Which 18m FES sailplane to buy?

Big cooling fans running at high speed.

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:14:37 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
That's a good point. Dave Nadlers Anteres 20e is for sale and is ready to go. Probably not much more than a new FES -8 meter glider (maybe less). Self launch, etc. Might be worth a peek!

I certainly considered it. The Antares 20E is my dream machine. Dave was of the opinion that it's not suitable for a low-time pilot, I guess because of the need to handle the possibility of the motor not starting and the motor pylon failing to retract. Also, because of the increased complexity of a self launcher in general. I have reservations about Lange as a company, too.. There are rumors of lawsuits against them and their US distributor just quit. It's a pity because the Antares 20E is an amazing machine. I hope another manufacturer steps up and builds a new electric 18m self launcher. Electric power just makes so much sense for sailplanes.

While some FES equipped true gliders can self launch given a
long enough runway (and ignoring various legal factors) this
leaves the batteries depleted so there is no real retrieve
capacity remaining.
The only realistic self launch/FES mix is the Silent Electro at
13.5m so it isn't the answer to the original question.
My understanding is that Lange Aviation (Antares 20/23E)
don't see an electric (turbo) option (FES or otherwise) as a
realistic product. Their Solo engined Antares 18T should allow
pilots to retrieve from the wrong end of a failed 750K + flight.
To achieve electric long range retrieve needs very large
batteries; back to Antares 20E size, weight and cost.

Not sure I agree with their view; I think FES is a good product;
future sales will tell the story

Self launchers are another matter and perhaps best not mixed
with a FES discussion?

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:42:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:14:37 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
...Dave Nadler's Antares 20e is for sale and is ready to go...

I certainly considered it. The Antares 20E is my dream machine.
Dave was of the opinion that it's not suitable for a low-time pilot,
I guess because of the need to handle the possibility of the motor
not starting and the motor pylon failing to retract. Also, because
of the increased complexity of a self launcher in general.

To repeat what I said to Ben:

The Antares is a VERY easy machine to fly, with failure modes
(especially sink with pylon out and motor stopped) more benign
than anything except FES (but Antares has fewer controls!).

Ben informed me he has 50 hours experience, with
no experience in high performance or with flaps.
Please no offense, but you're discussing the merits of various
models, with a guy just received driver's permit,
in the Ferrari showroom.

50 hours is IMHO no where near enough to be considering motorized
gliders and certainly not self-launchers. FIRST get a 100 or 200
hours of experience in high-performance, including XC and a few
out-landings, THEN get the self-launch training and endorsement.

A seriously motivated person can do this quickly by booking continuous
training courses at any number of advanced operations (available
certainly in Europe, Oz, not in USA this time of year). Certainly
I know folks that have gone from zero to complex gliders including
self-launch quickly and safely this way. Flying with most clubs
it will be VERY hard to quickly get up to the level of experience
needed to be safe in advanced machines (even in the few USA clubs
with the appropriate equipment and instructors). No disrespect
to Ben's club either, and I'd love to see it work, but truly...

Hope this helps clear some of the fog,
and Ben hope you have a blast learning,
Best Regards, Dave

Dave is spot on....My LAK-17B FES did self-launch at the factory (near sea level on a cool day), but the FES on the LAK-17B is meant to be ONLY used as a sustainer. In the Flight Manual they are very specific on several pages by saying:

"LAK-17B FES is a self-sustaining powered sailplane and is prohibited from taking off solely by means of it's own power."

Also, to back-up Dave's comment, I always joke with folks that even if I could self-launch, I would not because I do want to save every "volt" in case I need to self-retrieve.

On another question by another individual on cockpit cooling, the nose vent in the LAK works perfectly fine just like any other nose vent. When the motor is running it also allows the airflow to help cool the motor (along with the electric cooling fans).

