don=E2=80=99t offer the same option in the
> 33?=20
>>>> I would like to hear thoughts on it.=20
>>>> As for why I did not switch to a motorglider myself so far, part of
> it
>> =
>> is enjoying the =E2=80=9Cpure=E2=80=9D and adventure aspect of
> pure
>> gliders=
>> , part is that in the places I fly and with the support I have, pure
>> glider=
>> s worked well for me, part is shying away from complexity,
> maintainace and
>> =
>> extra cost. But I am getting older, and electric solution appeal the
> most
>> t=
>> o me, but I haven=E2=80=99t found the silver lining I am looking for
> so
>> far=
>> ..=20
>>>> =20
>>>> Ramy
>>> To be totally honest, pilots who contemplate over performance
>> differences=
>> between LS8-18, D2c and AS34 are not going to fly a mile longer or
> knot
>> fa=
>> ster with any of these types, or with LS4 for that matter. We are
> talking
>> a=
>> bout gliders that are sold to sunday afternoon pilots doing 99% of the
>> time=
>> few hour pleasure flights. Who cares if one of these is 0.001% better
> and
>> =
>> 81.3 knot "speed range" than other?=20
>>> =20
>>> If you want a glider that goes, you need to look at 18m racers such
> as
>> V3=
>> , JS3 or AS33.
>>
>

--
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

Ramy[_2_]

October 14th 20, 10:27 PM

I couldnâ€™t agree less with the notion that you need a top racer to go anywhere. It may be the case in contest racing where every small performance advantage is significant, but the performance difference is insignificant for the rest of cross country flights. You May fly few miles less or few mph slower. I agree it wouldnâ€™t matter for those who fly locally, but a significant number of pilots such as myself donâ€™t fly contests or records but fly aggressive cross country as you can see on OLC. The AS34 should be marketed for this significant segment of soaring pilots, not for clubs and local fliers.

Ramy

Herbert kilian

October 14th 20, 10:51 PM

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 11:45:48 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-4, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> > On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 5:52:22 PM UTC-7, Nicholas Kennedy wrote:
> > > Ya Know what would be / Is the ultimate Great Basin ship IMHO?
> > > The EB 29
> > > Kinda big at a 96' wingspan but the 68/1 LD would be nice.
> > > I was in Ely several years ago when there were two there, one flown by a gent I think named John Bally? and his buddy. I checked those planes out, very well finished. Beautiful.
> > > Those guys said they were very nice to fly.
> > > Actually Bally had the 2 seat EB 28 and took my brother Mike XC in it..
> > > I think Binder has been a leader in suppling other manufactures with complete ICE systems for a long time.
> > > At Moriarity NM this spring Keith Essex said this plane was on his radar as his next ship, after he wore out his JS3.
> > > Any guess's on what these go for all decked out with a metal Cobra?
> > > Nick
> > > T
> >
> > Nick, Kelvyn Flaval (KF) bought an EB29R this year. It was over $400k. He, along with Mitch Polinsky will be flying them at Ely next season. Sibylle and Ingo Andresen from Germany are Ely regulars and will probably be at Ely too. Ingo flies the 29R. Sibylle flies a 31.
>
> Ingo does not fly the EB29 anymore.
Andrzej, I bought Sybille's ASH 31 recently. She told me she is getting a Ventus 3 with a self-launcher gas engine in Spring of next year.

Dave Nadler

October 14th 20, 11:12 PM

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 5:51:28 PM UTC-4, Herbert Kilian wrote:
> Andrzej, I bought Sybille's ASH 31 recently.

