Antares 18S Maiden Flight

Greg Arnold wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:


Do the sustainer equipped gliders have enough altitude capability to
get over the mountains in the Alps, or does the pilot return by flying
through the valleys?


A very good question. It is my impression that the sustainers really
can't climb at all, and that you need to get a self-launching plane if
you want to get over a mountain.

There hasn't been much talk on RAS about the Apis electric
self-launcher, but it seems that it could work quite well as a
sustainer, and at a price that is much cheaper than the Antares.


A club member's Ventus b 16.6T could climb above 11,000 feet MSL with
his 16.6 tips (I saw him do it).

Shawn

Shawn wrote:
Greg Arnold wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:


Do the sustainer equipped gliders have enough altitude capability to
get over the mountains in the Alps, or does the pilot return by
flying through the valleys?


A very good question. It is my impression that the sustainers really
can't climb at all, and that you need to get a self-launching plane if
you want to get over a mountain.


A club member's Ventus b 16.6T could climb above 11,000 feet MSL with
his 16.6 tips (I saw him do it).

Shawn

Do you know how long it took? At 100 fpm to 200 fpm, it could take a while.

Hey,
Nice writeup in this week's AOPA online mag.

-Tom

Greg Arnold wrote:
Shawn wrote:

Greg Arnold wrote:

Eric Greenwell wrote:


Do the sustainer equipped gliders have enough altitude capability to
get over the mountains in the Alps, or does the pilot return by
flying through the valleys?



A very good question. It is my impression that the sustainers really
can't climb at all, and that you need to get a self-launching plane
if you want to get over a mountain.


A club member's Ventus b 16.6T could climb above 11,000 feet MSL with
his 16.6 tips (I saw him do it).

Shawn


Do you know how long it took? At 100 fpm to 200 fpm, it could take a
while.

I did forget to mention that didn't I? My Bad.

Shawn

5Z wrote:
Shawn wrote:

Greg Arnold wrote:
A club member's Ventus b 16.6T could climb above 11,000 feet MSL with
his 16.6 tips (I saw him do it).


Here in Colorado, that would provide pattern altitude for many of the
areas I fly over!

Leadville. Any other real strips?
He was over Salida BTW.

Shawn

Hi everybody,
The discussion in this thread seems to revolve around
two points, which I feel require adressing.

(1) Antares might be great, but it is too expensive.

-If you look at the bottom line price of the Antares
20E, and then compare it to a similarily equipped glider
from another leading manufacturer, then the price difference
is not that big. As with all state of the art high
performance gliders, the sum which has to be paid is
not insignificant, but compared to other areas of aviation,
or automotive industry for that sake, you get a hell
of a lot of product for the money you pay when you
buy a glider. ..A lot of love goes into these machines.
Furthermore, when money really IS an issue, then one
might want to concider one more point: It might be
a good idea to invest in a toy which maintains a good
resale price. As with most pieces of equipment, this
is not always the 'el-cheapo' version.

(2) Antares 18T should come as an electrical self sustainer.

-The Antares 20E has an electrical propulsion system
because in the view of the designers, an electrical
propulsion system was the propulsion system which
fit the requirements for a self launcher the best.
For a self sustainer, the requirements are entirely
different, and at the current point in time, an internal
combustion system fits the requirements best. If one
today sets out to design an electric self sustainer,
one would basically end up with a Antares 20E with
shorter wings, smaller engine, and possible far to
short range. But most importantly: the price would
be that of the 20E. There is no market for such a plane.


...Just my two pennies worth..

Andor

Andor Holtsmark wrote:

(2) Antares 18T should come as an electrical self sustainer.

-The Antares 20E has an electrical propulsion system because in the
view of the designers, an electrical propulsion system was the
propulsion system which fit the requirements for a self launcher the
best.

I'm wondering how you know the designers' view - did the designers tell
you directly? In any case, I don't think it's the self-launcher that
sets the requirements, but really the customer. As you know, there are
many pilots that prefer the gasoline engine self-launcher because it is
much lighter and has a much greater range.

For a self sustainer, the requirements are entirely different, and at
the current point in time, an internal combustion system fits the
requirements best. If one today sets out to design an electric self
sustainer, one would basically end up with a Antares 20E with shorter
wings,

They have already designed this - the 18 meter model!

smaller engine, and possible far to short range.

