Ventus 2cxa with FES

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:32:16 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:41:22 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:

On Monday, April 14, 2014 5:10:45 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:



From a competition pilot point of view there would have to be a small drag penalty and a weight penalty. But both of those would seem to be pretty small in comparison to the competitive benefit that arises from the ability to stick to the course line and never have to be distracted by the need to deviate towards a landing option. I don't have experience to know, but I'm suspecting that the reliability of the FES might be sufficient that one could drive it straight into the boonies then flip the switch only at the last minute -- wouldn't that be exciting? You certainly can't do that with a gas engine.







" that one could drive it straight into the boonies then flip the switch only at the last minute -- wouldn't that be exciting?"







Deadly exciting, actually....



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?



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.



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.



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.

While an electric motor *may* be more reliable than gas, you are still starting a stopped motor, unfolding a folded prop, etc. I don't know a single power plane pilot who would knowingly fly into rocks or over water *with the engine stopped*, figuring on starting it when the trees got close.

This has been proposed endlessly as an advantage motor gliders have over pure gliders, the ability to fly low over unlandable terrain. I don't fly mine that way and I don't know of anyone that does. My engine starts are always over a landable field, the advantage is that the inconvenience of a ground retrieve is eliminated in most cases.

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.

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

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

Rick's spot on here. However, races are, today, often won by low saves over good landable fields. Whether that is a good idea or whether we should put an end to this fact with a hard deck is a discussion for a later day. The fact is, climbing out from 500 feet (or less, let's admit it) has won many a contest.

A disadvantage of current sustainers is that to be at all safe you have to start the engine process at 1000' or more -- over a good field of course. A sustainer where you push one button at 500 feet when you're normally committing to land, no big drag inducing pylon goes up, and you know in a second if it works or not, and proceed either to climb out or to focus entirely on the landing, would be important in contest soaring.

Too bad the props look draggy, and batteries are still pretty heavy ways to store energy. A hybrid or fuel cell would seem to offer the best of both worlds

John Cochrane

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

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:49:02 PM UTC-7, wrote:
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

Rick,

In an Idea World, only brains and technique would be rewarded. But in This World, we find it necessary to have (for example) minimum finish rules, rules against cloud flying, at least the discussion of rules to prevent low saves - all because the reward (in many competitor's minds) outweighs the risk. Over the long haul, those who's risk tolerance exceeds their ability (or luck) pay a price. But there are plenty of competitors flying with some very high historical repair bills to prove my point. The fact that Steve even suggests what he did is further evidence.

The technology exists to eliminate most of this by creating a terrain map guaranteeing safe gliding altitude to a landable field, dropping below which would be severely penalized or DSQ'd. However I think most competitors don't like the idea because it eliminates their ability to judge what risks to take. It would mitigate Steve's concern about motor gliders though, and might bring some of the lurkers into active competition.

Jon

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:49:02 PM UTC-7, wrote:
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

Rick,

In an Ideal World, brains and technique would be the only thing rewarded. In This World, we find it necessary to have (for example) minimum finish altitude rules, rules against cloud flying, at least the discussion of rules limiting low saves - all directed at limiting the advantage of risk taking. Long term, pilots who take more risk than their skill (or luck) can manage pay a price. But there are certainly enough competition pilots with large historical repair bills to prove my point. Steve even suggesting what he did is further evidence.

The technology exists today to eliminate much of this by creating a terrain map guaranteeing a safe glide slope to a landable field, below which there would be withering penalties or a DSQ. But many competition pilots will be against the idea, because it limits their own free will about what risks to take. I believe it would have the effect of luring some of the lurkers into active competition though, because in large measure the amount of risk taken would be flattened - leaving only skill and technique.

Jon

How does FES compare with the jet turbo's? I know the Shark and JS1 have a
more powerfull jet than the 'jet Ventus 2'. Are they a better or worse
option?