Herbert, welcome to the dark side.
See ya, Dave

PS: Back in the shop tomorrow improving yet another 'interesting' bit of electronics, aaarrrgggg....

krasw

October 15th 20, 07:08 AM

On Thursday, 15 October 2020 at 00:27:59 UTC+3, Ramy wrote:
> I couldnâ€™t agree less with the notion that you need a top racer to go anywhere. It may be the case in contest racing where every small performance advantage is significant, but the performance difference is insignificant for the rest of cross country flights. You May fly few miles less or few mph slower. I agree it wouldnâ€™t matter for those who fly locally, but a significant number of pilots such as myself donâ€™t fly contests or records but fly aggressive cross country as you can see on OLC. The AS34 should be marketed for this significant segment of soaring pilots, not for clubs and local fliers.
>
> Ramy

I own and fly LS8-st. I fly "agressively" OLC, national records, nationals and occasionally worlds. Did my FAI 1000k badge in it. There is nothing wrong with 18m/std. class racers designed in mid to late 90's, they are wonderful ships. You can do a lot things with them. My point was, that if performance is important, you should consider more modern flapped designs than differences between these designs. No matter what the handicaps are, if you fly LS8 side by side with V3 you start to cry in 3 minutes.

And then the marketing. Factories start building them and pilots buy them. Yes they have websites, they try to put latest designs in to a hands of good pilots (who have ordered the first serial numbers 10 years earlier anyway) and some even offer test flights. I have not witnessed anything that I would even remotely call "marketing to a segment".

Jock Proudfoot

October 15th 20, 11:34 AM

>

Kawa comments on the ASH 25Mi

http://www.sebastiankawa.pl/13127/konsultacje-przelotowe/

" . . .whenever possible, I chose the winch, because . . "

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 15th 20, 03:50 PM

krasw wrote on 10/14/2020 11:08 PM:
> On Thursday, 15 October 2020 at 00:27:59 UTC+3, Ramy wrote:
>> I couldn’t agree less with the notion that you need a top racer to go anywhere. It may be the case in contest racing where every small performance advantage is significant, but the performance difference is insignificant for the rest of cross country flights. You May fly few miles less or few mph slower. I agree it wouldn’t matter for those who fly locally, but a significant number of pilots such as myself don’t fly contests or records but fly aggressive cross country as you can see on OLC. The AS34 should be marketed for this significant segment of soaring pilots, not for clubs and local fliers.
>>
>> Ramy
>
> I own and fly LS8-st. I fly "agressively" OLC, national records, nationals and occasionally worlds. Did my FAI 1000k badge in it. There is nothing wrong with 18m/std. class racers designed in mid to late 90's, they are wonderful ships. You can do a lot things with them. My point was, that if performance is important, you should consider more modern flapped designs than differences between these designs. No matter what the handicaps are, if you fly LS8 side by side with V3 you start to cry in 3 minutes.
>
> And then the marketing. Factories start building them and pilots buy them. Yes they have websites, they try to put latest designs in to a hands of good pilots (who have ordered the first serial numbers 10 years earlier anyway) and some even offer test flights. I have not witnessed anything that I would even remotely call "marketing to a segment".
>
Perhaps it is remarks like these on the AS website that Ramy is thinking about:

"Our new entry in the area of independent electric power

This affordable 18/15m sailplane with all its normal quality and safety features, combined with
a powerful electrical propulsion system, opens new possibilities for casual pilots and clubs."

--
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

Ramy[_2_]

October 16th 20, 02:25 AM

Eric, exactly! This comment on their web site seriously dumped my enthusiasm!
If I decide to buy the 34 they will need to remove this comment first :)

Ramy

Darren Braun

October 16th 20, 03:31 AM

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 6:25:32 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> Eric, exactly! This comment on their web site seriously dumped my enthusiasm!
> If I decide to buy the 34 they will need to remove this comment first :)
>
> Ramy
Based on a 28 with possible 18m wing options. How does that sound?

kinsell

October 16th 20, 05:10 AM

On 10/13/20 10:11 AM, Dave Walsh wrote:
> Not sure how many EB29E actually exist? There was one at Sisteron
> 2018, the rear seat was tiny, really a one and a half seater?
> It was taking aerotows, some problem with the battery charger and
> smoke production? Reputed cost north of 400KÃ¢â€šÂ¬.....
>

Strange that they took the normally single seat EB29 and squeezed in a
small second seat on the electric version.