Finally, to answer the question on how warm it gets in the cockpit when running....In New Mexico, on a 92 deg day summer at 7,000 msl with the motor running, it can get warm. With all of the air vents open and the motor running at cruise speed it is very manageable, but I do shut it down once I contact a thermal, or once I have an airport within gliding distance.

Thanks - Renny




On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 12:30:07 PM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
While some FES equipped true gliders can self launch given a
long enough runway (and ignoring various legal factors) this
leaves the batteries depleted so there is no real retrieve
capacity remaining.
The only realistic self launch/FES mix is the Silent Electro at
13.5m so it isn't the answer to the original question.
My understanding is that Lange Aviation (Antares 20/23E)
don't see an electric (turbo) option (FES or otherwise) as a
realistic product. Their Solo engined Antares 18T should allow
pilots to retrieve from the wrong end of a failed 750K + flight.
To achieve electric long range retrieve needs very large
batteries; back to Antares 20E size, weight and cost.

Not sure I agree with their view; I think FES is a good product;
future sales will tell the story

Self launchers are another matter and perhaps best not mixed
with a FES discussion?

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 11:24:13 AM UTC-8, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:42:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:14:37 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
...Dave Nadler's Antares 20e is for sale and is ready to go...

I certainly considered it. The Antares 20E is my dream machine.
Dave was of the opinion that it's not suitable for a low-time pilot,
I guess because of the need to handle the possibility of the motor
not starting and the motor pylon failing to retract. Also, because
of the increased complexity of a self launcher in general.

To repeat what I said to Ben:

The Antares is a VERY easy machine to fly, with failure modes
(especially sink with pylon out and motor stopped) more benign
than anything except FES (but Antares has fewer controls!).

Ben informed me he has 50 hours experience, with
no experience in high performance or with flaps.
Please no offense, but you're discussing the merits of various
models, with a guy just received driver's permit,
in the Ferrari showroom.

50 hours is IMHO no where near enough to be considering motorized
gliders and certainly not self-launchers. FIRST get a 100 or 200
hours of experience in high-performance, including XC and a few
out-landings, THEN get the self-launch training and endorsement.

A seriously motivated person can do this quickly by booking continuous
training courses at any number of advanced operations (available
certainly in Europe, Oz, not in USA this time of year). Certainly
I know folks that have gone from zero to complex gliders including
self-launch quickly and safely this way. Flying with most clubs
it will be VERY hard to quickly get up to the level of experience
needed to be safe in advanced machines (even in the few USA clubs
with the appropriate equipment and instructors). No disrespect
to Ben's club either, and I'd love to see it work, but truly...

Hope this helps clear some of the fog,
and Ben hope you have a blast learning,
Best Regards, Dave

Dave, I agree that most motorized gliders are not suitable for a new pilot, but if you're saying that glider with a FES sustainer (non-self-launching) isn't appropriate for a new pilot, I'm afraid I disagree. The FES system could not be simpler to operate. If it fails to run in flight, it adds no additional pilot workload the way a pylon mounted motor would. It does not make the aircraft more difficult to fly, or add any meaningful amount of risk.. In fact, by avoiding outlandings, I think it will reduce the risk I'm exposing myself to by flying sailplanes.

If you're simply objecting to me buying a high performance sailplane with 50 hours of experience, then please read my previous posts. By the time I take delivery of one of these high performance gliders, I will have accumulated a decent amount of experience in my club's high performance gliders. If I'm qualified to fly my club's high performance gliders, I don't see why I wouldn't be qualified to fly my own high performance glider, FES or not.

May I suggest a different concept?
What would be wrong with ordering something like a "Ventus 3 FES" (it won't be called that) and while you're waiting buy and fly a more simple flying machine like an older Discus, LS4 or 7, ASW19, Pegase, etc? You can sell that when the new ship is on the way. At that point you'll be flying a superb new FES glider with a much more experienced approach. Experience might mean having landed out a few times, damaging it while rigging, who knows, but perhaps less stress to learn on the less expensive glider and it's all good for you in the end.
Jim

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 3:15:57 PM UTC-8, JS wrote:
May I suggest a different concept?
What would be wrong with ordering something like a "Ventus 3 FES" (it won't be called that) and while you're waiting buy and fly a more simple flying machine like an older Discus, LS4 or 7, ASW19, Pegase, etc? You can sell that when the new ship is on the way. At that point you'll be flying a superb new FES glider with a much more experienced approach. Experience might mean having landed out a few times, damaging it while rigging, who knows, but perhaps less stress to learn on the less expensive glider and it's all good for you in the end.
Jim

Sure, but why buy an older glider when I can fly my club's gliders? Are you thinking I'll be able to get more flying time in my own ship? My club has an ample stable that includes a DG-1000, DG-505 and two Pegasi that barely get used. So far, getting a glider when I want one hasn't been a problem.

Le mardi 8 décembre 2015 17:36:06 UTC-5, a écrit*:
I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane, and would like to hear thoughts and opinions about the various options available. I'm seeking a cross country machine with long legs and a highly reliable sustainer. An 18m FES sailplane should fit that requirement nicely.

I'm a somewhat green pilot, but in the year or so before a new glider could be manufactured and delivered, I will have accumulated some more experience in my club's DG-505 and DG-1000. I have eliminated the Ventus 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the following gliders that are available with a FES system:

- Discus 2c
- Lak-17B
- HpH 304S Shark

All three appear to have similar performance, as best I can tell from published data. I don't plan to be racing any time soon, so a difference of a few points in best glide ratio is not significant to me.

According to the flight reports that I've read, all three feature docile handling that should not be a problem for a low-time pilot. The Lak-17B and HpH Shark have flaps. I have thoroughly researched the apparently controversial issue of whether flapped ships are suitable for low-time pilots, and am convinced that they are more of an asset than a liability.

In the interests of staying on topic, let's not make this thread about flaps or the FES. These topics have already been thoroughly discussed on RAS. Please start a new thread or add to an old thread if you wish to discuss further.

I'll list some of the pros and cons of each ship that I can see, but would love to hear if anyone disagrees with them, or has anything to add.

Discus 2c
- Pros: Reputation for excellent handling. Optional GRS. Possibly higher resale value and ease of selling due to its popularity.
- Cons: No flaps.

Lak-17B
- Pros: Lower cost (better value) than the other two. Half the lead time of the other two (6 vs 12 mo).
- Cons: No safety cockpit.

HpH Shark
- Pros: Good looking (purely my opinion).
- Cons: Every flight review I've read says it handles well but... every reviewer had at least one negative thing to say about the handling. Hard to draw conclusions, but some doubt as been cast in my mind.

By now it may be clear which one I'm leaning toward. However, I wouldn't have posted this if my mind wasn't open to others' opinions, so I welcome and appreciate your thoughts. In the end, the decision will come down to what's most important to me: safety and handling. I guess what I'm really seeking is a double-check on my thinking regarding this rather significant purchase.

Cheers,
Ben

Hi

I witness a LAK 17b FES 21 meter termination of the tow at tree top,about 25 meters high. No place to land.

The pilot turn the motor on flew away found a thermal and came back 5 hours
later.

Any other glider would have been destroyed.

On Friday, 11 December 2015 00:23:42 UTC, wrote:

I witness a LAK 17b FES 21 meter termination of the tow at tree top,about 25 meters high. No place to land.

The pilot turn the motor on flew away found a thermal and came back 5 hours
later.

Any other glider would have been destroyed.

I wonder what the point was of doing that. By the time you have queued for an aerotow, and paid anything for it, you have lost all the benefit of having a self launcher. So why on earth accept even the admittedly very small risk of a problem with the FES, instead of holding onto the aerotow up to a height for a comfortable landing back on the airfield if the FES does not perform?