If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Self-launch v Sustainer
Thanks for the detailed comments . There are several considerations still on the table (I have 500hrs including several hours in a Duo-Discus). My ideal motorized glider: 2-seater, easy to assemble, good trailer, dependable FES or non-pyloned powerplant, electric self-launcher (would settle for sustainer), good maneuverability. Trading-off on some features (other than my wife), the Stemme, Arcus M/T and Pipistrel Taurus electric both seem to come pretty close. I might consider a Stemme, but there doesn't seem to be many used VT's (better climb v S10), and as Dan mentioned, it doesn't maneuver like a 15m. Those are both out of my price range new. Other than Dave, there wasn't much discussion about sustainers. The numbers seem a bit tedious to find, so in general what is the weight penalty between self-launchers and sustainers? Reliability the same? Faster deployment? Yes, I would consider a single-place which would give more options. The newer electrics are compelling, but one might be waiting awhile to grab one. Aside from the deployment time, do they have a weight advantage as well (including Li batteries)? Dave's presentation included reference to a 30% incidence of engine failure (2-stroke?). Electrics must be an improvement over that, presumably. I have read Eric Greenwell's excellent articles at the ASA. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ASA-NewsGroup/info Thanks again, Mike |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Self-launch v Sustainer
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 21:11:26 +0000, Dave Walsh
wrote: If just a self launch (and you are willing to put up with possibly unreliable two strokes) then: - Nimbus 3DM (doesn't go round corners easily) Nimbus 4DM (an amazing bit of kit; a few have suffered wing structural failures; also doesn't go round corners readily) DG500M (competent, getting on in years, not as nice to fly as a Duo). .... not mention the nicest self launchers with the best engine systems out the ASH-25 Mi, its successot ASH-30 Mi and the 20m ASG-32 Mi. Al open class gliders feel as if they "don't go around corners easily", but that's not true and simply a question of experience. Turbos: Plenty of choices: Duo Discus; DG1000; Arcus, Nimbus 3DT/4DT; Arcus E. I've never flown any of them but the standard Duo is a delight. Doubtless some one will be along soon to extol the virtues of Turbos. I've flown all of them - all are nice. Main problem of all open class gliders is the assembly which takes considerable experience, time and sometimes simply a lot of strength. Double seaters are a little better, but still heavy and, compared to any single seater, cumbersome to assemble. One needs to think twice about such a glider. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Self-launch v Sustainer
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 12:06:03 PM UTC-7, Duster wrote:
Thanks for the detailed comments . There are several considerations still on the table (I have 500hrs including several hours in a Duo-Discus). My ideal motorized glider: 2-seater, easy to assemble, good trailer, dependable FES or non-pyloned powerplant, electric self-launcher (would settle for sustainer), good maneuverability. Trading-off on some features (other than my wife), the Stemme, Arcus M/T and Pipistrel Taurus electric both seem to come pretty close. I might consider a Stemme, but there doesn't seem to be many used VT's (better climb v S10), and as Dan mentioned, it doesn't maneuver like a 15m. Those are both out of my price range new. Other than Dave, there wasn't much discussion about sustainers. The numbers seem a bit tedious to find, so in general what is the weight penalty between self-launchers and sustainers? Reliability the same? Faster deployment? Yes, I would consider a single-place which would give more options. The newer electrics are compelling, but one might be waiting awhile to grab one. Aside from the deployment time, do they have a weight advantage as well (including Li batteries)? Dave's presentation included reference to a 30% incidence of engine failure (2-stroke?). Electrics must be an improvement over that, presumably. I have read Eric Greenwell's excellent articles at the ASA. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ASA-NewsGroup/info Thanks again, Mike Good thoughts. How easy is it to put a Stemme in the trailer? Most of them don't have trailers, and the enormous Cobra trailer includes some complicated bits. Agree with Andreas' comments re ASH25Mi, etc. Hope to fly a 32 this week. The 25 feels just like any of the others in the AS line after a short while.. The N4DM is also easy to fly but I have not rigged one and personally don't care for two-stroke engines in aircraft. Mike, in the "you only live once" spirit... Go for the Arcus JET! Jim |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Self-launch v Sustainer
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 1:06:03 PM UTC-6, Duster wrote:
Thanks for the detailed comments . There are several considerations still on the table (I have 500hrs including several hours in a Duo-Discus). My ideal motorized glider: 2-seater, easy to assemble, good trailer, dependable FES or non-pyloned powerplant, electric self-launcher (would settle for sustainer), good maneuverability. Trading-off on some features (other than my wife), the Stemme, Arcus M/T and Pipistrel Taurus electric both seem to come pretty close. I might consider a Stemme, but there doesn't seem to be many used VT's (better climb v S10), and as Dan mentioned, it doesn't maneuver like a 15m. Those are both out of my price range new. Other than Dave, there wasn't much discussion about sustainers. The numbers seem a bit tedious to find, so in general what is the weight penalty between self-launchers and sustainers? Reliability the same? Faster deployment? Yes, I would consider a single-place which would give more options. The newer electrics are compelling, but one might be waiting awhile to grab one. Aside from the deployment time, do they have a weight advantage as well (including Li batteries)? Dave's presentation included reference to a 30% incidence of engine failure (2-stroke?). Electrics must be an improvement over that, presumably. I have read Eric Greenwell's excellent articles at the ASA. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ASA-NewsGroup/info Thanks again, Mike Mike- Regarding electric sustainers and specifically the FES, please let me know exactly what questions you may have. I have owned my LAK-17B FES for 5 years and hopefully, I can help you with answers on any questions you may have. BTW, there is no deployment time on the FES as it turns on immediately like when you turn on a ceiling fan. Now, we know nothing is 100% reliable, but in 5 years and dozens of starts on the ground and in the air, it has never failed me! Finally on system weight, the total, including the 2 each, LI-Po batteries, motor and prop, adds approx 85 pounds to the weight of the glider. Finally, as I have previously written in this thread, you can find a lot more detailed FES info at: http://www.front-electric-sustainer.com/ Thanks - Renny |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Self-launch v Sustainer
Some interesting posts; but if there were a simple answer to
the original question then we'd all be flying it. The Stemme S10, Arcus variants and the Pipistrel Taurus are wildly different animals: it's hard to imagine a particular pilot putting those 3 onto their "short list"! Only the Stemme has any useful range. The Taurus with two well built pilots on board will always be bottom of the thermal. Scratching in weak hill lift in the Stemme is hard work; 23m with fuel in the wings is just not enjoyable. By all accounts the Arcus variants (excepting the Arcus E) are a delight. My view is that it's hard to accept inferior performance, especially when you're paying for it. Anyone who has sampled Nimbus 4, Arcus, Duo performance in the mountains is not going to want to scratch around in a Taurus. I am not knocking the Taurus, it has good take off performance and in Europe falls into the "Ultralight" category so enormous advantages in cost, maintenance and licensing areas. It also has a reliable Rotax engine, another huge plus. By all accounts it is very nice to fly. If I were buying a Stemme I'd actively look for the earlier Limbach engined version; sure the power performance of the VT is better but not needed unless "hot and high" is always on the agenda. Some might argue that the earlier version was more reliable? As self launch single seaters get a mention in earlier posts here's my two Euros worth: the ASH26E (and other Wankel engined machines) are capable of prolonged straight and level flight to "get you home". All the rest, powered by two cylinder two strokes, (DG800, Ventus CM etc) require "climb and glide"...... Note the Wankel engine has its own issues. A prospective purchaser should join the various "User Groups": LOTS of issues with Wankel, Solo and Rotax engines are highlighted there. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Self-launch v Sustainer
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 3:06:03 PM UTC-4, Duster wrote:
Dave's presentation included reference to a 30% incidence of engine failure (2-stroke?). To be clear, that includes any failure of the propulsion system, which can be mechanisms for extension, prop-centering, retraction, starting, exhaust or structural cracking, etc. Rarely the core of the engine... These are not Toyotas, and if you fly like they won't die, you well may. Hope that helps, Best Regards, Dave |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Self-launch v Sustainer
The Stemme is easy to rig. I rig mine solo in about 9 minutes with no
need for any rigging aids. Of course, I keep it in a hangar and have never taken the center section off, though I've seen videos and it looks pretty complex. But who needs a trailer when you have a reliable Rotax turbo? You can fly to any location and rent a car when you get there. You do need a hangar or a rental space to keep it. You wouldn't want to rig it from a trailer too often. I've helped rig and fly an ASH-30 mi and it was quite an ordeal using all those tools and equipment to get it out of the trailer and moved and lifted into position. It flies about the same as the Stemme. Heavy and difficult at first and, with a bit of practice, well mannered and easy to fly. On 10/31/2016 2:21 PM, JS wrote: On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 12:06:03 PM UTC-7, Duster wrote: Thanks for the detailed comments . There are several considerations still on the table (I have 500hrs including several hours in a Duo-Discus). My ideal motorized glider: 2-seater, easy to assemble, good trailer, dependable FES or non-pyloned powerplant, electric