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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
ASH 26E VS DG 808C
Gary Evans wrote:
[discussing the cost of a total engine replacement] While the major 26 engine parts may cost $8k Euro a replacement engine can cost $17k US as one unhappy owner found out the hard way. I sure hope it isn't a common problem, because that would bankrupt a lot of people. A replacement Solo engine costs about $8K, according to the DG dealer. If I were looking at buying one of these gliders and wanted to factor in the potential for a total engine replacement, I'd add $1K to $2K to price of the ASH 26 E, and use that number in my considerations. I wouldn't add the whole $9K difference because I think it's unlikely I'd need to replace engine, but a prospective owner should choose whatever amount he can be comfortable with. I understand that a belt break which stops the water pump results in almost instant over heating which can fry the engine resulting in one of those big bills but as long as you constantly watch the temp gauge and keep one hand on the off switch that shouldn't be a big issue. When two belts break at the same meet however I would no longer call it an unusual occurrence. The belts that broke at the Parowan camp were the propeller drive belts, not the fan belt (the water pump is driven directly by the engine - no belt). The drive belts on the 26 E fleet did not break for many years (for example, mine is 12 years old and has 114 hours on it), but a few of newest gliders have had this happen. We've been told that Gates, the belt manufacturer, changed the construction of the belts about three years ago, and the consequences of that change are now surfacing. Schleicher tells us they will correct this situation. In the meantime, pilots are cautioned to use the handbook procedure for starting the engine, and avoid "pumping" the throttle or the primer when the engine is running slowly. So far, there haven't been any belts break during an in-flight restart. As not all may know, some of the Solo engine systems have also suffered from propeller drive belts breaking, and Ventus/Nimbus self-launchers had (perhaps still have) a 20 hour life limit on the belt. I don't know the exact situation for DG, but they had similar problems. It's my understanding there are also changes in their starting procedure that reduce the problem, and some mechanical changes that may/will eliminate the problem. Gary can inform us on this. Fortunately, the Solo belt breakage was also always on the ground and not in the air (to my knowledge). Interesting that DG's engine management system which automated the process beyond the 26 would be viewed as unnecessary like the parking option on the new Lexus. I guess that means that all development should have just stopped with the 26. Hmmm! As a former electrical engineer that used to help automate processes, I'm all in favor of automation; however, the 26 E system is so simple and reliable, I've not wanted Schleicher to change it. Ps. As I said before IMO both of these ships are good choices but both have advantages and disadvantages. Were that not the case one of these two manufactures would have been out of business by now. You can measure how well DG is doing by the sales volume and innovations. I assume Schleicher is doing as well. You pay your money and take your choice. I do suggest interested buyers research beyond owners opinions as they (we) tend to be a tad biased as you may have noticed. A big problem is it's rare for a pilot to have significant time in BOTH gliders, so he can offer an informed comparison. I urge any prospective owner that is interested in a particular glider but concerned (or particularly interested) about some aspect of it to discuss it with the dealer, and ultimately with factory if the dealer's response isn't enough. These are low volume manufacturers providing expensive, complex machines, so you are more like a partner in the operation than just a customer walking out of Wal-Mart with a toaster under your arm. I've had these conversations with Schleicher over 20 years of owning first an ASW 20 and now the ASH 26 E, so I've got a lot of confidence in the ability and will of the people at Schleicher to provide a good glider, and to make things right if they go wrong. That's the bias on my part, because I'm not nearly so familiar with the crew at DG. DG pilots likely have the opposite experience. So, talk to the owners, the dealer, the factory, maybe the folks that repair them, look carefully at the glider (and be sure to sit in it), and consider that you'll probably be happy with your choice because you won't know what you missed! -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
ASH 26E VS DG 808C
On Oct 28, 2:12 pm, Gary Evans wrote: While the major 26 engine parts may cost $8k Euro a replacement engine can cost $17k US as one unhappy owner found out the hard way. I sure hope it isn't a common problem, because that would bankrupt a lot of people. Proper maintenance and adherance to operationg procedures are likely all that is needed to prevent an engine replacement. Consider the cost of an annual inspection of a typical airplane with a 150 or so HP Lycoming or Continental engine. I choose to pull the engine on my '26E at each annual so we can inspect and clean it with some cleanser and rags. I also clean out the engine bay. This adds about 4 hours to the inspection, but it still takes less than a day. When two belts break at the same meet however I would no longer call it an unusual occurrence. Both these ships had less than 10 hours on the belt/engine. As Bumper said, it appears that Gates "improved" the belt for its typicall application, but this change somehow made it more "brittle" in the Schleicher installation. The problem is under investigation, but I don't know the current state. Interesting that DG's engine management system which automated the process beyond the 26 would be viewed as unnecessary like the parking option on the new Lexus. I guess that means that all development should have just stopped with the 26. Hmmm! I doubt it... My wife and I have manual transmissions on our crew truck as well as our daily cars, and IMP, the DEI provides about as much perceived improvement as an automatic transmission would. I also think that Schleicher would rather not spend time and MONEY making minor changes that require regulatory approvals. There are a fw simple things that could be dont to the ILEC controller, but I understand that even a firmware update to add a new feature is an expensive proposition. I know for a fact that you have this flaw so it must have been especially painful when you realized there were so many areas for improvement in your 26. I'm sure Kemp was exaggerating when he said you've made 1000 changes but exactly how many changes have you made? From what I've gleaned in various email posts he's made to our owners mailing list, most of the changes are very minor - which include the quiet vent, super yawstring, something similar to the Piggott hook, revolution counter to better keep track of oil consumption, and improved springs for the steerable tailwheel. He's also rigged a neat pneumatic switch, and built a special dolly for towing the ship sideways from his hangar to the runway. Ps. As I said before IMO both of these ships are good choices but both have advantages and disadvantages. Were that not the case one of these two manufactures would have been out of business by now. You can measure how well DG is doing by the sales volume and innovations. I assume Schleicher is doing as well. You pay your money and take your choice. I do suggest interested buyers research beyond owners opinions as they (we) tend to be a tad biased as you may have noticed. Absolutely! -Tom |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Antares 20E vs. ASH 26E VS DG 808C
On Oct 28, 8:09 pm, Stewart Kissel wrote: Or put another way... a new selflauncher=towplane, 10 year old glider and hangar? Unfortunately, the dollar is doing poorly against the euro... I hear a new ASH-26E ready to fly with instruments and Cobra trailer is pushing $200K. Just the trailer will buy a decent used sailplane... But, in the last 22 years, I've owned 2 other sailplanes, and was able to sell each for the same amount as I had originally paid. So the real cost of owning such a ship is pretty much insurance and maintenance, as the purchase price can generally be recoveredduring the sale of the ship. -Tom |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Antares 20E vs. ASH 26E VS DG 808C
5Z wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:09 pm, Stewart Kissel wrote: Or put another way... a new selflauncher=towplane, 10 year old glider and hangar? Unfortunately, the dollar is doing poorly against the euro... I hear a new ASH-26E ready to fly with instruments and Cobra trailer is pushing $200K. Just the trailer will buy a decent used sailplane... But, in the last 22 years, I've owned 2 other sailplanes, and was able to sell each for the same amount as I had originally paid. So the real cost of owning such a ship is pretty much insurance and maintenance, as the purchase price can generally be recoveredduring the sale of the ship. If you don't require a 50:1, 18 meter self-launcher, but could be happy with a 40:1 15 meter self-launcher, take a look at the Apis and Silent offerings, which were under $100K the last time I looked. For a two seater, the Taurus looks attractive, but it's more money (not $200K though!). -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
ASH 26E VS DG 808C
At 03:36 29 October 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:
The belts that broke at the Parowan camp were the propeller drive belts, not the fan belt (the water pump is driven directly by the engine - no belt). The drive belts on the 26 E fleet did not break for many years (for example, mine is 12 years old and has 114 hours on it), but a few of newest gliders have had this happen. We've been told that Gates, the belt manufacturer, changed the construction of the belts about three years ago, and the consequences of that change are now surfacing. Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly 'Transponders in Sailplanes' on the Soaring Safety Foundation website www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html 'A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation' at www.motorglider.org The Gates Poly Chain belts are the best you can buy and in properly designed drives will last a long long time as demonstrated by their use for driving camshafts in automobiles for 100,000 miles. In spite of their strength they have been broken in both DG and ASH drive systems but possibly for different reasons. What the belts do not like are shock loads and the internal cords can easily be damaged by something as simple as improper storage. The belt failures on DG’s are thought to be caused by shock loads imposed during starting/low rpm where the power pulses are most uneven. On the DG's the best prevention is to minimize the shock loads by getting past the low rpm phase as quickly as possible and optimizing cold start fuel delivery. The ASH failures may be due to another problem that being storage. The gates preventive maintenance manual clearly states that the stored belts should not be subjected to bending beyond that which is defined as the minimum pulley diameter as it may damage internal cording resulting in premature failure. The belts are obviously designed to be used in a straight line without twisting which may be the reason why twisting is not specifically identified as something to be avoided in the Gates manual. The ASH drive system puts a 90-degree bend into the belts when the engine is stowed into a relatively hot environment. If you explained these failures to a Gates engineer and showed them the drive design they may point out that twisting in heated storage could be a contributing factor. See we do have some things in common. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
ASH 26E VS DG 808C
Gary Evans wrote:
The ASH failures may be due to another problem that being storage. The gates preventive maintenance manual clearly states that the stored belts should not be subjected to bending beyond that which is defined as the minimum pulley diameter as it may damage internal cording resulting in premature failure. The belts are obviously designed to be used in a straight line without twisting which may be the reason why twisting is not specifically identified as something to be avoided in the Gates manual. The ASH drive system puts a 90-degree bend into the belts when the engine is stowed into a relatively hot environment. If you explained these failures to a Gates engineer and showed them the drive design they may point out that twisting in heated storage could be a contributing factor. I have no knowledge of what Schleicher's discussions with Gates have been; however, the ASH belt breaking problem is a recent one. Older belts don't break - it's the NEW belts that are breaking. My belt is 12 years old, the engine has 114 hours on it, and at least 600 starts. When I discussed belt life with Martin Heide (the "H" in ASH) about 3 years ago (which was before the current problem), he said several 26 Es had been in the shop for the 250 hour motor inspection, and all belts were in good condition. It could be the twisting has become a problem due to the change in belt construction that Schleicher says has caused the recent problems, but I doubt it. When a belt breaks with only 5 or 10 hours on it, it doesn't seem long enough for degradation to occur. I suspect the culprit is also shock loading, but that's speculation on my part, since I haven't discussed it with the factory or Gates. In any case, a prospective buyer might want to discuss the issue with Schleicher, and remember that a glider ordered now won't be delivered for many months, during which the problem is likely to be solved, if it isn't already. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Antares 20E vs. ASH 26E VS DG 808C
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
ASH 26E VS DG 808C
"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message news:B341h.1741$B44.1220@trndny07... Gary Evans wrote: The ASH failures may be due to another problem that being storage. The gates preventive maintenance manual clearly states that the stored belts should not be subjected to bending beyond that which is defined as the minimum pulley diameter as it may damage internal cording resulting in premature failure. The belts are obviously designed to be used in a straight line without twisting which may be the reason why twisting is not specifically identified as something to be avoided in the Gates manual. The ASH drive system puts a 90-degree bend into the belts when the engine is stowed into a relatively hot environment. If you explained these failures to a Gates engineer and showed them the drive design they may point out that twisting in heated storage could be a contributing factor. I have no knowledge of what Schleicher's discussions with Gates have been; however, the ASH belt breaking problem is a recent one. Older belts don't break - it's the NEW belts that are breaking. My belt is 12 years old, the engine has 114 hours on it, and at least 600 starts. When I discussed belt life with Martin Heide (the "H" in ASH) about 3 years ago (which was before the current problem), he said several 26 Es had been in the shop for the 250 hour motor inspection, and all belts were in good condition. It could be the twisting has become a problem due to the change in belt construction that Schleicher says has caused the recent problems, but I doubt it. When a belt breaks with only 5 or 10 hours on it, it doesn't seem long enough for degradation to occur. I suspect the culprit is also shock loading, but that's speculation on my part, since I haven't discussed it with the factory or Gates. In any case, a prospective buyer might want to discuss the issue with Schleicher, and remember that a glider ordered now won't be delivered for many months, during which the problem is likely to be solved, if it isn't already. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org Is the ASH-26 a Walter Binder installation design? It seems so different than the other Retract-Engine Sailplanes. Hartley Falbaum DG800B "KF" |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
ASH 26E VS DG 808C
HL Falbaum wrote:
"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message news:B341h.1741$B44.1220@trndny07... Gary Evans wrote: The ASH failures may be due to another problem that being storage. The gates preventive maintenance manual clearly states that the stored belts should not be subjected to bending beyond that which is defined as the minimum pulley diameter as it may damage internal cording resulting in premature failure. The belts are obviously designed to be used in a straight line without twisting which may be the reason why twisting is not specifically identified as something to be avoided in the Gates manual. The ASH drive system puts a 90-degree bend into the belts when the engine is stowed into a relatively hot environment. If you explained these failures to a Gates engineer and showed them the drive design they may point out that twisting in heated storage could be a contributing factor. I have no knowledge of what Schleicher's discussions with Gates have been; however, the ASH belt breaking problem is a recent one. Older belts don't break - it's the NEW belts that are breaking. My belt is 12 years old, the engine has 114 hours on it, and at least 600 starts. When I discussed belt life with Martin Heide (the "H" in ASH) about 3 years ago (which was before the current problem), he said several 26 Es had been in the shop for the 250 hour motor inspection, and all belts were in good condition. It could be the twisting has become a problem due to the change in belt construction that Schleicher says has caused the recent problems, but I doubt it. When a belt breaks with only 5 or 10 hours on it, it doesn't seem long enough for degradation to occur. I suspect the culprit is also shock loading, but that's speculation on my part, since I haven't discussed it with the factory or Gates. In any case, a prospective buyer might want to discuss the issue with Schleicher, and remember that a glider ordered now won't be delivered for many months, during which the problem is likely to be solved, if it isn't already. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org Is the ASH-26 a Walter Binder installation design? It seems so different than the other Retract-Engine Sailplanes. Hartley Falbaum DG800B "KF" IIRC, Binder does the Solo-based DG and SH designs, and I think some others (maybe Eta and the ASH-25 EB derivative he produces)... I don't think he's involved with the Midwest installations in Schleicher products. Antares was developed entirely independently of the other designs. Best Regards, Dave |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|