FES - Take 2

On Monday, October 27, 2014 11:00:11 PM UTC-5, RW wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

no

RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!

Otherwise, no, yes.

Kirk
66

On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:20:04 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

Kirk, I fly SZD55 and my lows are usually 3 times lower than motor-glides,or sustainer gliders.I think you are wrong.
One day we will all have a way to come home safe and fast,maybe FES is the answer.
keRW

All that says is that you are either a more aggressive pilot, or pilots who buy sustainer gliders have a higher "knock it off" threshold due to their greater investment, or that perhaps they bought sustainers so that they don't have to have white-nuckle saves.

We are talking about racing pilots on racing tasks in essentially identically performing gliders.

So please explain why you think I'm wrong.

Cheers,

Kirk
Ls6-b 66 (w/o sustainer)

Assuming both pilots are over a lendable terrain, the motorglider will have to abort higher as it takes much longer to extract the motor and start it. If it does not start, you have a very large airbrake out and that affects performance and hence your landing options. So if the two pilots accept similar level of risk, the one with the motor will break off earlier.

Cheers

Paul


On Saturday, 1 November 2014 03:26:36 UTC+10, kirk.stant wrote:
On Monday, October 27, 2014 11:00:11 PM UTC-5, RW wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

no

RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!

Otherwise, no, yes.

Kirk
66



On Saturday, 1 November 2014 03:26:36 UTC+10, kirk.stant wrote:
On Monday, October 27, 2014 11:00:11 PM UTC-5, RW wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

no

RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!

Otherwise, no, yes.

Kirk
66

The one with the motor has one more option if he doesn't want to give up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also land and relight if he is too low to start the engine.

Ramy

Ramy wrote, On 10/31/2014 8:06 PM:
The one with the motor has one more option if he doesn't want to give
up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also land and
relight if he is too low to start the engine.

Not an option in the "sustainer" context of this thread, unless there is
a tow plane there.


--
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
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

On Friday, October 31, 2014 10:50:22 PM UTC-4, Paul B wrote:
... motorglider will have to abort higher as it takes much longer to extract the motor and start it. If it does not start, you have a very large airbrake out and that affects performance and hence your landing options.

Not in the "FES" aspect of this thread...

Have you seen the video of the LAK-17b FES self-launching? Just keep
the tail wheel on the ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0288vzCSHI

Dan Marotta

On 10/31/2014 11:26 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Ramy wrote, On 10/31/2014 8:06 PM:
The one with the motor has one more option if he doesn't want to give
up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also land and
relight if he is too low to start the engine.

Not an option in the "sustainer" context of this thread, unless there
is a tow plane there.

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:49:44 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:

Sure it does. But who cares? Pure glider racers get all the chicks.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Right on, Evan! Engines are not sexy. Besides, it's no fun if you don't have a good retrieve story every once in a while.

J9 (aka SM Ground)

Dan Marotta wrote, On 11/1/2014 9:30 AM:
Have you seen the video of the LAK-17b FES self-launching? Just keep
the tail wheel on the ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0288vzCSHI

Dan Marotta

On 10/31/2014 11:26 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Ramy wrote, On 10/31/2014 8:06 PM:
The one with the motor has one more option if he doesn't want to give
up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also land and
relight if he is too low to start the engine.

Not an option in the "sustainer" context of this thread, unless there
is a tow plane there.

Would it work at the airports in the Moriarty area in the afternoon on a
contest day? :^( Probably not!

But true, in some situations, self-launching would be an option, and
some motorglider pilots do operate that way, even when they aren't in a
contest.

--
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
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

I don't see why it wouldn't work at Moriarty. There's no degradation in
performance other than that pesky true airspeed thing (prop and wings)
and we have 7,000' x 75' to do your acceleration plus plenty of wind to
help with IAS. I keep trying to convince Renny to do it but, so far,
he's demurred.

Dan Marotta

On 11/1/2014 11:27 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Dan Marotta wrote, On 11/1/2014 9:30 AM:
Have you seen the video of the LAK-17b FES self-launching? Just keep
the tail wheel on the ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0288vzCSHI

Dan Marotta

On 10/31/2014 11:26 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Ramy wrote, On 10/31/2014 8:06 PM:
The one with the motor has one more option if he doesn't want to give
up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also land and
relight if he is too low to start the engine.

Not an option in the "sustainer" context of this thread, unless there
is a tow plane there.

Would it work at the airports in the Moriarty area in the afternoon on
a contest day? :^( Probably not!

But true, in some situations, self-launching would be an option, and
some motorglider pilots do operate that way, even when they aren't in
a contest.