HpH 304S JET Videos now on Youtube!

[Tim Mara[_2_]]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFBUv-QYU6M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcTeut1wE2o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ2EX2aJ910

comments from manufacturer below:

in last 3 months I flew about 60 Hours with 304S jet.
Present time are a technical characteristics OK.
Volume Tanks in fuselage: 33Liters
This is petrol A1 + 4% Turbine oil
Consumption: depend on fly strategy.
Flying jet is the some like flying pure glider. Anyway, you can fly faster
as with propeller.
Glider polar is the some, only start is aprox. 1,5m higher - this mean
optimal climbing is on optimal gliding speed + aprox.10% reserve.
In good air is better flying more slowly (130-150Km/h) in bad air is better
flying faster (160-180Km/h).
Good characteristics are by speeds between 130km/h and 160Km/h.
Engine normal using is 85% for cruising speed 155Km/h.
Consumption is about 34 L/Hour.
Cruising ratio is about 150km with speed 150km/h.

You can use another strategy too- climbing and gliding without engine. For
climbing we use 95% of engine thrust (maximal thrust is you can use
5minutes)
Climbing by 130Km/h is about 1- 1,4m/s (depend of fly level - higher is
better).
Usually you can fly between 180-190km.

Until today testing our 304S jet about 100 pilots , usually from Germany.
They say, that noise in cockpit is half of noise in ASG-29 Turbo glider and
climbing is about 40% better + unlimited speed (by ASG-29 you must climbing
on 115Km/h).

[Michael Henry[_2_]]

How does the vertical fin not get melted by the exhaust?

[John Bojack[_2_]]

What ordnace will it carry? ASW-27 seeking missiles?

[Tim Mara[_2_]]

The Jet is a sustainer..not intended as a self launcher in spite of the fact
that nearly all test flights from short 50 foot auto tows..hence the
temperature at the tail is actually no higher than that of a recip engine on
other sustainers and self launch gliders... remember the engine is a
jet...not a rocket....
tim


"Michael Henry" > wrote in message
...
> How does the vertical fin not get melted by the exhaust?

[Bob Kuykendall]

Last I heard, folks were having trouble getting insurance for turbine-
equipped gliders. Has that situation changed?

Thanks, Bob K.

[Drew Pearce[_2_]]

A friend and I have each have one on order with the plan to start a small
club in the San Francisco Bay area.We are hoping that we can get insurance
once a few are flying and some actual data can be given to the insurance
companies. We are working with Costello on this, which deals with AIG, so
who knows what the future holds. My guess is it will be another year or so
but this is a wild guess.

We both flew the jet version last month when we visited the factory and
were extremely impressed with not only the simplicity and coolness of the
jet but also the glider itself. The flight characteristics were similar to
a Duo but with a much better roll rate. In a 45 degree bank it would stay
there hands off even when upset by the rudders. The control harmony was as
good as it gets and the heads up flap setting, colored lights across the
top of the panel, was very pleasant to use. We plan to write a full
article about our trip and will submit it to Soaring Magazine with some
pics.

They teased us with the idea a high by-pass engine, made by the same
company that makes the current one, that would be available in a few
years. It would only be 15 cm bigger in diameter and 2 cm longer but
provide twice the thrust, self launchable, and burn about the same amount
of fuel because of the better low speed/altitude efficiency. It would fit
in the same hole as the current engine and could be easily switched out
when available or at overhaul.

Drew Pearce

At 18:46 29 October 2008, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>Last I heard, folks were having trouble getting insurance for turbine-
>equipped gliders. Has that situation changed?
>
>Thanks, Bob K.
>

[Bob C[_2_]]

Hi Drew,

When is your 304S jet expected to be in the US? I visited the factory a
few months back. Very nice looking ship. HpH also fabricated the wing
fuel tanks for my new jet Salto.

Bob

At 15:00 30 October 2008, Drew Pearce wrote:
>A friend and I have each have one on order with the plan to start a
small
>club in the San Francisco Bay area.We are hoping that we can get
insurance
>once a few are flying and some actual data can be given to the insurance
>companies. We are working with Costello on this, which deals with AIG,
so
>who knows what the future holds. My guess is it will be another year or
so
>but this is a wild guess.
>
>We both flew the jet version last month when we visited the factory and
>were extremely impressed with not only the simplicity and coolness of
the
>jet but also the glider itself. The flight characteristics were similar
to
>a Duo but with a much better roll rate. In a 45 degree bank it would
stay
>there hands off even when upset by the rudders. The control harmony was
as
>good as it gets and the heads up flap setting, colored lights across the
>top of the panel, was very pleasant to use. We plan to write a full
>article about our trip and will submit it to Soaring Magazine with some
>pics.
>
>They teased us with the idea a high by-pass engine, made by the same
>company that makes the current one, that would be available in a few
>years. It would only be 15 cm bigger in diameter and 2 cm longer but
>provide twice the thrust, self launchable, and burn about the same
amount
>of fuel because of the better low speed/altitude efficiency. It would
fit
>in the same hole as the current engine and could be easily switched out
>when available or at overhaul.
>
>Drew Pearce
>
>At 18:46 29 October 2008, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>>Last I heard, folks were having trouble getting insurance for turbine-
>>equipped gliders. Has that situation changed?
>>
>>Thanks, Bob K.
>>
>

