FES - Take 2

SLS s crash more often? Where do you get the statistics?
Les us see them!

JMF

t 02:50 01 November 2014, Paul B wrote:
Assuming both pilots are over a lendable terrain, the motorglider will
have=
to abort higher as it takes much longer to extract the motor and start
it.=
If it does not start, you have a very large airbrake out and that
affects
=
performance and hence your landing options. So if the two pilots accept
sim=
ilar level of risk, the one with the motor will break off earlier.

Cheers=20

Paul


On Saturday, 1 November 2014 03:26:36 UTC+10, kirk.stant wrote:
On Monday, October 27, 2014 11:00:11 PM UTC-5, RW wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many
glide=
rs sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud,
unreliable=
, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or
w=
hatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition
a=
dvantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash
a
=
lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance
r=
ates.
=20
Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There
is
=
a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and
motorglider=
s. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not
b=
eing as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a
"get=
-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the
n=
ewer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a
pur=
e glider" argument.
=20
While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the
L=
ottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a
self-launchi=
ng glider.
=20
Kirk
LS6 66
=20
no
=20
RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!
=20
Otherwise, no, yes.
=20
Kirk
66



On Saturday, 1 November 2014 03:26:36 UTC+10, kirk.stant wrote:
On Monday, October 27, 2014 11:00:11 PM UTC-5, RW wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many
glide=
rs sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud,
unreliable=
, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or
w=
hatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition
a=
dvantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash
a
=
lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance
r=
ates.
=20
Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There
is
=
a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and
motorglider=
s. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not
b=
eing as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a
"get=
-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the
n=
ewer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a
pur=
e glider" argument.
=20
While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the
L=
ottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a
self-launchi=
ng glider.
=20
Kirk
LS6 66
=20
no
=20
RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!
=20
Otherwise, no, yes.
=20
Kirk
66