On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:41:22 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
On Monday, April 14, 2014 5:10:45 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:

From a competition pilot point of view there would have to be a small drag penalty and a weight penalty. But both of those would seem to be pretty small in comparison to the competitive benefit that arises from the ability to stick to the course line and never have to be distracted by the need to deviate towards a landing option. I don't have experience to know, but I'm suspecting that the reliability of the FES might be sufficient that one could drive it straight into the boonies then flip the switch only at the last minute -- wouldn't that be exciting? You certainly can't do that with a gas engine.



" that one could drive it straight into the boonies then flip the switch only at the last minute -- wouldn't that be exciting?"



Deadly exciting, actually....

I sort of figured someone would snipe to that effect. So, jfitch, what is your reasoning that makes it 'deadly'?

Are there any known cases when an FES was intended to be initiated but failed to do so in flight?

It would seem to me that the FES has much going for it in terms of its potential for very high reliable operation. That would be the fact of no boom to raise and the fact that the power plant is an electric motor.

Single engine airplane pilots think nothing of routinely flying in the boonies with no landing alternate available to them. That contrasts with an FES glider pilot who might put himself into that situation only rarely.

I think all of us have had plenty of experience with both electric motors and gas motors and know the former to be vastly more reliable. Yet power pilots treat their gas engines as reliable enough to bet their life on. I'm suspecting that a reasoned glider pilot who has tested his FES startup many times in non-threatening circumstances would arrive at the same determination. The interesting part is that yields a significant advantage in competition.