Ya know... Flying a motor glider (Stemme) was pretty much a non-event
for me other than the thrill of it all. Having said that, it's my
belief that anyone who needs to ask others if he's capable of doing
anything probably shouldn't do it until HE truly believes he can.

On 5/31/2017 9:15 PM, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:30:06 AM UTC-7, Chris Short wrote:
Would you have the same concers if it was an electric self launcher
or sustainer?

Chris

At 04:45 31 May 2017, 2G wrote:
On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:24:14 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:47:36 AM UTC-7, jfitch
wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:14:07 AM UTC-7, Dave
Nadler wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-4,

wrot=
e:
First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my
experience in
pu=
re
sailplanes is very little (don=C2=B4t reach 100h). Do
you
recomme=
nd me to
wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before
making the
=
transition?
=20
YES.
To be able to safely focus on engine management (and
especially
whe=
n things
go wrong), flying the glider must be completely
automatic.
Regardle=
ss of
power experience, you are not at this point with less
than 100
hour=
s.
=20
Second point, I=C2=B4m not very handy, I
don=C2=B4t have any
type=
of experience
in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would
have to go to
a=
workshop.
Is that a big inconvenience?
=20
YES.
Identify someone nearby with extensive experience
maintaining the
t=
ype
you expect to buy. Hint: There isn't likely to be
anybody...
And maintenance of these machines by folks not
intimately familiar
with the type often goes very badly.
=20
This problem would happen to me with any type of
glider that I
bu=
y.
=20
NO.
Any motor-glider will require MUCH more (and more
specialized)
main=
tenance
as compared to a non-motorized glider.
=20
Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave "YO" (multiple offender, 2000 hrs
in
motor-glid=
ers)
=20
I cannot agree that having only 100 hours disqualifies you
from
motor=
glider ownership. For the first 200 hours of flying it, simply be
very
cons=
ervative with motor use: do not self launch, do not attempt air
starts at
l=
ess than 3000 AGL and then over a landing field, etc. After all it
will
fly=
fine with the motor stowed - as good as a pure glider. You can
push this
e=
nvelope and squeeze these margins as you gain experience. If
you are an
un=
disciplined pilot that will take chances with the motor, then you
are not
a=
good candidate for motorglider ownership, regardless of hours. If
fact
you=
might want to reevaluate flying at all.=20
=20
I do agree that the maintenance requirements for any
motorglider are
=
3x any pure glider.
=20
There is a big difference between "disqualification" and
"inadvisable."=
Flying high-performance sailplanes is a skill that takes hundreds
of
hours=
to become proficient. Self-launching motorgliders requires yet
another
set=
of skills. The test of the skills only comes when the pilot is under
stres=
s and the margin for error is all but gone. My advice stands:
Alfonso
shoul=
d get himself a pure glider and build that critical first 300-500
hours in
=
it before acquiring an MG. The only mitigating circumstance would
be if he
=
does not have tows available.
=20
Tom
=20
The test of skills for the motor only comes when you use the
motor. That
=
is my point. An auxilliary motorglider with the motor folded is a
pure
gli=
der. This may require discipline that the pilot may not have - that
is my
o=
ther point.

You can always buy a MG and not use the motor, flying it as a
pure glider.
=
This would be curious choice and a huge waste of money. My
comment as
"inad=
visable" stands and you didn't address it. Advisability is a
judgment by
an=
expert, disqualification is a ruling by a bureaucrat.

Tom

My concerns are about pilots assuming more complexity than they are prepared for. You will not know for certainty that the line has been crossed until an accident has occurred. My preference is to err on the side of caution.

Tom

--
Dan, 5J