Best Overall Motorglider available today?

I thought the same thing...............before checking width between shoulders on JS2!

Paul T wrote on 10/3/2020 12:56 AM:
....................
personally I'd have a JS2/5 if I win the lottery.

The JS1 and ASH26 I used to fly were noticeably more roomy around the shoulders and upper arms than the V3M and I would be amazed if the JS2 wasn't similar. The Ventus Performance fuselage has a vertical side wall for a few inches below the cockpit rim whereas the JS gliders follow the Schleicher concept of a reinforcing inward curvature of the cockpit rim beneath which the shoulder and elbow-moving space is quite roomy. I wouldn't reject the JS2 on cockpit size alone without sitting in it first. Oscar Goudrian fits according to the picture on the JS FB page.

JS2 spec:
Cockpit shoulder width
525 mm

ASH31Mi spec:
Cockpit width
660 mm

Yes, there is a photo of Goudriaan in the cockpit: his position is completely lying down with shoulders under the rims. I don't think you could fly 10 hours in that position IMHO.

When talking about aerodynamic drag the fuselage frontal area is an important factor, especially at high speeds (when induced drag is less).

A pilot must take a decision: top performance or compromise & comfort ? Both is simply impossible.

(This was a factor when I had to choose between ASH31Mi and Ventus2CxM)

The glide on a 29 and a 26 at the same wing loading is nearly identical, proven by numerous side-by-side 30 mi + glides. As is a 31 with 18m tips. Now if you are comparing a 29 or 31 at 11 lb/ft to a 26 at 9, all running 85 knots, yeah there will be a difference. If you like to load up, this is the 26 weak spot, wing loading limited by European paperwork.

Your concern for my money is touching, but don't worry about it - I'm not.

On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 5:04:18 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 6:58:32 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:33:33 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:00:01 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?

Thanks,
Best Regards, Dave
I think if you factored in the cost of the engine and the cost of the labor you would be better off selling your 26e and buying a new 31Mi. You definitely can't get your money back when you sell your converted 26Mi (which really doesn't exist as it is not an AS model).

Tom
The cost of the parts wasn't that high and the labor was free. Certainly far less than the $100K or so difference. I considered a 31 but prefer the one piece wings, leaving the only advantage (for me) of the 31 the higher wing loading on rare occasions when I could be bothered with water. Nevertheless, it isn't wise to look too closely at the cost of soaring, it is phenomenally expensive at this level. Everyone makes their own decisions, and I made mine with full knowledge.

Regarding auxiliary motors, this prejudice will die away eventually. Sailboats with auxiliaries are now universal and are thought of as sailboats, but it took about 50 years to get there. With motorgliders currently outselling non-engined gliders by about 5:1, it may not take that long.
The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him! I was down below ridge height scratching and he easily connected with a thermal and was gone. The better glide of the 31 is really substantial as is the engine performance at high-density altitudes.

Valuing your labor at zero doesn't make sense as you can always work at your profession and pay someone else to do the work. If you make less than what it will cost in labor, then do it yourself, but set the labor cost at your deferred labor rate. Even worse, when it is time to sell potential buyers will consider it to be a 26e, not a 26Mi (which doesn't exist).

I've stopped worrying about the obscene cost of these toys a long time ago. If it bothered me, I could just play golf at zero additional cost (I have an annual membership at the course I play whether I fly or not).

Tom

On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:07:16 PM UTC-7, RW wrote:
On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:04:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 6:58:32 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:33:33 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:00:01 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?

Thanks,
Best Regards, Dave
I think if you factored in the cost of the engine and the cost of the labor you would be better off selling your 26e and buying a new 31Mi. You definitely can't get your money back when you sell your converted 26Mi (which really doesn't exist as it is not an AS model).

Tom
The cost of the parts wasn't that high and the labor was free. Certainly far less than the $100K or so difference. I considered a 31 but prefer the one piece wings, leaving the only advantage (for me) of the 31 the higher wing loading on rare occasions when I could be bothered with water. Nevertheless, it isn't wise to look too closely at the cost of soaring, it is phenomenally expensive at this level. Everyone makes their own decisions, and I made mine with full knowledge.

Regarding auxiliary motors, this prejudice will die away eventually. Sailboats with auxiliaries are now universal and are thought of as sailboats, but it took about 50 years to get there. With motorgliders currently outselling non-engined gliders by about 5:1, it may not take that long.
The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him! I was down below ridge height scratching and he easily connected with a thermal and was gone. The better glide of the 31 is really substantial as is the engine performance at high-density altitudes.

Valuing your labor at zero doesn't make sense as you can always work at your profession and pay someone else to do the work. If you make less than what it will cost in labor, then do it yourself, but set the labor cost at your deferred labor rate. Even worse, when it is time to sell potential buyers will consider it to be a 26e, not a 26Mi (which doesn't exist).

I've stopped worrying about the obscene cost of these toys a long time ago. If it bothered me, I could just play golf at zero additional cost (I have an annual membership at the course I play whether I fly or not).

Tom
Tom,
Energy line is not big highway.
Your friend read a line a bit better.
We all trying the best, but we sometimes miss.
Its not a glider !
Ryszard

Ryszard, you might consider rephrasing your comment as it just doesn't make any sense.