[Drew Pearce[_2_]]

Bob,

We have everything on hold until we can get insurance. We have put our
delivery positions up for sale because of the uncertainty of when the
insurance will be available. If we sell our delivery positions now we
still plan to buy one, hopefully two, as soon as insurance is available.


Drew

At 04:30 07 November 2008, Bob C wrote:
>Hi Drew,
>
>When is your 304S jet expected to be in the US? I visited the factory a
>few months back. Very nice looking ship. HpH also fabricated the wing
>fuel tanks for my new jet Salto.
>
>Bob
>
>At 15:00 30 October 2008, Drew Pearce wrote:
>>A friend and I have each have one on order with the plan to start a
>small
>>club in the San Francisco Bay area.We are hoping that we can get
>insurance
>>once a few are flying and some actual data can be given to the
insurance
>>companies. We are working with Costello on this, which deals with AIG,
>so
>>who knows what the future holds. My guess is it will be another year or
>so
>>but this is a wild guess.
>>
>>We both flew the jet version last month when we visited the factory and
>>were extremely impressed with not only the simplicity and coolness of
>the
>>jet but also the glider itself. The flight characteristics were similar
>to
>>a Duo but with a much better roll rate. In a 45 degree bank it would
>stay
>>there hands off even when upset by the rudders. The control harmony was
>as
>>good as it gets and the heads up flap setting, colored lights across
the
>>top of the panel, was very pleasant to use. We plan to write a full
>>article about our trip and will submit it to Soaring Magazine with some
>>pics.
>>
>>They teased us with the idea a high by-pass engine, made by the same
>>company that makes the current one, that would be available in a few
>>years. It would only be 15 cm bigger in diameter and 2 cm longer but
>>provide twice the thrust, self launchable, and burn about the same
>amount
>>of fuel because of the better low speed/altitude efficiency. It would
>fit
>>in the same hole as the current engine and could be easily switched out
>>when available or at overhaul.
>>
>>Drew Pearce
>>
>>At 18:46 29 October 2008, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>>>Last I heard, folks were having trouble getting insurance for turbine-
>>>equipped gliders. Has that situation changed?
>>>
>>>Thanks, Bob K.
>>>
>>
>

[[email protected]]

On 9 nov, 20:30, Drew Pearce > wrote:
> Bob,
>
> We have everything on hold until we can get insurance. We have put our
> delivery positions up for sale because of the uncertainty of when the
> insurance will be available. If we sell our delivery positions now we
> still plan to buy one, hopefully two, as soon as insurance is available.
>
> Drew
>
> At 04:30 07 November 2008, Bob C wrote:
>
>
>
> >Hi Drew,
>
> >When is your 304S jet expected to be in the US? *I visited the factory a
> >few months back. *Very nice looking ship. *HpH also fabricated the wing
> >fuel tanks for my new jet Salto.
>
> >Bob
>
> >At 15:00 30 October 2008, Drew Pearce wrote:
> >>A friend and I have each have one on order with the plan to start a
> >small
> >>club in the San Francisco Bay area.We are hoping that we can get
> >insurance
> >>once a few are flying and some actual data can be given to the
> insurance
> >>companies. We are working with Costello on this, which deals with AIG,
> >so
> >>who knows what the future holds. My guess is it will be another year or
> >so
> >>but this is a wild guess.
>
> >>We both flew the jet version last month when we visited the factory and
> >>were extremely impressed with not only the simplicity and coolness of
> >the
> >>jet but also the glider itself. The flight characteristics were similar
> >to
> >>a Duo but with a much better roll rate. In a 45 degree bank it would
> >stay
> >>there hands off even when upset by the rudders. The control harmony was
> >as
> >>good as it gets and the heads up flap setting, colored lights across
> the
> >>top of the panel, was very pleasant to use. We plan to write a full
> >>article about our trip and will submit it to Soaring Magazine with some
> >>pics.
>
> >>They teased us with the idea a high by-pass engine, made by the same
> >>company that makes the current one, that would be available in a few
> >>years. It would only be 15 cm bigger in diameter and 2 cm longer but
> >>provide twice the thrust, self launchable, and burn about the same
> >amount
> >>of fuel because of the better low speed/altitude efficiency. It would
> >fit
> >>in the same hole as the current engine and could be easily switched out
> >>when available or at overhaul.
>
> >>Drew Pearce
>
> >>At 18:46 29 October 2008, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> >>>Last I heard, folks were having trouble getting insurance for turbine-
> >>>equipped gliders. Has that situation changed?
>
> >>>Thanks, Bob K.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

I guess that the heat problem on the tail will clearly appear with the
new engine (twice the thrust of the actual one)

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Dec 7, 8:41*am, wrote:

> I guess that the heat problem on the tail will clearly appear with the
> new engine (twice the thrust of the actual one)-

Ah, and is this idle speculation, or can you demonstrate it?

