I recently read about a turbine engine that puts out 160-260 hp and weighs
180lbs with only 18 moving parts!

As I read further about this $30k or so engine, it became clear that the
prop for it was "extra." And it was quite noisy. And fuel
consumption was close, but over a third more than
piston aircraft.

For powered planes, this is an issue, but for gliders?

I'm still interested in the idea of a turbine powered sailplane
without a propeller. Sure, very inefficient (it looks like
about 3-4 times as much fuel consumed), but gliders seem about the
ONLY place where this may be a good tradeoff, since the time of
engine running is so short.

A low weight, fuel inefficient engine with no prop, a low weight glider,
and a medium performance L/D (meaning a low stall speed so
reasonable acceleration to takeoff). Must be a single engine,
otherwise it would likely be uninsurable (as if
insuring a glider with ONE turbine wasn't bad enough

Other than a lightweight, inefficient turbine, I don't see
any other "revolutionary" powerplants for gliders which might
bring the cost down and create more widespread interest.

In article ,
Bob Korves bkorves@winfirstDECIMALcom wrote:
I have always thought that self launchers were cool, in a intellectual
daydream world that is. My feeling has been "If only I would win the
lottery...". I'll bet a lot of us have said this.

After being around self launchers for many years, however, I mostly remember
watching the owners fiddle with them, and then send the prop in for an AD,
wait 3 months, then fiddle some more, and then send the engine in for an AD,
wait another 3 months, and then fiddle some more.

Well, maybe I am exaggerating at little. The other issue is that for the
extra cost of the engine I could buy a Pawnee and have enough left over to
hire a cute tow pilot on the interest it earned.

Maybe a bit more exaggeration. I suppose if you are antisocial or live in a
part of the country where there are no tow planes, have time only during the
week when the club is closed, or whatever, and have lots of money, and time
for fiddling, then a self launcher would be dandy.

I happen to like the people in this sport at least as well as I like the
flying. I sometimes actually enjoy waiting in a tow line telling war
stories with my buddies. Nothing beats the Saturday night barbecue at the
gliderport. Not that having a self launcher excludes you from any of this,
of course.

Another reason I don't seek self launchers is that I am not really good at
complexity. I have enough trouble with the few levers and knobs is a pure
glider. While learning to use flaps I did just about every dumb thing one
can do with that single additional handle. A little voice in my head tells
me that the complexity of a self launcher is not a good thing for me,
personally. You may be different.

I think I am usually immune to peer pressure and my perceived standing in
the gliding community. Somehow, though, after I completed a long and
difficult flight in trying conditions, and somebody said "But you have an
engine" -- I might have a problem with that!

I am having a lot of fun with this post and I'm sure I have raised Eric
Greenwell's blood pressure by now. I guess I need to tell the other side of
the story. Last summer I met a pilot from Denmark, Francis, several times
who was in the U.S. flying his DG-400 all around the western part of the
country. And I mean all around. He started in Texas, worked his way up to
Washington state, and was on his way back to Texas. He had done this sort
of thing many times, in Europe, Morocco, etc. He does this every year. He
lives out of a plastic grocery sack stuffed into the tiny luggage shelf of
the glider. We took him to motels and to dinner since we had cars. This
guy was living my daydream!

Eric is also a pilot that really uses his self launcher well and often. He
is a great guy, sociable, and fun to fly with. I'm sure that there are many
others out there, too. So a self launcher can be a wonderful thing.

I would rather spend my meager gliding money buying more L/D with several
wonderful partners in really nice ships than buying a stinky, noisy engine
and propeller to fiddle with. If I won that lottery today, I don't think I
would change what I am doing now. As always, YMMV.

Flame suit on, Eric... :-)

-Bob Korves
Duo Discus 5H
LAK-17a 5K

"Waduino" wrote in message
.. .
Interesting post Steve.
As an over 50 newbie to soaring flying out of a club that operates 7 days
a
week during the soaring season, I thought a self launcher was only useful
on
days when the flight line gets long. Hearing horror stories about
increased
fatalities when landing out associated with the motor (waiting too long,
failing to start, etc.) I didn't think there was a whole lot of value for
the extra $. Your post puts a different spin on it - accelerated learning,
safely exploring marginal conditions, etc. When you consider the cost of
100
tows a year, and SLs (an Apis anyway) running about an extra $20K USD, you
can amortize the motor over ten years or so with saved tow fees (which
keep
going up). Sure, maintenance will cost more, but life is short.

Wad

It has provided me the opportunity to fly when
the weather is okay, good or flat out amazing, as well as to try things
when
the weather is poor but you are just curios if there's any way you might
actually be able to get somewhere... I feel that I have been able to
accelerate my learning curve, by
using my self launcher to simply gather different experiences and even
to
mitigate certain risks and allow myself to move forward to continue
learning
and get to where I want to go.






--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd