Front Electric Sustainer

According to the FAA aircraft registry, there are 20 LAK-17a registered in
the USA.

I've been talking with Luca at the FES factory and he has offered what looks
to like a good deal to have the FES installed in our ships. He will come to
this country to do the installations if we will pay for expenses. His
proposal amounts to approximately $28K per installation all inclusive
provided we have a minimum of four (4) ships.

I know the price will be higher for fewer ships so I would expect that it
would be marginally less for more ships due to expenses being spread
thinner.

Is there any interest among the LAK-17 or -19 owners to have the FES factory
come to the USA to modify our ships?

Please reply to the author or post replies here.

Are LAK's the only gliders which can be modified?

Ramy

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:24:07 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
According to the FAA aircraft registry, there are 20 LAK-17a registered in

the USA.



I've been talking with Luca at the FES factory and he has offered what looks

to like a good deal to have the FES installed in our ships. He will come to

this country to do the installations if we will pay for expenses. His

proposal amounts to approximately $28K per installation all inclusive

provided we have a minimum of four (4) ships.



I know the price will be higher for fewer ships so I would expect that it

would be marginally less for more ships due to expenses being spread

thinner.



Is there any interest among the LAK-17 or -19 owners to have the FES factory

come to the USA to modify our ships?



Please reply to the author or post replies here.

Interested! F2 Sean Fidler Ionia, MI

I've seen video of a self launch with the FES, however there's minimal
clearance between the propeller and the ground making that risky of a prop
strike.

In the video here, http://www.front-electric-sustainer.com/, you can see
that they use an auto tow to get the glider into the air and then release
and start the motor. That would make for inexpensive launches from
practically any large field or small airport.

My main interest is for those days when the clouds are at such a distance
from the airport that a land out is a good prospect and I don't always have
a crew available. Also safe fields are far apart in central New Mexico.


"gotovkotzepkoi" wrote in
message ...

It is my understanding that the Lak with the FES cannot really safely
self launch. What is your view on this? There does not seem to be any
independend assessment of this out there. The concept is so simple and
elegant. It would be wonderful if one could get a good self launcher out
of it.




--
gotovkotzepkoi

I'm guessing here to give you a quick response but I'll check with the
factory before being specific.

I would think that any glider with a circular cross section where the nose
is cut off for the installation would be a good candidate for a FES
installation. Without a circular cross section, the fuselage could be
reshaped in that area, but I wouldn't consider that an elegant solution.

I would also guess that the factory currently has only done this
installation on the LAK-17a and -17b and so only has installation data and
experience for those models.

What glider do you have?


"Ramy" wrote in message
...
Are LAK's the only gliders which can be modified?

Ramy

They will also caution you as to Max Weight of non-lifting components. There is a battery to be added, as well as the motor. Positioned to hopefully keep the CG the same as it was before. But, when I was asking at the convention about the installation (as it would go very nicely in an HP-11. Lots of prop clearance, too!), about all I got from them was "You must be very careful about the maximum weight of non-lifting parts." This may well keep several designs from having the FES retrofitted.

Steve

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:06:03 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
They will also caution you as to Max Weight of non-lifting components. There is a battery to be added, as well as the motor. Positioned to hopefully keep the CG the same as it was before. But, when I was asking at the convention about the installation (as it would go very nicely in an HP-11. Lots of prop clearance, too!), about all I got from them was "You must be very careful about the maximum weight of non-lifting parts." This may well keep several designs from having the FES retrofitted.



Steve

They suggest on their website that the ASW-19 is suitable. However, they
point out that they add 45kg to the fuselage. For my particular plane, which
weighs 582lbs empty and is limited to a dry weight of 805lbs because of
non-lifting weight limit, that would reduce my plane down to a payload of
124lbs. The last time I was that light was in elementary school!

Nonetheless this is an outstanding achievement.

-- Matt

Dear glider pilots,

FES was designed as sustainer but proved much better than expected. With some additional improvements which we performed LAK17A FES can safely selflaunch from concrete runway as there is about 17cm propeller clearance which is more than enough. We newer had a problem as it is practicly not necesery to lift tail, and there is no moment to nose, so it is very simple. Acceleration on flaps 0 or -1, at 80km/h just move flaps to +1/+2 and start climbing. Initial acceleration (with 3 bars of preasure on main whell) and climb rate at 22kW is good (more than 2,5m/s) as you can see on a few published movies!

I succesfully performed selflaunch with LAK17A FES also from grass! If grass has holes and is not long and smooth enough is better to use combination of autotow like on movie, or even better winching.

In Europe we are woking on EASA certification of LAK17 as sustainer. This is hard enough. I believe that in future with some more development and impovements 18m glider could be certified also as selflauncher.

For light sailplanes like Silent, FES is already very suitable for selflaunch. Accerelation and climb rate is better that version with combustion engine.
You can read on Alisport website about 1000km adventure flight along Italy, from North to South with only 12 minutes of motor run.

Regards,

Luka


Dne �etrtek, 20. september 2012 04:11:28 UTC+2 je oseba gotovkotzepkoi napisala:
It is my understanding that the Lak with the FES cannot really safely

self launch. What is your view on this? There does not seem to be any

independend assessment of this out there. The concept is so simple and

elegant. It would be wonderful if one could get a good self launcher out

of it.









--

gotovkotzepkoi

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:24:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
According to the FAA aircraft registry, there are 20 LAK-17a registered in

the USA.



I've been talking with Luca at the FES factory and he has offered what looks

to like a good deal to have the FES installed in our ships. He will come to

this country to do the installations if we will pay for expenses. His

proposal amounts to approximately $28K per installation all inclusive

provided we have a minimum of four (4) ships.



I know the price will be higher for fewer ships so I would expect that it

would be marginally less for more ships due to expenses being spread

thinner.



Is there any interest among the LAK-17 or -19 owners to have the FES factory

come to the USA to modify our ships?



Please reply to the author or post replies here.

If this can be done on the ASW24B, I am a definite prospect!

On Sep 20, 9:06*am, Steve Leonard wrote:
...(as it would go very nicely in an HP-11. *Lots of prop clearance, too!)...

Steve you're probably aware that the HP-11 was originally designed in
1962 or so to have a small engine in the nose. You can see the hazy
outline in the three-view drawing in the original plans set where Dick
erased the propeller. Unfortunately, the idea was way ahead of its
time, and engines of the right size with the requisite horsepower did
not appear for another thirty years or so and electric power was just
a gleam in Tom Swift's eye.

But, yeah, your primary point is well taken. With both the battery and
the motor in the fuselage it is a concern that the maximum non-lifting
weight dictated by wing bending moment could be exceeded. Most
European gliders come from the factory with that value specified. For
other gliders a bit of engineering might be required to come up with a
reasonable value based on the maximum gross weight and the specified
or intended weight of the wing panels.

Thanks, Bob K.