![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 1:40:33 AM UTC-5, Surge wrote:
On Thursday, 27 September 2012 00:06:31 UTC+2, wrote: For me electrical sustainer in a glider is the perfect solution. It links in to the spirit of the sport, better than a turbine. But the propeller on the nose feels slightly off.... Especially when you consider the bugwiper garages becoming standard on the top sailplanes. We are spending more and more on reducing drag. Then this minor addition feels going against the flow. Why not a small pylon with this nice foldable propeller you have engineered? Or am I the only one who has this uncomfortable feeling? How about FES in an EDF (electric ducted fan) configuration instead of pylon mounted FES? The EDF could be mounted in the fuselage with doors than open and close for the inlet and exhaust. Would this make any sense or be simpler than a pylon mounted system? Would a smaller prop size make it less efficient and impractical? The one advantage would be the removal of most of the pitching issue associated with pylon mounted systems. If I had the money for a self launcher or sustainer equipped glider it would be FES due to simplicity, reliability and safety. From a safety perspective I presume a battery fire would tend to be more isolated in a crash whereas with combustible fuel you and the glider could become engulfed in flames within seconds as fuel is splashed around. As battery and fuel cell technology advances, alternative energy storage upgrades could be a possibility without having to purchase another glider. I don't like the smell of gasoline or jet fuel nor the complexity with things that operate at high temperatures and need to be maintained regularly. A brushless electric motor can literally run for years with a decent set of bearings. That means less hassle and maybe lower maintenance costs over the long run depending on the battery technology being used. A sustainer option would suite me perfectly. I don't need to operate autonomously and a winch launch to 1500 feet is cheap ($4.70 USD) and preserves power for when I may need it. With retractable gear, mixers/controls, etc., not much room for a decent sized EDF. Unless of course, you want to make the fuselage larger, but that add's wetted area and reduces the performance. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Front Electric Sustainer | Dan Marotta | Soaring | 28 | January 31st 13 01:32 AM |
would an electric sustainer be practical | Brad[_2_] | Soaring | 7 | July 24th 09 06:29 PM |
Which Came First, the Santa Monica Airport, Or Those Who Chose To Build Their Homes Adjacent To It? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 16 | May 7th 07 10:34 PM |
BAF or CEF? I chose BAF. | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 23rd 04 04:33 PM |
DG goes the sustainer option. | Paul | Soaring | 25 | June 4th 04 12:16 AM |