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Dec 7, 8:41 am, wrote:
>
>> I guess that the heat problem on the tail will clearly appear with the
>> new engine (twice the thrust of the actual one)-
>
> Ah, and is this idle speculation, or can you demonstrate it?

If, as claimed, the engine burns the same amount of fuel, and it's a
high bypass engine, then my idle speculation is the air temperature at
the tail will be significantly lower.

A turbofan would make the jets much more appealing for glider use,
perhaps at the cost of wider opening in the fuselage.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Uncle Fuzzy]

On Oct 29, 10:31*am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> The Jet is a sustainer..not intended as a self launcher in spite of the fact
> that nearly all test flights from short 50 foot auto tows..hence the
> temperature at the tail is actually no higher than that of a recip engine on
> other sustainers and self launch gliders... remember the engine is a
> jet...not a rocket....
> tim
>
> "Michael Henry" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > How does the vertical fin not get melted by the exhaust?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What is the appeal of a 'sustainer'? They seem to be almost as
expensive as a self-launcher, without the ability to self launch.
It's great not to have to land out, but it seems like an awful lot of
money to spend and still need a tug to get airborne.

[Surfer!]

In message
>,
Uncle Fuzzy > writes
<snip>
>
>What is the appeal of a 'sustainer'? They seem to be almost as
>expensive as a self-launcher, without the ability to self launch.
>It's great not to have to land out, but it seems like an awful lot of
>money to spend and still need a tug to get airborne.

In the UK they can be flown without a PPL or NPPL which saves lots and
lots and lots of money. Also many sites (in the UK if not the US) do
winch launching, which is a lot cheaper than a tow, so you launch, start
the motor (or land back if there's a problem) and motor off to the lift.

BTW the BGA accident database contains plenty of sustainer accidents,
where the P1 was concentrating on trying to get it started for far too
long instead of switching to doing a field landing when they could not
get the engine started.

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

[[email protected]]

On Dec 7, 8:41*am, wrote:
>
> I guess that the heat problem on the tail will clearly appear with the
> new engine (twice the thrust of the actual one)

Not necessarily. I'd guess most of the additional static thrust comes
from the fan, rather than a bigger core. This would be likely since
the absolute fuel consumption supposedly is unchanged, which means the
amount of heat energy produced in combustion is more or less
unchanged. With the bigger fan (does the original engine even have a
fan, or is it a straight turbojet?) you might actually get lower temps
due to the mixing of cooler bypass air after the turbine section. In
any event I'm guessing the Hph engineers are aware of what the
temperature parameters are as a melty-tail sailplane would not likely
pass certification. It would be fun to watch though...

9B

[Tim Mara[_2_]]

keep in mind Jet engines move a LOT of air....a LOT of air and only a very
small amount of the air being moved is actually used in combustion so what
you have is a lot of air....and a small % of (fire) combustion...
tim

> wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 8:41 am, wrote:
>
> I guess that the heat problem on the tail will clearly appear with the
> new engine (twice the thrust of the actual one)

Not necessarily. I'd guess most of the additional static thrust comes
from the fan, rather than a bigger core. This would be likely since
the absolute fuel consumption supposedly is unchanged, which means the
amount of heat energy produced in combustion is more or less
unchanged. With the bigger fan (does the original engine even have a
fan, or is it a straight turbojet?) you might actually get lower temps
due to the mixing of cooler bypass air after the turbine section. In
any event I'm guessing the Hph engineers are aware of what the
temperature parameters are as a melty-tail sailplane would not likely
pass certification. It would be fun to watch though...

