A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FES underpowered for 18m ship?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 15th 20, 03:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default FES underpowered for 18m ship?

Dave Walsh wrote on 9/15/2020 2:39 AM:
A real problem is putting the word "KISS" and "FES" is the same
sentence or indeed "KISS" and "electric propulsion".
There is nothing simple about electric motors powered by LiPo batteries.

It should be obvious the "KISS" remark refers to a comparison with other means of
propulsion, and not to a sailplane without a motor. Based on my experience with a
mast mounted combustion engine and discussions with owners of FES gliders, I
believe the FES system is less complex to own and operate.

And, as we all know, a motorless glider has it's own complexities, such as getting
tow when and where desired, and needing a retrieve if it doesn't get home.

--
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
  #32  
Old September 15th 20, 04:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
kinsell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 546
Default FES underpowered for 18m ship?

On 9/15/20 6:38 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-4, kinsell wrote:
From the mini-Lak brochure on lak.it:
"The FES propulsion system has no known reports of in-flight failures,
allowing you to stay confident in areas of no-lift."


That's just Nonsense. I know of an instance where the controller failed while
FES was under power and the engine quit. I hardly hear about all problems,
surely there have been others...


Of course it's nonsense, but if you tell people exactly what they want
to hear, they gobble it up. Red meat for the base.

The Silent 2 that went through the roof in Connecticut made quite a
splash, I'd call that an inflight failure. Apparently if a battery
explodes on landing roll, that doesn't count as "in flight".

People say motors have been around forever, that's true. But inverters
that take high-voltage DC, convert it to three-phase power at over 25KW
using transistors, and doing it with limited space and cooling, well
that's not something you run down to Grainger to pick up.

I'm not familiar with the FES accident referenced by the OP, would like
more data on that.

-Dave
  #33  
Old September 15th 20, 04:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default FES underpowered for 18m ship?

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 10:02:12 AM UTC-4, Kenn Sebesta wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 5:45:05 AM UTC-4, Dave Walsh wrote:
A real problem is putting the word "KISS" and "FES" is the same
sentence or indeed "KISS" and "electric propulsion".
There is nothing simple about electric motors powered by LiPo batteries..


I couldn't disagree more. Electric motors are amazingly simple and reliable, and LiPo batteries-- in general-- are extremely safe. The issue arises when you start pushing the technology to its maturity limits. At the power/weight/energy limits we want for the gliders we start making compromises which push into research territory. However, that is a far cry from assuming there is anything complex about the system. We just don't know how to use industrial-grade COTS parts to make the glider's system as light as we desire, so we wind up having to have some bespoke parts. The bespoke parts aren't as well tested because the fleet is small, and this is where problems creep in.

The motors themselves have 0 problems and a 20-30kW motor is tiny in the scheme of industrial COTS motors.


Given your apparent claimed knowledge could you please list available COT components and sources for such a glider.
Motor 25 kw
Controller
Interface
Battery system with BMS and charging system
How hard could it be?
UH
  #34  
Old September 15th 20, 05:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default FES underpowered for 18m ship?

Again, this depends on where you fly. I fly out of Truckee usually, and a typical retrieve is from Carson City as I mentioned. It is only 20 miles away, but with a 4000 ft high ridge in between. 100% of the pilots flying cross country out of Truckee will have this problem eventually. It isn't dangerous - a perfectly good airport at Carson - but electric sustainers in their current state of development will not support that retrieve, but an ICE will. There are countless other similar examples in the Great Basin area of a "deep valley with limited exit" - and a good landing site at the bottom. If you don't fly over these, you don't fly in this area. That is not to say the electric isn't useful (and I didn't say that), just that it has limitations in some terrain that the ICE may not (as in the Alps example mentioned above).

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:53:30 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
In order to climb out of deep valley with limited exit is problem that 99% of pilots will never have, and those 1% should reconsider another sport. This is not a problem meant to be solved with tiny engines.

  #35  
Old September 15th 20, 07:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Ramy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 601
Default FES underpowered for 18m ship?

John, for the Carson relight you are correct if one waits until pattern altitude at Carson. However the strategy should be to relight over spooner the moment you down to your minimum altitude, say 9K. You will need a short run and only 1-2K climb to get to a safe final glide altitude. If you run out of battery before hand you can escape back to Carson.
At least this is what I would do if I have FES.

