Best Overall Motorglider available today?

At 14:04 28 September 2020, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 2:18:07 AM UTC-4, Slawek Piela
wrote:
Why nobody mentioned Antares 20/21E?

Before you purchase any motorglider, you will want to talk to a few
owners
about their ownership experience, especially reliability and factory
support.

I agree totally: what you might well discover is that the reliable motor
glider does not yet exist. Given this, good factory support is very
desirable.

At least individual examples do exist. I've owned mine for 20 years, in that time I have had exactly 1 failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plugs), and no inflight failures at all. Other than scheduled maintenance per the manual, the list of repairs in 20 years has been:

* replaced exhaust muffler per A/D
* replaced water pump due to progressively worsening seal
* preemptively replaced belt idler bearings which were judged to be noisy
* replaced coil #1, internally intermittent

I've rarely owned a car that had fewer repairs. I'm not going to argue that this glider is as reliable as a modern car, but with vigilant maintenance, reliability has not been bad relatively speaking. Perhaps I have been lucky, but I know other owners who are equally lucky. I own two boats, each of which has required more unscheduled maintenance than has the glider. Boats and gliders are both made in prototype quantities, an expectation of reliability equal to an automobile (made in millions) is naive. But of course, even in an automobile, good factory support is desirable.

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 9:30:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
I agree totally: what you might well discover is that the reliable motor
glider does not yet exist. Given this, good factory support is very
desirable.

jfitch wrote on 9/28/2020 10:19 AM:
At least individual examples do exist. I've owned mine for 20 years, in that time I have had exactly 1 failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plugs), and no inflight failures at all. Other than scheduled maintenance per the manual, the list of repairs in 20 years has been:

* replaced exhaust muffler per A/D
* replaced water pump due to progressively worsening seal
* preemptively replaced belt idler bearings which were judged to be noisy
* replaced coil #1, internally intermittent

I've rarely owned a car that had fewer repairs. I'm not going to argue that this glider is as reliable as a modern car, but with vigilant maintenance, reliability has not been bad relatively speaking. Perhaps I have been lucky, but I know other owners who are equally lucky. I own two boats, each of which has required more unscheduled maintenance than has the glider. Boats and gliders are both made in prototype quantities, an expectation of reliability equal to an automobile (made in millions) is naive. But of course, even in an automobile, good factory support is desirable.

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 9:30:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
I agree totally: what you might well discover is that the reliable motor
glider does not yet exist. Given this, good factory support is very
desirable.

My experience with my ASH 26E parallels Jon's: over 26 years, 4000+ hours, 200
engine hours, except for these engine related issues...

-I've had one failure to start in-flight; probably my fault as it started
immediately on the ground shortly after landing
-replaced the propeller drive belt after 20 years "just because"
-the air spring on the mast was replaced once
-oil sensor leaked, replaced
-I have not replaced a coil, but I did replace the flywheel per an AD the second
year or so.
-I've only lost two or three soaring days due to propulsion system issues, as most
maintenance could be deferred to non-soaring periods (like winter)

I flew towed gliders for about 3000 hours, and lost many days due to towplane
issues: no pilot or towplane down for various mechanical problems. I can take my
26E to almost any airport, where I can expect to launch and then return 5-6 hours
later, even the weather doesn't cooperate. That's my idea of a reliable glider!
Try that with a towed glider, and your "reliability" will be much worse.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

You did not say which aircraft you own...

Matt

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 1:19:30 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
At least individual examples do exist. I've owned mine for 20 years, in that time I have had exactly 1 failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plugs), and no inflight failures at all. Other than scheduled maintenance per the manual, the list of repairs in 20 years has been:

* replaced exhaust muffler per A/D
* replaced water pump due to progressively worsening seal
* preemptively replaced belt idler bearings which were judged to be noisy
* replaced coil #1, internally intermittent

I've rarely owned a car that had fewer repairs. I'm not going to argue that this glider is as reliable as a modern car, but with vigilant maintenance, reliability has not been bad relatively speaking. Perhaps I have been lucky, but I know other owners who are equally lucky. I own two boats, each of which has required more unscheduled maintenance than has the glider. Boats and gliders are both made in prototype quantities, an expectation of reliability equal to an automobile (made in millions) is naive. But of course, even in an automobile, good factory support is desirable.

