Most pilots aren't knowledgeable about the attributes of all the

choices, so the voting might not be well informed. Because there are

significant differences between the types, I suggest you revise the page

to give the voters some realistic choices. For example, you could have a

table with these columns:



Engine type

Performance effects: Added weight and drag

Typical retrieve distance

Retrieve speed (cruise and sawtooth)

Ease of use

Reliability (failure to start rate)

Costs: Purchase price and maintenance



Personally, I want the sustainer with the simplicity of the FES, the

high speed of the jet, and the distance obtained by the petrol engine!



Kidding aside, I think most glider pilots would find their enjoyment of

soaring quite enhanced by a sustainer that provided as little as 3000

feet of climb. I think most landouts could be avoided with that much

"reserve", and it would give pilots the confidence to fly more often and

fly further.



--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to

email me)

Dear Eric,

Your comments are appreciated, but I can not do such a table as it could be biased. Such comparison table would become probbably too complicated as there are too many factors which need to be taken in account to have fair comparison.
Actually I would like to see the result with existing knowledge of pilots.
Just too see in which way pilots are thinking...