Ramy
  #36  
Old September 15th 20, 07:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Nadler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,610
Default FES underpowered for 18m ship?

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 4:00:32 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
...I believe both the PSA jets and the JS jets have approximately
the same climb altitude, ~1500m, and range ~110km?


Paul Mander figured the utility of the jets in his ASH-25J were
about equivalent to electric (heavy load of jet fuel compared
to batteries, by total available climb height). Of course jet
cruises faster.
  #37  
Old September 15th 20, 09:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Paul T[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 259
Default FES underpowered for 18m ship?

At 08:00 15 September 2020, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:30:06 AM UTC+2, Paul T wrote:
Just get a jet turbo far better - wouldn't trust FES for a climb in
mountain
conditions.


How does a jet help? I believe both the PSA jets and the JS jets have
approximately the same climb altitude, ~1500m, and range ~110km? See
http://js3.at/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/JS-

MD_3_Jet_Sustainer_Supplement.pdf

Performance seems about the same, the biggest difference as I can tell is
trading reliability for cruise speed.


A jet will get you out of bad air quicker due to higher cruising speed -
minimally more drag than FES and less when stowed.......simples -JS1 has
250 km range I believe .............. - Anything to say a jet is less
reliable
than FES, where is the data? or just simple speculation from a biased
observer?

  #38  
Old September 15th 20, 09:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Nadler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,610
Default FES underpowered for 18m ship?

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 4:30:06 PM UTC-4, Paul T wrote:
Anything to say a jet is less reliable than FES, where is the data?


A bunch of my friends with jet have had problems (and landouts).
I believe reliability has been improved, but we'll see.
  #39  
Old September 15th 20, 10:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Cumungus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default FES underpowered for 18m ship?

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 11:11:26 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
John, for the Carson relight you are correct if one waits until pattern altitude at Carson. However the strategy should be to relight over spooner the moment you down to your minimum altitude, say 9K. You will need a short run and only 1-2K climb to get to a safe final glide altitude. If you run out of battery before hand you can escape back to Carson.
At least this is what I would do if I have FES.

Ramy


Hi Ramy. Is this what happened last month when you had an FES failure and landed on the golf course in incline?

Something like:
- flies over east lake tahoe
- "getting low, here we go!"
- goes to turn the FES knob
- "dang, did I really leave my FES at the factory?"
- wing meets bush

Just wondering since I can't think of any other plausible explanation to why someone would go where you went at the altitude you were at without some engine or a will to die.
  #40  
Old September 15th 20, 10:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default FES underpowered for 18m ship?

Cumungus wrote on 9/15/2020 2:31 PM:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 11:11:26 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
John, for the Carson relight you are correct if one waits until pattern altitude at Carson. However the strategy should be to relight over spooner the moment you down to your minimum altitude, say 9K. You will need a short run and only 1-2K climb to get to a safe final glide altitude. If you run out of battery before hand you can escape back to Carson.
At least this is what I would do if I have FES.

Ramy


Hi Ramy. Is this what happened last month when you had an FES failure and landed on the golf course in incline?

Something like:
- flies over east lake tahoe
- "getting low, here we go!"
- goes to turn the FES knob
- "dang, did I really leave my FES at the factory?"
- wing meets bush

Just wondering since I can't think of any other plausible explanation to why someone would go where you went at the altitude you were at without some engine or a will to die.

You sound upset. Did Ramy's explanation offend you in some way? I thought he
provided a good description of the situation, which is something we rarely get, as
the pilot is either dead or unwilling to talk.

--
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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thunderbird 4-ship departure - Thunderbirds 4 ship departure sun n fun 2010 (Custom).jpg Glen in Orlando Aviation Photos 0 April 22nd 10 09:10 PM
F-104 Three Ship Glen in Orlando Aviation Photos 0 October 9th 09 07:00 PM
T6 Formation flight with Ship to Ship and ATC COMS - Video [email protected] Piloting 5 September 10th 09 06:09 PM
OT T6 Formation flight with Ship to Ship and ATC COMS - Video A Lieberma[_2_] Owning 0 September 10th 09 12:47 AM
OT - T6 Formation flight with Ship to Ship and ATC COMS - Video [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 0 September 10th 09 12:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.