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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Js3 jet catastrophic failure.
On Thursday, 30 August 2018 10:21:58 UTC+3, Mike Borgelt wrote:
Don't forget that the Solo company makes aero engines ... and garden equipment, so your Solo engined glider has an engine derived from lawnmower and leaf blower technology and is made by a company that makes those. They have nothing in common with garden stuff other than name and logo. Would you rather have two stroke engine from manufacturer who has no experience building them for other applications? I would buy sustainer engine from Briggs&Stratton or Honda in heartbeat... |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Js3 jet catastrophic failure.
On 08/30/2018 12:54 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le jeudi 30 août 2018 06:37:11 UTC+2, kinsell a écritÂ*: Actually was a JS1. What i've observed from people flying at a 6000 ft msl airport is those engines will start on the ground, but not in the air. Makes for a poor sustainer, if you ask me. Nonsense. Thank you Mr Anonymous Tango Whisky for your thoughtful in-depth analysis of the situation. I'm sure every JS1 owner who has ever had engine start problems greatly appreciates your input. It's people like you who make R.A.S. such a wonderful community, where information can be freely exchanged without being rudely interrupted by ignorant bozos, who can't believe a problem exists unless they personally have experienced it. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Js3 jet catastrophic failure.
My name is Bert Willing, and your post was nonsense. I know quite a couple of jet owners, and they never had a problem of starting their engins attention altitude.
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Js3 jet catastrophic failure.
Tango Whisky wrote on 8/30/2018 12:32 PM:
My name is Bert Willing, and your post was nonsense. I know quite a couple of jet owners, and they never had a problem of starting their engins attention altitude. I agree with Dave, based on being around several people with jet sustainers at Parowan and Ely, both 6000' msl. Besides the unreliable starting, they don't sustain well at high altitudes because the power is marginal for high density altitudes. A little bit of sink, or a mountain in the way ... We're not saying EVERY jet has a problem, but a substantial fraction seem to. -- 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 - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Js3 jet catastrophic failure.
On Friday, 31 August 2018 03:05:32 UTC+10, krasw wrote:
On Thursday, 30 August 2018 10:21:58 UTC+3, Mike Borgelt wrote: Don't forget that the Solo company makes aero engines ... and garden equipment, so your Solo engined glider has an engine derived from lawnmower and leaf blower technology and is made by a company that makes those. They have nothing in common with garden stuff other than name and logo. Would you rather have two stroke engine from manufacturer who has no experience building them for other applications? I would buy sustainer engine from Briggs&Stratton or Honda in heartbeat... You might actually read my post properly. I said I have no problem with the Solo engines. I was referring to the "model aircraft engine" tag. You could apply the same to Solo as a "leaf blower" engine. You are absolutely sure that the Solo engines aren't built in the same factory by the same machines and people as the garden equipment engines? I would hope they are. I'd rather have a jet engine built by a "model aircraft engine" manufacturer who has nearly 25 years in the business and has built thousands of engines than a "certified" engine built by a manufacturer who doesn't have any previous experience and built what, a few dozens? Mind you the M&D engine looks to have the same compressor and turbine as an AMT Titan and is the same diameter. Funny that. This early in the application of jet engines to gliders I believe certification is dangerous and misleading nonsense. This is EXPERIMENTAL aviation. When the major bugs, shortcomings, maintenance and operational procedures (including best fuel to use) have been worked out (in about 10 years, it might be time to certify these things, however little that concept is worth. Even the authorities in various countries are beginning to realise that certification has hindered any progress towards safer and more efficient aviation at the light end. Modern, state of the art gliders should all be regarded more like record setting or racing vehicles, unlike certified bugsmashers. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Js3 jet catastrophic failure.
I personally helped retrieveing a JS1 which got seriously damaged in a landout following jet failure. I also know at least two more JS1 owners who landed out due to jet failures. In fact, I don’t know any JS1 which did not have jet failure at some point. And this is not limited to JS1. I know of couple more non JS1 jet failures. So no. This is clearly not nonsense.. Looks like jet is not any more reliable than piston.
Ramy |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Js3 jet catastrophic failure.
On Friday, 31 August 2018 12:28:15 UTC+10, Ramy wrote:
I personally helped retrieveing a JS1 which got seriously damaged in a landout following jet failure. I also know at least two more JS1 owners who landed out due to jet failures. In fact, I don’t know any JS1 which did not have jet failure at some point. And this is not limited to JS1. I know of couple more non JS1 jet failures. So no. This is clearly not nonsense. Looks like jet is not any more reliable than piston. Ramy Which engines on the non JS1 failures, Ramy? There appear to be only the engine on the HPH 304 Shark jet which appears to be an AMT Titan and the engine on the PSR system which is an AMT Olympus although they appear to be migrating to the Titan which is a good idea. Best thing with the small jets (and large ones) is not to run at 100%. using a larger engine lets you do that. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Js3 jet catastrophic failure.
El miércoles, 29 de agosto de 2018, 23:46:35 (UTC-3), Charlie Quebec escribió:
In the last east issue of Gliding Australia there is an incident report shown below. During the course of a cross country flight, the pilot elected to start the jet sustainer to self retrieve. The engine started normally, and the pilot tracked for the home airflield The engine failed catastrophically 830ft. AGL and a safe outlanding was conducted. Things that make you go hmmmm... Everything will eventually fail, always. Even the electric motor, that is almost fail proof, will in in time burn a phase or blow a bearing. You have to check the statistics, not the accidents in absolute numbers. Turbines are very "simple" and robust systems. See if you find ratios like: Accident/Hours; Start attempts/Starts made, Land outs/hours. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Js3 jet catastrophic failure.
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 8:42:13 AM UTC-4, Emir Sherbi wrote:
Even the electric motor, that is almost fail proof, will in in time burn a phase or blow a bearing. Or have electronics failures due to less-than-adequate design and testing, grrr... You have to check the statistics, not the accidents in absolute numbers. Turbines are very "simple" and robust systems. See if you find ratios like: Accident/Hours; Start attempts/Starts made, Land outs/hours. It is quite hard to get real statistics. I certainly know of plenty of jet problems from many owners. Most recent serious stats I know of he http://www.nadler.com/public/DeRese_...ilplanes.p df Hope that helps, Best Regards, Dave |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Js3 jet catastrophic failure.
Dave - those statistics are from 2008 so before jets became popular. I think jets will eliminate many of the problems encountered with traditional systems, but the e-systems may eliminate them completely. It will be interesting for the project to be re-run with a decades worth of improvements to the self-launch and particularly sustainer systems.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boyer retires - Catastrophic mission failure | Skylune | Piloting | 4 | July 9th 08 08:49 PM |
Study: High Risk of Catastrophic Runway Collisions in U.S. Airports | BarneyFife | Piloting | 11 | December 8th 07 11:46 AM |
Study: High Risk of Catastrophic Runway Collisions in U.S. Airports | BarneyFife | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | December 5th 07 08:15 PM |
Catastrophic Decompression; Small Place Solo | Aviation | Piloting | 193 | January 13th 04 08:52 PM |