FES - Take 2

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates..

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

no

On Monday, October 27, 2014 11:00:11 PM UTC-5, RW wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

no

RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!

Otherwise, no, yes.

Kirk
66

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates..

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

Kirk, I fly SZD55 and my lows are usually 3 times lower than motor-glides,or sustainer gliders.I think you are wrong.
One day we will all have a way to come home safe and fast,maybe FES is the answer.
keRW

On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:20:04 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

Kirk, I fly SZD55 and my lows are usually 3 times lower than motor-glides,or sustainer gliders.I think you are wrong.
One day we will all have a way to come home safe and fast,maybe FES is the answer.
keRW

All that says is that you are either a more aggressive pilot, or pilots who buy sustainer gliders have a higher "knock it off" threshold due to their greater investment, or that perhaps they bought sustainers so that they don't have to have white-nuckle saves.

We are talking about racing pilots on racing tasks in essentially identically performing gliders.

So please explain why you think I'm wrong.

Cheers,

Kirk
Ls6-b 66 (w/o sustainer)

What makes you say motorgliders crash more?

At 09:08 17 February 2014, waremark wrote:
What makes you say motorgliders crash more?

In the words of Watty "There is no crash like a turbo crash"

The proposed rule change allows a MG to claim an airport bonus without actually overflying the bonus airport. The new rule only requires he show that he had sufficient altitude to glide to the approved airport, at the time of engine start. The airport bonus is given as an incentive to land at a safe airport and not attempt a shaky glide towards the next turn point. Question; What if the engine doesn't start? Not an uncommon occurrence out west where high altitude cold-soaks the engine. If the engine didn't start as the MG overflew the bonus airport, it would be a non event. If the engine fails to start half way down final glide...................?

Doesn't the proposed rule change negate the reason for giving an airport bonus in the first place?
:) JJ

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:11:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

Only because we are all looking for ways to make it safer,
now FES is on the table and we all think,it could be a bit safer.
keRW

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:11:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

System for coming safe home implemented ,is the only way to sustain our sport.

Is this glide angle calculated with the motor out, prop windmilling but the engine failed to start (ie a giant spoiler, coming down like a lead weight), or as a pure glider? Is there a different calculation for gliders with jet engines? Would make a hell of a difference to the implied motor glider bonus in the real world.



On Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:27:03 PM UTC-7, MNLou wrote:
Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider.



For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable.



Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope?



Lou