Vans RV-11

In the UK a self launcher is a glider capable of storing its engine and prop
within the airframe and a touring motorglider is the same thing but without
the engine and prop storage capability. It means the Stemme is a self
launcher and all other gliders within the US definition of motorglider will
be touring motorgliders. Relevant mainly for license validation and license
privilege purposes.


"bumper" wrote in message
...

"John Mason" wrote in message
...


The Stemme is not a touring motor glider, according to the UK definition
it
is a self launching motor glider. I don't have issue with your comments
on
the Stemme. What I was referring to was for example the Grob 109b, the
Dimona the Falkes and Fourniers etc. They all are pretty awful gliders,
especially in the UK where we need good min sink figures and low
thermaling
speeds and good glide angles.



What are the various UK catagories/definitions?

I'm new to soaring, having only had my glider rating since'98, so I may
goof
up on this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In the US, I'm aware of the
following catagories/defenitions:

Glider - - sometimes used to describe the WWII and prior, low performance
"tow it up - glide back down" class. Term often also used to refer to high
performance sailplanes too - - this is confusing :c)

Sailplane - - still with no engine, performance is high enough that lift
can
be used to stay up, gain altitude, or fly cross country.

Turbo - - as above but with a small sustainer engine not usually used for
self-launch, can be used to sustain or self-retrieve.

Self-launch sailplane - - Emphasis is on soaring. Propulsion system
cleverly
designed to be strong enough to provide robust take-off and climb.
Engine/prop combination may be geared toward max climb performance. This,
and sometimes minimal fuel supply, tends to make this aircraft not so
suitable for prolonged power operation. Long distances may still be
covered,
in weak or no lift conditions, using saw-tooth mode. When engine/prop is
stowed and gear retracted, drag is minimized and ship looks like other
high
performace sailplanes.

Motor glider - - a glider or sailplane with a larger more capable engine
and
fuel supply. Configuration is usually tractor and sustained operation
under
power is accomodated in the design, though this is typically at the
expense
of reduced soaring performance. L/D may be compromised by cooling drag or
feathered prop drag. Usually has tricycle or conventional gear, which may
be
fixed or retractable, to allow for convenient ground handling and taxiing.

Until now (?) I wasn't aware of a sub-catagory called "touring motor
glider"
which would exclude other motor gliders types. Though of course I've heard
and used the term "touring motor glider" and know that both self-launchers
and motorgliders have been used for touring. The Stemme, which you say is
*not* a touring motorglider, seems to fit squarely over both the last two
catagories I listed . . . at least in terms of benefits. The S10 retains
most or all of the good soaring performance of a self-laucher while still
keeping most all the benefits of any other motor glider I can think of. As
such, the Stemme is perhaps most uniquely qualified to be the ultimate
"touring motorglider". Unfortunately, like most things that fly, there are
some compormises. In Stemme's case, it is relatively expensive and
complex.

all the best,
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
ASH26E . . . self-launch
S10-VT . . . touring motor glider (?)

John Mason wrote:
In the UK a self launcher is a glider capable of storing its engine and prop
within the airframe and a touring motorglider is the same thing but without
the engine and prop storage capability. It means the Stemme is a self
launcher and all other gliders within the US definition of motorglider will
be touring motorgliders. Relevant mainly for license validation and license
privilege purposes.

So basically, it's on where the propeller ends up! That would make the
Carat a motorglider in the UK. The US doesn't really have a
"motorglider" category : they are all gliders, even the Stemme, Taifun,
Ximango, etc. You have to have glider license with a self-launch
endorsement to fly them. I'm not claiming this is a sensible rule, but
it is convenient for glider pilots.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

John Mason wrote:

I agree with much of what you say but fuel consumption is actually important
to get the full utility of a self launcher. If you want to do a tour for
example and go from place to place then you often need to relaunch without
refuelling or you may want to cruise a while to get into wave or good
soaring. If you go on a long task and totally misjudge the weather you may
need forty minutes of engine time and most of your fuel in a petrol engine
machine just to get home.

A mini-turbine glider would really be a true self-launcher. It
would not be a multi-launcher or sustainer (due to the fuel
consumption). But fuel is quite easily available, and it isn't
much of a stretch to pick airports with fuel as landouts,
or have an FBO hold on to a can of it for you, or have crew bring
you some. A mini-turbine would be very similar
to an aerotow in capabilities and limitations...

Using a motorglider the way you mention is quite useful and
practical and flexible. On the other hand, that technique
makes me consider those applications as just flying an
airplane that has a very high glide ratio and turning off
the engine sometimes. I'd be very willing to forego that
option to avoid icky pylons and props and unreliability.

