I have been flying a self-launcher for 7 seasons - I am based in the flattish South-East of the UK. Previously I flew a pure glider, and used to land 'out' at other airfields maybe four or five times a year, and to land in a field on average over several years once a year.

Now I start over landable terrain a comparable number of times, which is maybe about 15% of my cross country flights. In two different self-launchers I have always started over somewhere which I thought to be safely landable (although I have not been tested) and I have been lucky enough that the engine has always started first time and I have been able to climb away with the loss of only about 100 foot from starting to raise the prop (which I do at 1,000 foot on downwind).

Benefits for me a

I am not an early riser; I can get to the airfield when I want, and not have to worry about being at the back of the launch queue.

I can launch to a part of the sky which I choose - I am more relaxed about whether it is soarable when I launch, and more ready to take a high launch because of not having to pay for the aerotow.

I can fly cross country on a day when I absolutely need to be home in the evening. I continue with my planned task when without an engine I might have turned home early, if I think there is the slightest chance of success.

I have no doubt that I do more soaring as a result of having an engine. For me the independence from the launch queue is such a significant part of what I was looking for that I would not consider an FES or jet sustainer. An electric self-launcher is interesting, but at the moment the endurance is very limiting. (I have an Arcus M - available as an electric self launcher but for more money with a total climb potential of 2,000 m. I was interested to read here about the EB29 electric self-launcher - does anyone know what endurance that has?).

Mark Burton, London Gliding Club, UK


On Sunday, 20 April 2014 15:34:21 UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Sunday, April 20, 2014 12:31:16 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:



If a pilot isn't using the FES on 10% to 20% of the flights, the pilot

has wasted his money buying the FES. The FES can and should be used to

increase the amount and quality of soaring the pilot does, and flying so

conservatively it's rarely needed will not achieve that goal.



Does this hold true in practice for most pilots and most propulsion systems?



What's your theory/philosophy on motor use and to what extent does your logbook conform to your goal?



Do FES flyers use their motors more frequently than petrol-powered pilots?



Does a motor increase the number of 'good soaring days' for you?