Mike the Strike

October 16th 20, 11:03 AM

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 8:55:27 PM UTC+1, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Maybe it says something about Namibia flying, but it says nothing about the Parowan motorglider
> event I've been going to for over 10 years. We discuss the flights, rarely the motors. Ditto
> for when I fly at Ely following the Parowan event.

I remember arriving at Parowan for a contest immediately after the motorglider meet there and found a bunch of them on the apron working on engines. I distinctly remember someone welding a silencer together and another rebuilding a carburetor. Eric probably missed this because he was busy flying!

Mike

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 16th 20, 01:38 PM

Mike the Strike wrote on 10/16/2020 3:03 AM:
> On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 8:55:27 PM UTC+1, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Maybe it says something about Namibia flying, but it says nothing about the Parowan motorglider
>> event I've been going to for over 10 years. We discuss the flights, rarely the motors. Ditto
>> for when I fly at Ely following the Parowan event.
>
> I remember arriving at Parowan for a contest immediately after the motorglider meet there and found a bunch of them on the apron working on engines. I distinctly remember someone welding a silencer together and another rebuilding a carburetor. Eric probably missed this because he was busy flying!
>
> Mike
>
They are not maintenance free, and no one suggests that. The remark I countered was the one
suggesting we talked about motors more than the flying. Had you been there a few days before,
you would have noticed that, and enjoyed the stories.

We (ASA - Auxiliary-powered Sailplane Association) always have a towplane at our Parowan event.
It serves the sustainer motorgliders that can not self-launch, and 8 or so "gravity gliders"
that we invite to help support the towplane (and to enjoy their company, of course!). Often,
our biggest issue for event has been getting the towplane and pilot for the event. So,
ironically, a lot of the ASA board chatter is about towplanes! But not at dinner...

Darren Braun

October 16th 20, 07:31 PM

> We (ASA - Auxiliary-powered Sailplane Association) always have a towplane at our Parowan event.

Not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but self launch motor gliders often have a release.
So should the motor have some issue and the tow plane is around, you can get a tow so as not to miss out on good conditions.
I wouldn't get a motorglider without a release. Not a bad idea to remain current on aerotow anyways.

[email protected]

October 17th 20, 12:43 AM

On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 11:31:39 AM UTC-7, Darren Braun wrote:
> > We (ASA - Auxiliary-powered Sailplane Association) always have a towplane at our Parowan event.
>
> Not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but self launch motor gliders often have a release.
> So should the motor have some issue and the tow plane is around, you can get a tow so as not to miss out on good conditions.
> I wouldn't get a motorglider without a release. Not a bad idea to remain current on aerotow anyways.

Just curious: what is 'current on aerotow'? Last time I had a long layoff from gliding (2 years due to business) I found no difficulty in aerotowing.

Andrzej Kobus

October 17th 20, 01:47 AM

On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 6:03:20 AM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 8:55:27 PM UTC+1, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Maybe it says something about Namibia flying, but it says nothing about the Parowan motorglider
> > event I've been going to for over 10 years. We discuss the flights, rarely the motors. Ditto
> > for when I fly at Ely following the Parowan event.
>
> I remember arriving at Parowan for a contest immediately after the motorglider meet there and found a bunch of them on the apron working on engines. I distinctly remember someone welding a silencer together and another rebuilding a carburetor. Eric probably missed this because he was busy flying!
>
> Mike

7 years flying ASH motor gliders and never had any breakdown!

October 17th 20, 02:03 AM

On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 3:03:20 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 8:55:27 PM UTC+1, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Maybe it says something about Namibia flying, but it says nothing about the Parowan motorglider
> > event I've been going to for over 10 years. We discuss the flights, rarely the motors. Ditto
> > for when I fly at Ely following the Parowan event.
>
> I remember arriving at Parowan for a contest immediately after the motorglider meet there and found a bunch of them on the apron working on engines. I distinctly remember someone welding a silencer together and another rebuilding a carburetor. Eric probably missed this because he was busy flying!
>
> Mike

I am curious about what year that was. I have only missed one year at Parowan in over a decade and can't recall what you are talking about. There have been plenty of times, however, when I was prepared to fly my glider and the towplane wasn't, either because of mechanical, regulatory of tow pilot issues. I also have gone to airports where there was no towplane whatsoever.

Tom

John Galloway[_2_]

October 17th 20, 09:46 AM

Keep checking the fan belt - which is not very accessible (or simple to tension or replace). The ASH rotary is vulnerable to potentially serious and very expensive internal damage if the fan belt fails or falls off. In that case internal rotor air cooling stops, the engine rapidly overheats and also the rotor lubrication is compromised. The only in-flight indication is the rotor air temperature reading or alarm. I got it shut down quickly enough so that, although Schleicher said there would definitely be internal damage estimated at up to 20,000 euros + tax, I actually got lucky.

There are DIY monitoring solutions on the ASH26e support group.

Rakel

October 17th 20, 12:44 PM

On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 7:43:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:

> Just curious: what is 'current on aerotow'? Last time I had a long layoff from gliding (2 years due to business) I found no difficulty in aerotowing.

I had a 30 year layoff from gliding because of family and work obligations.

It took me several flights to relearn how to fly a glider on tow. I was up front with my instructors and they just treated me like a new student. I also spent a lot of time reading the latest instruction manuals, especially the new airspace regulations.

Paul T[_4_]

November 19th 20, 12:13 PM

For all you non-believers and skeptics that did not believe the JS1 had
been measured by the Idafleig at 63:1 please see the latest posting on the

Jonkers website regarding the JS2. Your really not as smart as you think
you
are.

November 19th 20, 01:23 PM

On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:15:11 AM UTC-6, Paul T wrote:
> For all you non-believers and skeptics that did not believe the JS1 had
> been measured by the Idafleig at 63:1 please see the latest posting on the
>
> Jonkers website regarding the JS2. Your really not as smart as you think
> you
> are.
Paul, no dog in this fight for me but I don't see anything on the JS website mentioning Idafleig, can you post a link to what you are looking at?

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

November 19th 20, 01:35 PM

Paul T wrote on 11/19/2020 4:13 AM:
> For all you non-believers and skeptics that did not believe the JS1 had
> been measured by the Idafleig at 63:1 please see the latest posting on the
>
> Jonkers website regarding the JS2. Your really not as smart as you think
> you
> are.

How odd the 63:1 only occurs at the high wing loading in 21M, and not at the minimum wing
loading, where the L/D is essentially the same for the 18M and 21M wings.

--
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

November 19th 20, 01:58 PM

On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 7:35:55 AM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Paul T wrote on 11/19/2020 4:13 AM:
> > For all you non-believers and skeptics that did not believe the JS1 had
> > been measured by the Idafleig at 63:1 please see the latest posting on the
> >
> > Jonkers website regarding the JS2. Your really not as smart as you think
> > you
> > are.
> How odd the 63:1 only occurs at the high wing loading in 21M, and not at the minimum wing
> loading, where the L/D is essentially the same for the 18M and 21M wings.
> --
> 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
I noticed the same thing. So there is essentially no reason to fly it in 21m dry configuration? And almost no situation where you would fly it dry in either configuration anyway?

November 19th 20, 02:17 PM

On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 7:58:23 AM UTC-6, Me wrote:
> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 7:35:55 AM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Paul T wrote on 11/19/2020 4:13 AM:
> > > For all you non-believers and skeptics that did not believe the JS1 had
> > > been measured by the Idafleig at 63:1 please see the latest posting on the
> > >
> > > Jonkers website regarding the JS2. Your really not as smart as you think
> > > you
> > > are.
> > How odd the 63:1 only occurs at the high wing loading in 21M, and not at the minimum wing
> > loading, where the L/D is essentially the same for the 18M and 21M wings.
> > --
> > 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
> I noticed the same thing. So there is essentially no reason to fly it in 21m dry configuration? And almost no situation where you would fly it dry in either configuration anyway?
The minimum wing loading in the table does not match minimum wing loading in the polar graph. I'm confused...