It sounds like some pilots would accept the shorter range in exchange
for the simplicity and reliability of an electric system, just as some
pilots have accepted the shorter range of the 20E.

But most importantly: the price would
be that of the 20E. There is no market for such a plane.

With a motor and a battery back one-third the size of the 20E, it would
cheaper; even so, there may not be a large enough market for such a
glider. I am curious: how did the factory decide the market was too
small? World wide pilot survey? Focus group? Wild guess?

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

At 21:54 03 June 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:
I'm wondering how you know the designers' view - did
the designers tell
you directly?

-I happen to be employed as an engineer at a small
company named Lange Flugzeugbau. I did not work there
when the decision was made to go electric, but in my
view it was a correct decision. Please note that what
I write here are my personal opinions, which should
not in any way be mistaken with the official view of
Lange Flugzeugbau.

In any case, I don't think it's the self-launcher that

sets the requirements, but really the customer. As
you know, there are
many pilots that prefer the gasoline engine self-launcher
because it is
much lighter and has a much greater range.

-Self launching is a task. An aircraft is a system
optimized for one or more tasks. Self launching is
a way to get airborne and reach thermaling altitude
easily and with a minimum of hazzle. The 20E performs
this task beautifully. How often do you need 3000 m
climb altitude to enter your first thermal? In my experience,
500-800 m should be enough. This should in most cases
leave you with quite a bit of energy to get home with,
or at least to the nearest airfield.. or if you really
have messed things up, to a landable area. It should
here be noted that if you happen to be high, then an
electrical propulsion system is superior to an internal
combustion based one, since the engine is unaffected
by altitude, and the propeller only is minimally affected.


Now.. If you plan to regularily turn on the engine
and shake for 2-3 hours, then you should buy a Cessna.
The self sustainer concept (in general) was meant as
a way to get home that one day in the year when the
thermals end and you have only flown 800 out of the
planned 1000 km. It was not meant for regular use.



They have already designed this - the 18 meter model!

-The 18m wingtips for the 20E have been removed from
the options list due to lack of costumer interrest.
The 18T will, as previously mentioned utilize a stinky
engine

It sounds like some pilots would accept the shorter
range in exchange
for the simplicity and reliability of an electric system,
just as some
pilots have accepted the shorter range of the 20E.

-I would not base my whole sales strategy on that estimate.

With a motor and a battery back one-third the size
of the 20E, it would
cheaper;

-Motor and battery pack 1/3 the size of the 20E would
yield a very short range, but have a dissapointingly
small effect on the end price of the product. For the
batteries; we have a very good deal with the manufactures.
For the engine; material cost is not the driving factor.
An engine 1/3 the size of the EA42 will not have 1/3
the price. What is also forgotten here, is that the
propulsion system consists of a lot more than just
batteries and engine. All the other systems, like charger,
power electronics and main computer would not be effected
at all by the 1/3 effect.

I am curious: how did the factory decide the market
was too
small? World wide pilot survey? Focus group? Wild guess?

-Tons of experience, logic and deduction I presume


Andor

Andor, since you no longer offer the 18m tips for the 20E, it would seem
there is no reason to keep the junction between the inner and outer wing
panels out toward the tip. Have you considered moving the junction
further inboard so the glider will fit in a shorter trailer?


Andor Holtsmark wrote:
At 21:54 03 June 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:
I'm wondering how you know the designers' view - did
the designers tell
you directly?

-I happen to be employed as an engineer at a small
company named Lange Flugzeugbau. I did not work there
when the decision was made to go electric, but in my
view it was a correct decision. Please note that what
I write here are my personal opinions, which should
not in any way be mistaken with the official view of
Lange Flugzeugbau.

In any case, I don't think it's the self-launcher that

sets the requirements, but really the customer. As
you know, there are
many pilots that prefer the gasoline engine self-launcher
because it is
much lighter and has a much greater range.

-Self launching is a task. An aircraft is a system
optimized for one or more tasks. Self launching is
a way to get airborne and reach thermaling altitude
easily and with a minimum of hazzle. The 20E performs
this task beautifully. How often do you need 3000 m
climb altitude to enter your first thermal? In my experience,
500-800 m should be enough. This should in most cases
leave you with quite a bit of energy to get home with,
or at least to the nearest airfield.. or if you really
have messed things up, to a landable area. It should
here be noted that if you happen to be high, then an
electrical propulsion system is superior to an internal
combustion based one, since the engine is unaffected
by altitude, and the propeller only is minimally affected.


