"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
MaD wrote:
schrieb:

The 18T sustainer would be the sinky kind.



And the reason for that is given he
http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.de/engl...u/menu-akt.htm

The engine could be smaller but the battery pack almost the same size
as for the 20E would make it a *very* heavy 18m glider.

From the Antares site:

"Building a self-sustainer utilizing electrical propulsion is currently
not possible, because in order to achieve the range required for a
self-sustaining glider, the size of the battery-pack would have to be
comparable to the pack installed in the Antares 20E. This is contrary to
the basic idea behind a self sustaining glider, which is to provide a very
economical way of staying aloft."

I think it is odd they accepted the range limitations of an electric
system for the 20E, which has about 1/3 the powered range my ASH 26 E, but
weren't willing to accept a similar range limitation for a sustainer. I
suggest a sustainer that could climb 3000' on it's battery would be enough
for a majority of pilots, and this would allow a significantly smaller
battery to be used.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

Of course, a possible future alternative is a micro jet turbine. Roughly
speaking, the typical glider's 30 gallon ballast tanks, if converted to hold
Jet A, would give three hours at 120 knots. That would most likely get the
pilot to a comfortable landing spot in time for a steak and beer. I've done
the "back-of-envelope" nembers for my Nimbus 2C and they say it would do 120
knots for 7.5 hours with flameout near 18,000 feet.

Neither quiet nor green but effective.

Bill Daniels