Dave Nadler

November 19th 20, 02:59 PM

On 11/19/2020 8:35 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> How odd the 63:1 only occurs at the high wing loading in 21M, and not at
> the minimum wing loading, where the L/D is essentially the same for the
> 18M and 21M wings.

Not odd at all. Reynolds number changes make a big difference especially
with tiny chord. IIRC the original Ventus 15m increased LD 2 points with
ballast, and could not change wingloading as much as modern gliders.

jfitch

November 19th 20, 04:19 PM

Reynolds numbers do make a difference, but it would be a *very* unusual airfoil that changed that much over such a small change in Re. The Jonkers published polar is peculiar in many ways.

I did reach out to both Ideflug and Jonkers about any data they had on tests, got acknowledgment of the requests but no response from either.

On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On 11/19/2020 8:35 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > How odd the 63:1 only occurs at the high wing loading in 21M, and not at
> > the minimum wing loading, where the L/D is essentially the same for the
> > 18M and 21M wings.
> Not odd at all. Reynolds number changes make a big difference especially
> with tiny chord. IIRC the original Ventus 15m increased LD 2 points with
> ballast, and could not change wingloading as much as modern gliders.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

November 19th 20, 04:23 PM

Dave Nadler wrote on 11/19/2020 6:59 AM:
> On 11/19/2020 8:35 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> How odd the 63:1 only occurs at the high wing loading in 21M, and not at the minimum wing
>> loading, where the L/D is essentially the same for the 18M and 21M wings.
>
> Not odd at all. Reynolds number changes make a big difference especially with tiny chord. IIRC
> the original Ventus 15m increased LD 2 points with ballast, and could not change wingloading as
> much as modern gliders.
>

This does not seem to be about wing loading, as the chart shows the 18/21 versions at the same
wing loading, so I repeat: It's still odd that adding 10' to the span does not significantly
change the performance at any speed except in the lowest few knots of the polar.

If it's Reynolds number that's important: Shouldn't the 21 M wing have more feet of wider chord
than the 18M wing, and shouldn't we expect it to do better, just based on that?

--
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_]

November 19th 20, 05:01 PM

On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 08:23:43 -0800, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Dave Nadler wrote on 11/19/2020 6:59 AM:
>> On 11/19/2020 8:35 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>> How odd the 63:1 only occurs at the high wing loading in 21M, and not
>>> at the minimum wing loading, where the L/D is essentially the same for
>>> the 18M and 21M wings.
>>
>> Not odd at all. Reynolds number changes make a big difference
>> especially with tiny chord. IIRC the original Ventus 15m increased LD 2
>> points with ballast, and could not change wingloading as much as modern
>> gliders.
>>
>>
> This does not seem to be about wing loading, as the chart shows the
> 18/21 versions at the same wing loading, so I repeat: It's still odd
> that adding 10' to the span does not significantly change the
> performance at any speed except in the lowest few knots of the polar.
>
> If it's Reynolds number that's important: Shouldn't the 21 M wing have
> more feet of wider chord than the 18M wing, and shouldn't we expect it
> to do better, just based on that?

Aspect ratio is also beneficial and will increase the overall L/D ratio
at a given airspeed if the wing section and wing loading are unchanged.

