Kawa rough landing?

On Monday, 9 September 2019 04:52:44 UTC+3, Richard DalCanto wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
http://www.sebastiankawa.pl/13060/o-...bGJ8ugxxXHZS58

Google translate:
"During the last training flight they locked Sebastian in a narrow 30-kilometer valley without landing spots. The possibility of escape was to be provided by an efficient electric drive system. "

There you go. Glad he did not hurt himself more seriously.

Those pictures show a nice looking field. I'm sure he's landed in fields like that many times. Bumps and rocks are always a risk when landing in a field.

To my eyes it looks like a mountain slope, described unlandable (obviously, with hindsight).

Reading a lot of fb comments it's surprising how many talk about electric engine unreliability as cause. Have we not learned anything during last 30-40 years of playing with sustainers and selflauncher? Engine start down low is a PLEASANT SURPRISE, you plan for safe outlanding, always. There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and one really close call. They aren't any better.

At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
one
really close call. They aren't any better.


Can you provide links to these incidents?

I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
traditional turbo.

Why?

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 14:45:04 UTC+3, Peter F wrote:
At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
one
really close call. They aren't any better.


Can you provide links to these incidents?

I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
traditional turbo.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/195172

Not sure if close call has been documented as incident.

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
one
really close call. They aren't any better.


Can you provide links to these incidents?

I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
traditional turbo.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...relim&IType=LA

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
one
really close call. They aren't any better.


Can you provide links to these incidents?

I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
traditional turbo.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...relim&IType=LA

oh, and of course...
http://sustainableskies.org/two-batt...ng-sailplanes/

T8

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 8:15:24 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
one
really close call. They aren't any better.


Can you provide links to these incidents?

I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
traditional turbo.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...relim&IType=LA

oh, and of course...
http://sustainableskies.org/two-batt...ng-sailplanes/

T8

We are are temporary in the larger sense. Choose your risks v rewards wisely.

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:15:24 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
one
really close call. They aren't any better.


Can you provide links to these incidents?

I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
traditional turbo.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...relim&IType=LA

oh, and of course...
http://sustainableskies.org/two-batt...ng-sailplanes/

T8

The two battery fires you linked to were with old style battery packs, and from the information available from FES, the problems have been addressed. So why post this? Are you trying to scare pilots away from potentially safer electric options for some reason?

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 5:36:27 PM UTC-4, Richard DalCanto wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:15:24 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
one
really close call. They aren't any better.


Can you provide links to these incidents?

I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
traditional turbo.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...relim&IType=LA

oh, and of course...
http://sustainableskies.org/two-batt...ng-sailplanes/

T8

The two battery fires you linked to were with old style battery packs, and from the information available from FES, the problems have been addressed.. So why post this? Are you trying to scare pilots away from potentially safer electric options for some reason?

And the manufacturers were saying what, exactly, when those fire starters were offered for sale? Were they saying "oh, we haven't really worked out all the bugs yet and these might catch fire?" No, of course not. They were wrong about their product then. You say they think they've fixed it now. Pardon me for being ever so slightly skeptical.

T8

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 6:08:48 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 5:36:27 PM UTC-4, Richard DalCanto wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:15:24 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
one
really close call. They aren't any better.


Can you provide links to these incidents?

I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
traditional turbo.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...relim&IType=LA

oh, and of course...
http://sustainableskies.org/two-batt...ng-sailplanes/

T8

The two battery fires you linked to were with old style battery packs, and from the information available from FES, the problems have been addressed. So why post this? Are you trying to scare pilots away from potentially safer electric options for some reason?

And the manufacturers were saying what, exactly, when those fire starters were offered for sale? Were they saying "oh, we haven't really worked out all the bugs yet and these might catch fire?" No, of course not. They were wrong about their product then. You say they think they've fixed it now.. Pardon me for being ever so slightly skeptical.

T8

Here is the unvarnished truth: if you buy a newly designed MG you are, in effect, a test pilot. These aircraft have not been thru the testing regime that certificated a/c go thru. If you are worried about this, wait 4-5 years before buying a new model. In particular, battery design is not an art that has withstood the test of time. That said, some manufacturers are more diligent than others at the design and testing process.

Tom