self-launcher (would settle for sustainer), good maneuverability. Trading-off on some features (other than my wife), the Stemme, Arcus M/T and Pipistrel Taurus electric both seem to come pretty close. I might consider a Stemme, but there doesn't seem to be many used VT's (better climb v S10), and as Dan mentioned, it doesn't maneuver like a 15m. Those are both out of my price range new. Other than Dave, there wasn't much discussion about sustainers. The numbers seem a bit tedious to find, so in general what is the weight penalty between self-launchers and sustainers? Reliability the same? Faster deployment? Yes, I would consider a single-place which would give more options. The newer electrics are compelling, but one might be waiting awhile to grab one. Aside from the deployment time, do they have a weight advantage as well (including Li batteries)? Dave's presentation included reference to a 30% incidence of engine failure (2-stroke?). Electrics must be an improvement over that, presumably. I have read Eric Greenwell's excellent articles at the ASA. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ASA-NewsGroup/info Thanks again, Mike Good thoughts. How easy is it to put a Stemme in the trailer? Most of them don't have trailers, and the enormous Cobra trailer includes some complicated bits. Agree with Andreas' comments re ASH25Mi, etc. Hope to fly a 32 this week. The 25 feels just like any of the others in the AS line after a short while. The N4DM is also easy to fly but I have not rigged one and personally don't care for two-stroke engines in aircraft. Mike, in the "you only live once" spirit... Go for the Arcus JET! Jim -- Dan, 5J |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Self-launch v Sustainer
On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 4:17:47 PM UTC-4, Duster wrote:
Retired now and looking to purchase a motorized glider; weighing the pros and cons of self-launchers v sustainers. Two-placer is a priority, as I would like to take my wife. Single place acceptable as long as I can keep her happy sightseeing. We plan on extensive travelling, some to both established and unestablished (i.e., w/o tugs avail) soaring areas (esp. ridge/mountain/wave). Is the weight penalty the chief difference? Engine reliability? Maintenance? Minimum 18m? Some of you may recommend getting some first-hand experience at a commercial operation; where would that be? Any feedback appreciated, even if just to eliminate models to stay away from. Mike There was a remark about the unreliability of two stroke engines ( most commonly Rotax). I have flown a PIK 20E for 7 years; while there have been a number of issues with peripherals, once the engine is raised ( and you are flying) the Rotax 501 has always started without trouble, just a touch of choke. Full power within a minute. John F, old no longer bold! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Self-launch v Sustainer
I'd agree that the various Rotax two-stroke found in the
Pik20E, DG400, DG800A are (generally) reliable. I co-owned a DG400 for many years; nothing engine related ever failed. In all those years it failed to start just once when the pilot forgot to turn on the ignition. Hard to blame Rotax for this! I have also owned a DG808C with the Solo two-stroke. A brief internet search will tell you all you need to know about this two-stroke. Oddly the different Solo in many "turbo" gliders seems to be very reliable. As Dave Nadler says of motor gliders: "these are not Toyotas". It would be so nice to have a self-launch with an engine engineered by Honda. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Self-launch v Sustainer
On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 4:15:04 PM UTC-4, Dave Walsh wrote:
As Dave Nadler says of motor gliders: "these are not Toyotas". It would be so nice to have a self-launch with an engine engineered by Honda. I don't think a Honda engine would improve the situation. In my limited gas-powered motor-glider experience, the inflight problems I can remember off the top of my head we - fuel system contamination downstream of the filters blocking carbs - fuel leaks - starter switch failure - intermittent ignition (cable harness problem) - pylon limit switch failure (can't retract) - prop brake failure (can't retract) - prop brake safety-interlock switch failure (can't start) - extension spindle-drive failure - mechanic refilled radiator with undiluted anti-freeze (immediate overheat) I'm sure there were a few others I forgot. Anyway, in no case did I have a problem with the core engine; all this stuff was glider-manufacturer or mechanic induced. I've been quite lucky and haven't had failures lots of my friends have endured such as drive-belts, fuel lines, starter motors, exhaust system cracking, etc. Some of the older two-strokes were more troublesome but the Solos I've had have been solid. The ArcusM system has been great! Hope that helps clarify, Best Regards, Dave |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ASG-29E vs. JS-1Jet Sustainer | Gerry Simpson | Soaring | 52 | July 8th 15 01:29 PM |
Sustainer/turbo gliders | Jonathan St. Cloud | Soaring | 26 | April 8th 15 07:59 PM |
FES (Front Electric Sustainer) | Herbert kilian | Soaring | 7 | November 12th 11 09:56 PM |
would an electric sustainer be practical | Brad[_2_] | Soaring | 7 | July 24th 09 06:29 PM |
DG goes the sustainer option. | Paul | Soaring | 25 | June 4th 04 12:16 AM |