Mark James Boyd wrote:

A mini-turbine glider would really be a true self-launcher. It
would not be a multi-launcher or sustainer (due to the fuel
consumption). But fuel is quite easily available, and it isn't
much of a stretch to pick airports with fuel as landouts,
or have an FBO hold on to a can of it for you, or have crew bring
you some. A mini-turbine would be very similar
to an aerotow in capabilities and limitations...

Using a motorglider the way you mention is quite useful and
practical and flexible. On the other hand, that technique
makes me consider those applications as just flying an
airplane that has a very high glide ratio and turning off
the engine sometimes.

Bad analogy, because the ratio of soaring to engine time is still very
high - even my longest retrieve still had 3 hours of soaring and only 40
minutes of engine for about 140 return. No one else flew from our
airport, because the bad air had already arrived when I left.

I'd be very willing to forego that
option to avoid icky pylons and props and unreliability.

You don't have to wait for turbines to get this ability (simplicity and
reliability with limited duration). Go first class and get an Antares,
or kick it down a few notches and get the electric powered Silent. You
still have the pylon and prop, but those are not the unreliable parts of
the self-launching system. And they are quiet.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:

A mini-turbine glider would really be a true self-launcher. It
would not be a multi-launcher or sustainer (due to the fuel
consumption). But fuel is quite easily available, and it isn't
much of a stretch to pick airports with fuel as landouts,
or have an FBO hold on to a can of it for you, or have crew bring
you some. A mini-turbine would be very similar
to an aerotow in capabilities and limitations...

Using a motorglider the way you mention is quite useful and
practical and flexible. On the other hand, that technique
makes me consider those applications as just flying an
airplane that has a very high glide ratio and turning off
the engine sometimes.

Bad analogy, because the ratio of soaring to engine time is still very
high - even my longest retrieve still had 3 hours of soaring and only 40
minutes of engine for about 140 return. No one else flew from our
airport, because the bad air had already arrived when I left.

I'd be very willing to forego that
option to avoid icky pylons and props and unreliability.

You don't have to wait for turbines to get this ability (simplicity and
reliability with limited duration). Go first class and get an Antares,
or kick it down a few notches and get the electric powered Silent. You
still have the pylon and prop, but those are not the unreliable parts of
the self-launching system. And they are quiet.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA


One small issue with the electric idea is that the batteries are heavy
and can't cheaply be ejected as ballast. And the useful time of running
the engine is directly related to weight. Reliability is certainly
improved over those pesky two-strokes, and perhaps the prop vs.
hot turbine exhaust on the tail is a satisfying tradeoff.

However, a quiet engine would likely be VASTLY preferred by glider
pilots due to the much lower noise vs. turbine. Additionally, the
idea that one could design such an engine so that one could thermal
and then descend with the engine out, using the engine to RECHARGE the
batteries, seems possible. Electric cars, for braking, can use
a generator instead of dissipating all the energy as friction.
The concept in gliders could possibly be similar. I don't know
the details of such a design, but the possibility is interesting
in theory.

Mr. VanGrunsven sent me an e-mail asking about these turbines, and
I referred him to AMT and Accurate Automation Corporation. In any
case, I really hope I get to see, and perhaps fly, all
different kinds of self-launchers (pylon, retract prop, electric,
and turbine). I find EAA and gliders and the creative minds
of tinkerers makes soaring a very fun sport. After all, we just do
this for FUN, right?

P.S. Holly Katherine Boyd, born Dec 30, 2003, 7lbs. 7oz.
Momma and baby are perfectly healthy and want to go SOARING!!

Mark James Boyd wrote:
P.S. Holly Katherine Boyd, born Dec 30, 2003, 7lbs. 7oz.
Momma and baby are perfectly healthy and want to go SOARING!!

Congratulations, Mark! Not much flying for you for a while, if my
experience as the happy father of a 5 year old applies...

Marc

on 1/4/04 12:13 "Mark James Boyd" as in
3ff865df$1@darkstar posted the following:


After all, we just do
this for FUN, right?

P.S. Holly Katherine Boyd, born Dec 30, 2003, 7lbs. 7oz.
Momma and baby are perfectly healthy and want to go SOARING!!

Congratulations!


--
Jack

"Warum einfach machen wenn man es so schön komplizieren kann?"

In article ,
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:
P.S. Holly Katherine Boyd, born Dec 30, 2003, 7lbs. 7oz.
Momma and baby are perfectly healthy and want to go SOARING!!

Congratulations, Mark! Not much flying for you for a while, if my
experience as the happy father of a 5 year old applies...

Marc

Thanks to all well-wishers. My wife has relatives near
several gliderports, so I'm hoping to sneak in excuses
to visit...