Now.. If you plan to regularily turn on the engine
and shake for 2-3 hours, then you should buy a Cessna.
The self sustainer concept (in general) was meant as
a way to get home that one day in the year when the
thermals end and you have only flown 800 out of the
planned 1000 km. It was not meant for regular use.



They have already designed this - the 18 meter model!

-The 18m wingtips for the 20E have been removed from
the options list due to lack of costumer interrest.
The 18T will, as previously mentioned utilize a stinky
engine

It sounds like some pilots would accept the shorter
range in exchange
for the simplicity and reliability of an electric system,
just as some
pilots have accepted the shorter range of the 20E.

-I would not base my whole sales strategy on that estimate.

With a motor and a battery back one-third the size
of the 20E, it would
cheaper;

-Motor and battery pack 1/3 the size of the 20E would
yield a very short range, but have a dissapointingly
small effect on the end price of the product. For the
batteries; we have a very good deal with the manufactures.
For the engine; material cost is not the driving factor.
An engine 1/3 the size of the EA42 will not have 1/3
the price. What is also forgotten here, is that the
propulsion system consists of a lot more than just
batteries and engine. All the other systems, like charger,
power electronics and main computer would not be effected
at all by the 1/3 effect.

I am curious: how did the factory decide the market
was too
small? World wide pilot survey? Focus group? Wild guess?

-Tons of experience, logic and deduction I presume


Andor

While this discussion (which I continue below) is an interesting one, it
mostly side-steps the RAS response to the announcement that Lange will
offer an 18 M glider with a gas engine sustainer:

Disappointment.

Nobody seemed excited at the idea that yet another 18 M gas engine
sustainer was going into production, probably because you can already
get one from Schleicher, Schempp-Hirth, LAK, and DG. Lange made a
marketing decision, not a technical one, to compete in this (undoubtedly
larger) market with it's many vendors. They could have chosen to offer
an 18 M electric sustainer for what I'm sure is a smaller market, and be
the only vendor, as they did with the Antares.

Andor Holtsmark wrote:

-Self launching is a task. An aircraft is a system
optimized for one or more tasks.Self launching is
a way to get airborne and reach thermaling altitude
easily and with a minimum of hazzle. The 20E performs
this task beautifully.

The Antares is a very desirable glider, and I would be very happy with
it. I love the idea, and that is why the Lange 18 M with a gas engine is
such a disappointment.

How often do you need 3000 m
climb altitude to enter your first thermal?

Perhaps twice a year, but not always to a thermal, but sometimes to
enter a wave.

In my experience,
500-800 m should be enough. This should in most cases
leave you with quite a bit of energy to get home with,
or at least to the nearest airfield..

Almost always, in my experience.

or if you really
have messed things up, to a landable area. It should
here be noted that if you happen to be high, then an
electrical propulsion system is superior to an internal
combustion based one, since the engine is unaffected
by altitude, and the propeller only is minimally affected.


Now.. If you plan to regularily turn on the engine
and shake for 2-3 hours, then you should buy a Cessna.

Or perhaps a Stemme? Or a Carat? My point is "self-launching" does not
set the requirements, but the intended customer. Lange may be correct
that it would not be profitable to market an 18 M electric sustainer. I
hope they are wrong.

The self sustainer concept (in general) was meant as
a way to get home that one day in the year when the
thermals end and you have only flown 800 out of the
planned 1000 km. It was not meant for regular use.

I think this is a very narrow view of what a sustainer can do and how
they are really used. Don't many European pilots often take a winch
launch, then use the sustainer to get to lift 20 or 30 miles away? I
know some pilots (USA and elsewhere) count on the sustainer to get them
home in areas where sea breezes and other effects routinely kill the
soaring near home late in the day. Our club has this problem, and a
sustainer that provided 3000 feet of climb would be plenty to overcome it.

Apis and Silent both offer self-launching electrics with about 1500
meter climb capability. After a typical launch, they would have even
less climb left than the 1000 meters I suggest would be adequate for an
electric sustainer. So, there are designers who seem to think that many
pilots could be happy with much less than 3000 meters to get home!

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"