On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 7:46:26 AM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 6:30:28 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
I looked at your email address website (sculptressfashions.com) and
didn't see anything aircraft related.Â* Did I miss something?

Regarding starting your motor or engine at 200' agl dismisses the
possibility that it can start, let you pitch up, and then fail, possibly
catastrophically.Â*

Dan, I looked up your email address at earthlink.net and didn't see anything about aviation either Feel free to check out motorcyclepilot.com for some of my cooler aviation products. My company primarily mods special mission aircraft and I've also produced tooling for a number of consumer products, such as the shapewear you found. Lately, I've been working mostly with airplanes, motorcycles, and boobs. It's a fun job, but somebody has to do it!

Yes, I'm proposing that it is possible to dismiss off field landings. Don't forget that airlines safely fly 4 billion passengers each year over unlandable terrain and oceans. There are multi-engine airplanes, helicopters and ultralights... it's not science fiction to put a second sustainer on a motor glider. Besides, we don't need to match the reliability of an airliner; we only need to achieve a level of risk that's appropriate for the sport of cross-country soaring.

Let's assume that a modern FES system has a 1 in 200 chance of failure. I would expect pilots to encounter a failure every few years and it sounds like this has been your experience. Now, if you can install a second sustainer with the same reliability (1 failure in 200), then the chance of a double failure works out to 1 in 40,000. If the failure rate of each sustainer happens to be more like 1 in 400, then the chance of a double failure rate would be only 1 in 160,000!

To put this into perspective, the Soaring Safety Foundation estimates that soaring pilots have accidents every few thousand hours. Amatuer Built airplanes, such as the ones that I fly, have a fatality every 18,000 hours. I would personally feel very comfortable making occassional low saves and trusting a twin propulsion system with a failure rate of 1 in 160,000. Instead of worrying about a double motor failure, I'd be far more concerned about stall/spin while soaring at low altitude.

Also consider that off field landings are risky business. Preparing for off field landings is great, but avoiding them is all the better. If you could eliminate 99.75% of off-field landings via reliability, then I think you'd see an overall safety gain, even if some of saves happened at low altitude.
Indeed with increasing reliability, a threshold exists at which it would be safer to attempt a LOW save in an EXTREMELY realiable motor glider, than it is to attempt a 1,000ft save in a traditiol motor glider. I've done some preliminary spreadsheet models and I believe this objective is feasible for a a sailplane with two sustainer systems.

I'm interested in this concept for adventure soaring. However, there are also obvious competitive advantages with being able to stray far from landing fields, or safely restart from 200ft.

Cargo pods, handbags and ugg boots, that's an eclectic mix - I think that website has been hacked? See http://motorcyclepilot.com/contact.php (caution advised)