--
--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

November 19th 20, 06:31 PM

Martin Gregorie wrote on 11/19/2020 9:01 AM:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 08:23:43 -0800, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> Dave Nadler wrote on 11/19/2020 6:59 AM:
>>> On 11/19/2020 8:35 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>> How odd the 63:1 only occurs at the high wing loading in 21M, and not
>>>> at the minimum wing loading, where the L/D is essentially the same for
>>>> the 18M and 21M wings.
>>>
>>> Not odd at all. Reynolds number changes make a big difference
>>> especially with tiny chord. IIRC the original Ventus 15m increased LD 2
>>> points with ballast, and could not change wingloading as much as modern
>>> gliders.
>>>
>>>
>> This does not seem to be about wing loading, as the chart shows the
>> 18/21 versions at the same wing loading, so I repeat: It's still odd
>> that adding 10' to the span does not significantly change the
>> performance at any speed except in the lowest few knots of the polar.
>>
>> If it's Reynolds number that's important: Shouldn't the 21 M wing have
>> more feet of wider chord than the 18M wing, and shouldn't we expect it
>> to do better, just based on that?
>
> Aspect ratio is also beneficial and will increase the overall L/D ratio
> at a given airspeed if the wing section and wing loading are unchanged.

Exactly! And yet, despite an aspect ratio of 36 (21 M) vs 29 (18 M), the 21 M performance is
almost identical, according to the chart. How can that be?

--
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

Henry Irvine

November 19th 20, 07:57 PM

Not to hijack this interesting thread either, but for anyone who is leaning towards getting in to a self-launcher, I just listed my DG-400 on wings and wheels.
It is serial# 104, built in 1984. I flew it this past season and am upgrading to a Schleicher self-launcher.

Henry

Brett

November 19th 20, 10:23 PM

Exactly! And yet, despite an aspect ratio of 36 (21 M) vs 29 (18 M), the 21 M performance is
almost identical, according to the chart. How can that be?

--
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[/QUOTE]

Hi - The polar graph on the JS website starts at a higher airspeed than most others - the major performance difference between spans occurs around the thermalling speed region which is missing in the graph. I can attest from flying JS1's in both spans against others that there is very little noticable performance difference at similar wingloadings at cruise speeds.
That said I believe the ballasted 21m JS1 is an underrated weapon and the JS2 will be even better. The JS5 will be in a class of its own.

Ventus_a

November 20th 20, 07:02 AM

;1035241']Dave Nadler wrote on 11/19/2020 6:59 AM:
On 11/19/2020 8:35 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
How odd the 63:1 only occurs at the high wing loading in 21M, and not at the minimum wing
loading, where the L/D is essentially the same for the 18M and 21M wings.

Not odd at all. Reynolds number changes make a big difference especially with tiny chord. IIRC
the original Ventus 15m increased LD 2 points with ballast, and could not change wingloading as
much as modern gliders.

This does not seem to be about wing loading, as the chart shows the 18/21 versions at the same
wing loading, so I repeat: It's still odd that adding 10' to the span does not significantly
change the performance at any speed except in the lowest few knots of the polar.

If it's Reynolds number that's important: Shouldn't the 21 M wing have more feet of wider chord
than the 18M wing, and shouldn't we expect it to do better, just based on that?

--
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

The max wing loadings shown on the polar chart differ by c. 5 kg/m² so that fits with what is shown as does the equal min wing loadings

:-) Colin

Paul T[_4_]

November 20th 20, 07:25 AM

At 12:13 19 November 2020, Paul T wrote:
> For all you non-believers and skeptics that did not believe the JS1 had

>been measured by the Idafleig at 63:1 please see the latest posting on th
>
>Jonkers website regarding the JS2. Your really not as smart as you thin
>you
>are.
>
>
>
Apologies, should have said FB page(although the article should also be on

their website)- the article by Segelfleigen magazine on the JS2
acknowledges that Idafleig measured the JS1C at 63:1 as you where
previously informed off, but had to have a massive debate decrying the
fact.
Hopefully some of you have the intellect to read German.