Tom

On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 11:41:41 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:07:16 PM UTC-7, RW wrote:
On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:04:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 6:58:32 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:33:33 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 9:00:01 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate
Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?

Thanks,
Best Regards, Dave
I think if you factored in the cost of the engine and the cost of the labor you would be better off selling your 26e and buying a new 31Mi. You definitely can't get your money back when you sell your converted 26Mi (which really doesn't exist as it is not an AS model).

Tom
The cost of the parts wasn't that high and the labor was free. Certainly far less than the $100K or so difference. I considered a 31 but prefer the one piece wings, leaving the only advantage (for me) of the 31 the higher wing loading on rare occasions when I could be bothered with water. Nevertheless, it isn't wise to look too closely at the cost of soaring, it is phenomenally expensive at this level. Everyone makes their own decisions, and I made mine with full knowledge.

Regarding auxiliary motors, this prejudice will die away eventually.. Sailboats with auxiliaries are now universal and are thought of as sailboats, but it took about 50 years to get there. With motorgliders currently outselling non-engined gliders by about 5:1, it may not take that long.
The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him! I was down below ridge height scratching and he easily connected with a thermal and was gone. The better glide of the 31 is really substantial as is the engine performance at high-density altitudes.

Valuing your labor at zero doesn't make sense as you can always work at your profession and pay someone else to do the work. If you make less than what it will cost in labor, then do it yourself, but set the labor cost at your deferred labor rate. Even worse, when it is time to sell potential buyers will consider it to be a 26e, not a 26Mi (which doesn't exist).

I've stopped worrying about the obscene cost of these toys a long time ago. If it bothered me, I could just play golf at zero additional cost (I have an annual membership at the course I play whether I fly or not).

Tom
Tom,
Energy line is not big highway.
Your friend read a line a bit better.
We all trying the best, but we sometimes miss.
Its not a glider !
Ryszard

Ryszard, you might consider rephrasing your comment as it just doesn't make any sense.

Tom
Tom, I believe, best energy line is narrow, like British roads can handle one car.
Flying side by side 200 ft apart will not bring same results.
Ryszard

On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 15:38:53 UTC+1, Carlo Orsini wrote:
JS2 spec:
Cockpit shoulder width
525 mm

ASH31Mi spec:
Cockpit width
660 mm

Yes, there is a photo of Goudriaan in the cockpit: his position is completely lying down with shoulders under the rims. I don't think you could fly 10 hours in that position IMHO.

When talking about aerodynamic drag the fuselage frontal area is an important factor, especially at high speeds (when induced drag is less).

A pilot must take a decision: top performance or compromise & comfort ? Both is simply impossible.

(This was a factor when I had to choose between ASH31Mi and Ventus2CxM)

Those two dimensions for the JS2 and the ASH31 are clearly not be comparable - one internal cockpit rim and one external I guess. The 525mm shoulder width for the JS2 is exactly the same as the quoted figure for the JS1 (and JS3) and the JS1 cockpit roominess is fully equal to the ASH26/31 from which it was derived. I have 4 years in a JS1 followed by 2 in the ASH 26e and they are so similar that it would be hard to know which cockpit I was in with my eyes closed. Looking at the JS2 cockpit photographs it obvious that its structural cockpit rim design is the same as the 31, 26 and JS1. JS do not make small cockpits.

RW wrote on 10/5/2020 9:13 AM:
On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 11:41:41 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:07:16 PM UTC-7, RW wrote:
On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 8:04:18 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:

I've stopped worrying about the obscene cost of these toys a long time ago. If it bothered me, I could just play golf at zero additional cost (I have an annual membership at the course I play whether I fly or not).

Tom
Tom,
Energy line is not big highway.
Your friend read a line a bit better.
We all trying the best, but we sometimes miss.
Its not a glider !
Ryszard

Ryszard, you might consider rephrasing your comment as it just doesn't make any sense.

Tom
Tom, I believe, best energy line is narrow, like British roads can handle one car.
Flying side by side 200 ft apart will not bring same results.
Ryszard

And a glider is a thousand feet lower than the other glider, it is just luck if
the two pilots are in the same air.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

On 10/4/20 4:01 PM, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 10:01:09 PM UTC+2, wrote:
I don't believe the '25 was ever sold as a twin jet, but there was one converted by the owner. (in Australia, I believe)
Which subsequently ended in tragedy

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2018-009/


Wikipedia showed an AH-25J, but yeah that was likely the 25M conversion.

They also do list a self-launch with a bigger Solo engine, which would
make sense since the wankel has always been marginal for the larger
ships, particularly at higher altitude airports. Anyway you cut it, a
lot of engines for one ship.

-Dave

On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 17:48:52 UTC+1, kinsell wrote:
On 10/4/20 4:01 PM, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 10:01:09 PM UTC+2, wrote:
I don't believe the '25 was ever sold as a twin jet, but there was one converted by the owner. (in Australia, I believe)
Which subsequently ended in tragedy

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2018-009/


Wikipedia showed an AH-25J, but yeah that was likely the 25M conversion.

They also do list a self-launch with a bigger Solo engine, which would
make sense since the wankel has always been marginal for the larger
ships, particularly at higher altitude airports. Anyway you cut it, a
lot of engines for one ship.

-Dave

The Solo engined version is the AS25/EB28 which is really a Binder EB model leading on to their EB28 then EB28 Edition models.