9B

[[email protected]]

On Dec 8, 2:30*pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> keep in mind Jet engines move a LOT of air....a LOT of air and only a very
> small amount of the air being moved is actually used in combustion so what
> you have is a lot of air....and a small % of (fire) combustion...
> tim
>
Tim already knows this, but just to clarify -- the above description
is true for turbofans, but not for turbojets, the difference being
that a turbofan has (ready for this?) a big fan on the front that
bypasses the compressor, combustor and turbine sections. It is
normally driven by an additional turbine section at the very end of
the engine. The higher the "bypass ratio" the more air goes around the
hot section of the engine. Generally the higher the bypass, the more
static thrust and better specific fuel consumption (lbs of fuel per lb
of thrust per hour) you get, particularly at low speeds and lower
altitudes. Most of these smaller engines are simple turbojets because
you can get away with a single stage compressor and a single turbine.
Lots cheaper to build. I don't have the specs for what Hph is using,
but from Tim's comment perhaps they are already using a turbofan - the
self-launch capable engine certainly is fan with a high(er) bypass.
In any event the simple fact that they have something flying is proof
that you don't need a titanium vertical fin for this to work.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Dec 8, 4:15*pm, wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2:30*pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:> keep in mind Jet engines move a LOT of air....a LOT of air and only a very
> > small amount of the air being moved is actually used in combustion so what
> > you have is a lot of air....and a small % of (fire) combustion...
> > tim
>
> Tim already knows this, but just to clarify -- the above description
> is true for turbofans, but not for turbojets, the difference being
> that a turbofan has (ready for this?) a big fan on the front that
> bypasses the compressor, combustor and turbine sections. It is
> normally driven by an additional turbine section at the very end of
> the engine. The higher the "bypass ratio" the more air goes around the
> hot section of the engine. Generally the higher the bypass, the more
> static thrust and better specific fuel consumption (lbs of fuel per lb
> of thrust per hour) you get, particularly at low speeds and lower
> altitudes. *Most of these smaller engines are simple turbojets because
> you can get away with a single stage compressor and a single turbine.
> Lots cheaper to build. I don't have the specs for what Hph is using,
> but from Tim's comment perhaps they are already using a turbofan - the
> self-launch capable engine certainly is fan with a high(er) bypass.
> In any event the simple fact that they have something flying is proof
> that you don't need a titanium vertical fin for this to work.
>
> 9B

According to the spec sheet from Turbinenbau Schuberth for the
TBS-400, the engine uses a single compressor and a single-stage
turbine with no fan. The maximum EGT is 720 degrees C. I'm sure things
cool down sufficiently by the time you get to the fin, but I wouldn't
put my hand behind directly behind the engine to see if it's running.

I think in the end jets will replace props for sailplane self-launch,
the greater simplicity and lower weight, plus more favorable
operational considerations count in their favor and the efficiency
tradeoff isn't much of a concern unless you want to go significant
distances.

9B

[Eric Greenwell]

Uncle Fuzzy wrote:

>
> What is the appeal of a 'sustainer'? They seem to be almost as
> expensive as a self-launcher, without the ability to self launch.
> It's great not to have to land out, but it seems like an awful lot of
> money to spend and still need a tug to get airborne.

Most pilots think they are significantly cheaper to purchase, to
maintain, and to insure. They are lighter, so easier to assemble and
manhandle; they have a wider wing loading, often with both higher *and*
lower wing loadings; and typically, simpler to operate, and more
reliable. In the USA, you don't need a self-launching endorsement to fly
one.

If you can get a tow when and where you want, and don't fly in high
density altitude locations, they are a more attractive alternative to a
self-launcher. They are much more popular in Europe than the USA, in
part because launches are so much easier to get, and because many glider
ports have noise restrictions that prohibit gas powered self-launching.

A sustainer gives you what some of us think is the "best half" of a
powered glider: the ability to fly or explore aggressively without the
worry of an outlanding and a long retrieve. Pilots that haven't flown
motorgliders often underestimate this major feature because it's not an
obvious one, while it's easy for everyone to see the advantage of
self-launching.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Uncle Fuzzy]

On Dec 9, 7:23*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
>
> > What is the appeal of a 'sustainer'? *They seem to be almost as
> > expensive as a self-launcher, without the ability to self launch.
> > It's great not to have to land out, but it seems like an awful lot of
> > money to spend and still need a tug to get airborne.
>
> Most pilots think they are significantly cheaper to purchase, to
> maintain, and to insure. They are lighter, so easier to assemble and
> manhandle; they have a wider wing loading, often with both higher *and*
> lower wing loadings; and typically, simpler to operate, and more
> reliable. In the USA, you don't need a self-launching endorsement to fly
> one.
>
> If you can get a tow when and where you want, and don't fly in high
> density altitude locations, they are a more attractive alternative to a
> self-launcher. They are much more popular in Europe than the USA, in
> part because launches are so much easier to get, and because many glider
> * ports have noise restrictions that prohibit gas powered self-launching.
>
> A sustainer gives you what some of us think is the "best half" of a
> powered glider: the ability to fly or explore aggressively without the
> worry of an outlanding and a long retrieve. Pilots that haven't flown
> motorgliders often underestimate this major feature because it's not an
> obvious one, while it's easy for everyone to see the advantage of
> self-launching.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * * * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org

Thanks Eric,
That puts it into a perspective I can understand.