Ventus 2cxa with FES

jfitch
Now, there are competition pilots who will willingly fly over unlandable terrain with no motor at all, just as there are those that will cheat in various ways. Such a pilot might abuse the capability. It seems to be rarely said that one of the reasons many pilots do not engage in competition is that risk is rewarded.

Jon
I question your statement about unlandable terrain. The very few racers that might have flown over unlandable terrain without a safe glide cushion are either not with us any more, or have broken a glider. Never have they been rewarded. Brains and technique are rewarded.

The benefit I see to a sustainer is getting home early and avoiding a long retrieve. This can be significant in a long nationals or world comp.

Regards
Richard Walters

I can understand that a pilot who flies a gas engine motorglider and who's steeped in its appropriate use would want to extrapolate his know-how to the electric FES. The question is whether or not the FES could be sufficiently more reliable in its one second startup process that the old rules of safe motorgliding don't apply. To me, that seems like a good possibility. Time will tell.

Separately, I don't agree that glider competition is about being rewarded for risk.

On 16/04/2014 06:32, Steve Koerner wrote:

I sort of figured someone would snipe to that effect. So, jfitch,
what is your reasoning that makes it 'deadly'?

Are there any known cases when an FES was intended to be initiated
but failed to do so in flight?

Nice straw man. Are you claiming that means it'll never happen? Do you
write TV ads for a living?

It would seem to me that the FES has much going for it in terms of
its potential for very high reliable operation. That would be the
fact of no boom to raise and the fact that the power plant is an
electric motor.

No question.

Single engine airplane pilots think nothing of routinely flying in
the boonies with no landing alternate available to them. That
contrasts with an FES glider pilot who might put himself into that
situation only rarely.

There is a major difference. A certificated light aircraft has to have
a certificated engine meeting known standards of reliability in design,
construction and maintenance. EVERY powered glider's engine is only
certified as an auxiliary and meets almost none of the certified
engine's reliability tests.

To reprise what I said earlier about PLBs vs Spot/Inreach: a certified
engine is the real thing, the engine in a powered glider is a nice toy -
even electric ones.

I think all of us have had plenty of experience with both electric
motors and gas motors and know the former to be vastly more reliable.
Yet power pilots treat their gas engines as reliable enough to bet
their life on. I'm suspecting that a reasoned glider pilot who has
tested his FES startup many times in non-threatening circumstances
would arrive at the same determination. The interesting part is that
yields a significant advantage in competition.

Go ahead. Bet your life on it!

GC

As glider pilots, whether powered or not, we always fly with a question
in our mind: where should I land if I needed to land now?

From an engineering perspective it could probably be possible to build
an electric motor system that would start with a reliability that would
satisfy the statistics of an operational retrieve system, not an
auxiliary one. What is anyone's guess is whether it is financially
viable to do so at the moment.

The clue would be in the manual of a certified FES glider, where it says
"engine operation". Does it recommend having a field available, does it
state a minimum altitude for starts?

Until then, all bets are off on whether a motor in a glider will start,
electric or not.

Alexander

On 16/04/2014 07:53, GC wrote:
On 16/04/2014 06:32, Steve Koerner wrote:

I sort of figured someone would snipe to that effect. So, jfitch,
what is your reasoning that makes it 'deadly'?

Are there any known cases when an FES was intended to be initiated
but failed to do so in flight?

Nice straw man. Are you claiming that means it'll never happen? Do you
write TV ads for a living?

It would seem to me that the FES has much going for it in terms of
its potential for very high reliable operation. That would be the
fact of no boom to raise and the fact that the power plant is an
electric motor.

No question.

Single engine airplane pilots think nothing of routinely flying in
the boonies with no landing alternate available to them. That
contrasts with an FES glider pilot who might put himself into that
situation only rarely.

There is a major difference. A certificated light aircraft has to have
a certificated engine meeting known standards of reliability in design,
construction and maintenance. EVERY powered glider's engine is only
certified as an auxiliary and meets almost none of the certified
engine's reliability tests.

To reprise what I said earlier about PLBs vs Spot/Inreach: a certified
engine is the real thing, the engine in a powered glider is a nice toy -
even electric ones.

I think all of us have had plenty of experience with both electric
motors and gas motors and know the former to be vastly more reliable.
Yet power pilots treat their gas engines as reliable enough to bet
their life on. I'm suspecting that a reasoned glider pilot who has
tested his FES startup many times in non-threatening circumstances
would arrive at the same determination. The interesting part is that
yields a significant advantage in competition.

Go ahead. Bet your life on it!

GC

Luka of LZ Design,
If there were a FES retrofit kit for my Hph 304CZ, I'd be the first in line to get it done. The FES, in my opinion, is the wave of the future in Soaring.
Chuck Zabinski