James Metcalfe

November 20th 20, 01:46 PM

At 07:25 20 November 2020, Paul T wrote:
>At 12:13 19 November 2020, Paul T wrote:
>>For all you non-believers and skeptics that did not believe
>>the JS1 had
>>been measured by the Idafleig at 63:1 please see the latest
>>posting on the Jonkers website regarding the JS2. Your really
>>not as smart as you think you are.
>>
>Apologies, should have said FB page(although the article should
>also be on
>their website)- the article by Segelfleigen magazine on the JS2
>acknowledges that Idafleig measured the JS1C at 63:1 as you where
>previously informed off, but had to have a massive debate decrying th
>fact.
>Hopefully some of you have the intellect to read German.

Doubtless some of us, including some of the native English
speakers, *do* have the intellect to understand German. Had you
shown any aptitude for spelling, syntax and semantics, we might
have been more stung by your insulting tone.

I'll allow you the absurd "sKeptical", as I suppose that you
are American or Canadian. But not
"Idafleig" for "Idaflieg",
"Segelfleigen" for "Segelfliegen",
"Your really not ..." for "You're ...", and
"you where ... informed off" for "were" and "of" (which
latter should not have been dangling at the end of the clause).
Nor "non-believers and skeptics that ..." which, in addition to
the glaring tautology, was grammatically incorrect in using "that"
where "who" was required.

May I recommend the Biblical advice:
"First cast out the beam out of thine own eye"?
J.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

November 20th 20, 02:09 PM

Paul T wrote on 11/19/2020 11:25 PM:
> At 12:13 19 November 2020, Paul T wrote:
>> For all you non-believers and skeptics that did not believe the JS1 had
>
>> been measured by the Idafleig at 63:1 please see the latest posting on th
>>
>> Jonkers website regarding the JS2. Your really not as smart as you thin
>> you
>> are.
>>
>>
>>
> Apologies, should have said FB page(although the article should also be on
>
> their website)- the article by Segelfleigen magazine on the JS2
> acknowledges that Idafleig measured the JS1C at 63:1 as you where
> previously informed off, but had to have a massive debate decrying the
> fact.
> Hopefully some of you have the intellect to read German.
>
I, like most of the people on this forum, do have the intellect to read German, but not the
training or the motivation. Why not translate crucial paragraph(s) for us?

--
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

John Galloway[_2_]

November 20th 20, 03:38 PM

Leaving aside the grammar squabble, why the hang-up about the best L/D Mr T? Modern competition gliders are designed for good climbing and good inter-thermal cruising performance. If the bit of the polar in between turns out to give a high best L/D figure all well and good, but when should such a glider be flown at best L/D? Hardly ever - and if anyone is hoping that best L/D is maybe going to get them home when a higher MC setting final glide won't then they need to have a good think about the implications and possible consequences of that.

Best motor-glider? As an ex-owner of a JS1C 18/21 I was very keen to get a JS2 but it has taken too long in development, I didn't really want the 21m tips without which it probably wouldn't be very salable, (Oxford comma) and the JS3 and pending JS5 will outgun it in the 18m and Open classes respectively. I am pretty happy with the Ventus 3M.

John Galloway

On Friday, 20 November 2020 at 14:09:22 UTC, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Paul T wrote on 11/19/2020 11:25 PM:
> > At 12:13 19 November 2020, Paul T wrote:
> >> For all you non-believers and skeptics that did not believe the JS1 had
> >
> >> been measured by the Idafleig at 63:1 please see the latest posting on th
> >>
> >> Jonkers website regarding the JS2. Your really not as smart as you thin
> >> you
> >> are.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Apologies, should have said FB page(although the article should also be on
> >
> > their website)- the article by Segelfleigen magazine on the JS2
> > acknowledges that Idafleig measured the JS1C at 63:1 as you where
> > previously informed off, but had to have a massive debate decrying the
> > fact.
> > Hopefully some of you have the intellect to read German.
> >
> I, like most of the people on this forum, do have the intellect to read German, but not the
> training or the motivation. Why not translate crucial paragraph(s) for us?
> --
> 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

Jonathan St. Cloud

November 20th 20, 04:55 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8lBpVfIGX0

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 10:48:13 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
> This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
>
> When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
> Say for Western Great Basin flying.
>
> I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
> CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well.
>
> FACTORS
>
> Reliability
> Maintenance required to keep it running
> XC flyability, performance and control feel
> Storability
> Rigging
> Initial cost
> High density climb performance
> Range
> Cockpit layout and seating
> Parts availability
> Insurance cost
> Landing gear complexity
> Overall quality
> Nick
> T

John Iacobucci

November 29th 20, 04:22 AM

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 11:24:30 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> So, you've owned the Wankel and had problematic maintenance? Or you are guessing? The Wankel is an ICE, it has a fuel system, ignition system, cooling system, and belt drive reduction system as they all do. Maintenance tasks are identical in most respects with any glider ICE. Only if you have to tear the engine down completely will you see the differences (and here the Wankel is somewhat simpler, having 2 moving parts).
> On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:51:39 AM UTC-7, John Iacobucci wrote:
> > One can argue the Wankle is less vibration on the whole, but maintenance for problems would be problematic. Pluses and minuses.

In response to jfitch: not guessing. Have two friends had to send engine to Europe for work. After all the bother of sending it, being in the factory more than a season, they were told to buy a new one. Very expensive. Like I said, my only problem was solved by a local mechanic in two hours. Back to flying same day. Not guessing, just relaying my experience

Ramy[_2_]

December 14th 20, 12:39 AM

Back to the op question, is the new AS33ME will be the answer?

https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/en/the-as-33-will-become-an-electric-self-launcher/

Ramy

On Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 8:22:24 PM UTC-8, John Iacobucci wrote:
> On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 11:24:30 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > So, you've owned the Wankel and had problematic maintenance? Or you are guessing? The Wankel is an ICE, it has a fuel system, ignition system, cooling system, and belt drive reduction system as they all do. Maintenance tasks are identical in most respects with any glider ICE. Only if you have to tear the engine down completely will you see the differences (and here the Wankel is somewhat simpler, having 2 moving parts).
> > On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:51:39 AM UTC-7, John Iacobucci wrote:
> > > One can argue the Wankle is less vibration on the whole, but maintenance for problems would be problematic. Pluses and minuses.
>
> In response to jfitch: not guessing. Have two friends had to send engine to Europe for work. After all the bother of sending it, being in the factory more than a season, they were told to buy a new one. Very expensive. Like I said, my only problem was solved by a local mechanic in two hours. Back to flying same day. Not guessing, just relaying my experience

kinsell

December 14th 20, 12:52 AM

I would think the vaunted Jeta would be the obvious answer. I remember
you saying it looked great (on paper), but you were going to wait until
they showed up on the used market. Wait no longer, you can pick one up
on W&W today. A used glider with just zero hours on it! New glider
smell with a used glider price!

https://wingsandwheels.com/classifieds/motorgliders/gp-gliders-gp15-jeta.html

On 12/13/20 5:39 PM, Ramy wrote:
> Back to the op question, is the new AS33ME will be the answer?
>
> https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/en/the-as-33-will-become-an-electric-self-launcher/
>
> Ramy
>
> On Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 8:22:24 PM UTC-8, John Iacobucci wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 11:24:30 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
>>> So, you've owned the Wankel and had problematic maintenance? Or you are guessing? The Wankel is an ICE, it has a fuel system, ignition system, cooling system, and belt drive reduction system as they all do. Maintenance tasks are identical in most respects with any glider ICE. Only if you have to tear the engine down completely will you see the differences (and here the Wankel is somewhat simpler, having 2 moving parts).
>>> On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:51:39 AM UTC-7, John Iacobucci wrote:
>>>> One can argue the Wankle is less vibration on the whole, but maintenance for problems would be problematic. Pluses and minuses.
>>
>> In response to jfitch: not guessing. Have two friends had to send engine to Europe for work. After all the bother of sending it, being in the factory more than a season, they were told to buy a new one. Very expensive. Like I said, my only problem was solved by a local mechanic in two hours. Back to flying same day. Not guessing, just relaying my experience