Which sustainer system would you chose for your sailplane?

On 9/25/2012 7:21 AM, Tim Mara wrote:
For performance, low weight, LOW drag, simplicity and safety. JET!
More manufacturers are developing or exploring Jet sustainers. Quite simply
the lack of moving parts, the very low weight to power output and when
properly configured to have the computer take the pilot out of decision
making of the actual operation of the engine the reliability of operation
make the Jet the best possible solution. The HpH 304 Jet doesn't require
massive, heavy and possibly hazardous batteries, doesn't require start-up
and operation or typical reciprocating engines, no priming, no chocking,
decompressing or diving to windmill and engine to start, no high parasitic
drag (the jet engine expended has actually less drag than the landing gear
down), no wind milling propellers, and short time from switch on the switch
off and stored, literally seconds to start so even at low altitudes can be
operational in seconds and without the high drag of a propeller is a non
issue when it might be necessary to glide the extra distance to make a safe
landing with an extended powerplant.
The Jet does have to be engineered right from the start and have systems
that are completely monitored and controlled by a computer system to take
the operator error possibility away and this is what has likely delayed the
release of the Jet sustainers from most manufacturers. Having flown just
about al types from simple 2 cycle ultra-lites to small corporate Jet
aircraft I can see potential issues with operators not fully trained in Jet
engine operation without the development of a computer based system to
control the operation of the jet engine. With the HpH system the controller
monitors all aspects of the engine from start-up to engine cool down and
stowage, it is simply refined ...
regards

Tim makes some excellent points for the jet sustainer, but every one of
them also applies to the FES. Sure, it's got those "possibly hazardous
batteries", but it does not have those "possibly hazardous 8 gallons of
fuel".

This illustrates the problem with the current voting choices, offered
without any description of each systems attributes. Even a dealer does
not tell us the important differences between two of the three choices,
so how can the average "voter" make an informed choice?

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