Would you have the same concers if it was an electric self launcher
or sustainer?

Chris

At 04:45 31 May 2017, 2G wrote:
On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:24:14 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:47:36 AM UTC-7, jfitch
wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:14:07 AM UTC-7, Dave
Nadler wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-4,

wrot=
e:
First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my
experience in
pu=
re
sailplanes is very little (don=C2=B4t reach 100h). Do
you
recomme=
nd me to
wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before
making the
=
transition?
=20
YES.
To be able to safely focus on engine management (and
especially
whe=
n things
go wrong), flying the glider must be completely
automatic.
Regardle=
ss of
power experience, you are not at this point with less
than 100
hour=
s.
=20
Second point, I=C2=B4m not very handy, I
don=C2=B4t have any
type=
of experience
in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would
have to go to
a=
workshop.
Is that a big inconvenience?
=20
YES.
Identify someone nearby with extensive experience
maintaining the
t=
ype
you expect to buy. Hint: There isn't likely to be
anybody...
And maintenance of these machines by folks not
intimately familiar
with the type often goes very badly.
=20
This problem would happen to me with any type of
glider that I
bu=
y.
=20
NO.
Any motor-glider will require MUCH more (and more
specialized)
main=
tenance
as compared to a non-motorized glider.
=20
Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave "YO" (multiple offender, 2000 hrs
in
motor-glid=
ers)
=20
I cannot agree that having only 100 hours disqualifies you
from
motor=
glider ownership. For the first 200 hours of flying it, simply be
very
cons=
ervative with motor use: do not self launch, do not attempt air
starts at
l=
ess than 3000 AGL and then over a landing field, etc. After all it
will
fly=
fine with the motor stowed - as good as a pure glider. You can
push this
e=
nvelope and squeeze these margins as you gain experience. If
you are an
un=
disciplined pilot that will take chances with the motor, then you
are not
a=
good candidate for motorglider ownership, regardless of hours. If
fact
you=
might want to reevaluate flying at all.=20
=20
I do agree that the maintenance requirements for any
motorglider are
=
3x any pure glider.
=20
There is a big difference between "disqualification" and
"inadvisable."=
Flying high-performance sailplanes is a skill that takes hundreds
of
hours=
to become proficient. Self-launching motorgliders requires yet
another
set=
of skills. The test of the skills only comes when the pilot is under
stres=
s and the margin for error is all but gone. My advice stands:
Alfonso
shoul=
d get himself a pure glider and build that critical first 300-500
hours in
=
it before acquiring an MG. The only mitigating circumstance would
be if he
=
does not have tows available.
=20
Tom
=20
The test of skills for the motor only comes when you use the
motor. That
=
is my point. An auxilliary motorglider with the motor folded is a
pure
gli=
der. This may require discipline that the pilot may not have - that
is my
o=
ther point.

You can always buy a MG and not use the motor, flying it as a
pure glider.
=
This would be curious choice and a huge waste of money. My
comment as
"inad=
visable" stands and you didn't address it. Advisability is a
judgment by
an=
expert, disqualification is a ruling by a bureaucrat.

Tom