Dne ponedeljek, 14. april 2014 22:17:13 UTC+2 je oseba LZ design napisala:
Some photos from 1st public presentation of Ventus 2cxa with FES during Aero 2014



https://picasaweb.google.com/1154794...noredirect= 1



Regards,



Luka

I read a comments with interest. It is a matter of good airmanship to have at least some options always available where you can land a glider.
But it is true that at FES there is no additional drag of extended pylon, and so you always have performance of pure glider at least, so more time to decide.
Additionally we have very good reliability statistic with FES. So far as I am informed nobody landed on the field due to the reason, that FES did not start. Actually when you switch ON power switch, and get green LED, and "Controller ready" message on the screen, pilot can be 99% sure that motor will start. There is no engine which would be 100% reliable, but I think FES is close to that.
Before each flight pilot needs to perform a short test run, in order to be sure that all is OK. If there is any problem in the system, is then showed already.
For comparison with existing sustainers with Solo 2350 engine, which require windmiling and decompressor, is pretty difficult and also dangerous to perform a test run on the ground, as it works only at full power. So pilot do not have any idea if the system will start until he is on 200m trying to start it. And the worse thing is that pilot needs to push a stick forward to get some speed, but when you are already low, this is not action somebody would appreciate to perform...
Those pilots who are flying with FES equipped gliders, already know the difference. Regarding the range: existing battery packs are more than sufficient for what average glider pilot really needs. You can read in book of Sebastian Kawa on page 88:
"I really would happily fly a glider which has a reliable engine that starts up quickly. It would only need to run for 15 minutes or so; it wouldn't have to get me back to the airfield, just help me to return to safer place."
And FES is just this, and much more!
I suggest you to read also text in his book on page 222 and 223 about Kawa's experiance with Solo sustainer engine.

Regards,

Luka

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:01:28 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Dne ponedeljek, 14. april 2014 22:17:13 UTC+2 je oseba LZ design napisala:

Some photos from 1st public presentation of Ventus 2cxa with FES during Aero 2014







https://picasaweb.google.com/1154794...noredirect= 1







Regards,







Luka



I read a comments with interest. It is a matter of good airmanship to have at least some options always available where you can land a glider.

But it is true that at FES there is no additional drag of extended pylon, and so you always have performance of pure glider at least, so more time to decide.

Additionally we have very good reliability statistic with FES. So far as I am informed nobody landed on the field due to the reason, that FES did not start. Actually when you switch ON power switch, and get green LED, and "Controller ready" message on the screen, pilot can be 99% sure that motor will start. There is no engine which would be 100% reliable, but I think FES is close to that.

Before each flight pilot needs to perform a short test run, in order to be sure that all is OK. If there is any problem in the system, is then showed already.

For comparison with existing sustainers with Solo 2350 engine, which require windmiling and decompressor, is pretty difficult and also dangerous to perform a test run on the ground, as it works only at full power. So pilot do not have any idea if the system will start until he is on 200m trying to start it. And the worse thing is that pilot needs to push a stick forward to get some speed, but when you are already low, this is not action somebody would appreciate to perform...

Those pilots who are flying with FES equipped gliders, already know the difference. Regarding the range: existing battery packs are more than sufficient for what average glider pilot really needs. You can read in book of Sebastian Kawa on page 88:

"I really would happily fly a glider which has a reliable engine that starts up quickly. It would only need to run for 15 minutes or so; it wouldn't have to get me back to the airfield, just help me to return to safer place."

And FES is just this, and much more!

I suggest you to read also text in his book on page 222 and 223 about Kawa's experiance with Solo sustainer engine.



Regards,



Luka

Indeed, we have that very problem in southern Arizona. Many of our emergency landing spots are less than desirable (dirt strips on the wrong side of the mountains requiring a long arduous road retrieve, or smugglers landing spots near the border where you are likely to meet with armed villains). You can land safely there (as I have done), but the retrieve will be long and not much fun.

A modest self-retrieval of 50 km or so will get us to a town with a decent airfield with the possibility of an aero retrieve or, at worst, dinner and a bed for the night! It might even get us final glide home.

Mike

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:49:31 AM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:

Many of our emergency landing spots .... or smugglers landing spots near the border where you are likely to meet with armed villains).

As a Yankee and fan of "Breaking Bad", I'm having a hard time sorting fact from fancy. A run-in with Banditos (or the DEA suspecting nefarious cargo in the glider) is a possibility?

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 2:46:21 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:49:31 AM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:



Many of our emergency landing spots .... or smugglers landing spots near the border where you are likely to meet with armed villains).



As a Yankee and fan of "Breaking Bad", I'm having a hard time sorting fact from fancy. A run-in with Banditos (or the DEA suspecting nefarious cargo in the glider) is a possibility?

One of our emergency strips not too far from the Mexican border is a semi-abandoned ranch strip that sees a lot of night-time use by smugglers. I landed there a few years ago and was retrieved by road uneventfully. A colleague who landed there more recently found two men had opened his canopy and were rifling through his cockpit after he'd walked away from his ship. They sped away on ATVs as he approached. Smugglers often have local ground support who use off-road vehicles and frequent deserted airstrips!

An FES system has some appeal!

Mike

Well, I've taken a lot of heat for my suggestion. That's really how it should be when someone publishes a suggestion that's outside the norms of established safety practice. Reality is that I don't have an FES glider and if I had one I'd likely treat it quite conservatively for a long time. Getting bolder with its use would only happen if my own accumulation of experience as well as the experience of others had taught me that it was safe to do so.

Consider, though, that terrain isn't black and white, landable and unlandable; Landability is a matter of degree. Certain boulder strewn terrain would probably kill you whereas a rough pasture might take out your gear at worst. A road landing option or a narrow airstrip option might work but might send you on a ground loop. So along the spectrum of 'unlandable terrain' there would almost certainly exist a range of possibilities for the late use of FES. The reasonableness of that option is related to the strength of one's expectation that the motor will start in relation to the likely consequences if it doesn't. Luka's quote from Kawa reflects that notion.