ASH26Mi. Eric's story reminds me that I have had to replace the oil sender as well (though that was done at the scheduled annual, no down time). I have lost only one day of soaring, the failure to start after winter layup. I have flown it twice without the engine installed, once when the water pump was being replaced just to see how it would fly, and once in the midst of my engine conversion when the soaring looked too good to pass up and the new engine wasn't ready. When the coil became intermittent the engine ran fine on the other coil, but I chose to take a tow that day out of an abundance of caution. Those occasions are the only instances of it being towed. Like Eric, I have flown numerous days when either there was no tow plane, or the wait was so long several pilots gave up and drank beer. So I think I can truthfully say it has gotten me launched more reliably than an engineless glider. Picking my own launch time has been the best benefit though.

I've been meticulous about maintenance, and make no mistake, there is much more maintenance on a motorglider than one without.

On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 2:24:40 PM UTC-7, wrote:
You did not say which aircraft you own...

Matt
On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 1:19:30 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
At least individual examples do exist. I've owned mine for 20 years, in that time I have had exactly 1 failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plugs), and no inflight failures at all. Other than scheduled maintenance per the manual, the list of repairs in 20 years has been:

* replaced exhaust muffler per A/D
* replaced water pump due to progressively worsening seal
* preemptively replaced belt idler bearings which were judged to be noisy
* replaced coil #1, internally intermittent

I've rarely owned a car that had fewer repairs. I'm not going to argue that this glider is as reliable as a modern car, but with vigilant maintenance, reliability has not been bad relatively speaking. Perhaps I have been lucky, but I know other owners who are equally lucky. I own two boats, each of which has required more unscheduled maintenance than has the glider. Boats and gliders are both made in prototype quantities, an expectation of reliability equal to an automobile (made in millions) is naive. But of course, even in an automobile, good factory support is desirable.

Thanks! I am familiar with the ASH-26E, but I haven't seen much online about the -Mi. Are these quite different?

Matt

On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 7:54:06 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
ASH26Mi. Eric's story reminds me that I have had to replace the oil sender as well (though that was done at the scheduled annual, no down time). I have lost only one day of soaring, the failure to start after winter layup. I have flown it twice without the engine installed, once when the water pump was being replaced just to see how it would fly, and once in the midst of my engine conversion when the soaring looked too good to pass up and the new engine wasn't ready. When the coil became intermittent the engine ran fine on the other coil, but I chose to take a tow that day out of an abundance of caution. Those occasions are the only instances of it being towed. Like Eric, I have flown numerous days when either there was no tow plane, or the wait was so long several pilots gave up and drank beer. So I think I can truthfully say it has gotten me launched more reliably than an engineless glider. Picking my own launch time has been the best benefit though.

Presumably an ASH26 Mi is a 26 which has had an engine conversion to the engine introduced in the ASH31 - with fuel injection increasing quoted power from 50 hp to 57 hp.

On 9/30/20 5:28 PM, waremark wrote:
Presumably an ASH26 Mi is a 26 which has had an engine conversion to the engine introduced in the ASH31 - with fuel injection increasing quoted power from 50 hp to 57 hp.


Basically right, but the FI motor was available in the ASH-25Mi well
before the '31 cam along.

Probably should note that there's plenty of items that can and do go
wrong on the wankel and its accessories, the iron apex seals are weak
points, drive belts break, bearings go bad. If a great motorglider
propulsion system existed, everyone would be using it.

Waremark is correct, it was a 26E for my first 17 years of ownership, I swapped in the Mi motor. The injected motor starts quicker, runs a little smoother, has a little more power, and of course is altitude corrected. Climb rate is improved by about 25%. Other than the injection, the propulsion system is the same. It is a bit more work than might be apparent due to the changes in the wiring harness necessary to support the injection control, and the two high pressure fuel pumps replacing the low pressure ones. The 31 and 26 fuselage are otherwise identical, so everything fits and works properly. To the extent that there are mechanical problems with the engine, they will be the same between E and Mi. I've just not had that many, with either engine.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 12:35:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Thanks! I am familiar with the ASH-26E, but I haven't seen much online about the -Mi. Are these quite different?

Matt
On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 7:54:06 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
ASH26Mi. Eric's story reminds me that I have had to replace the oil sender as well (though that was done at the scheduled annual, no down time). I have lost only one day of soaring, the failure to start after winter layup.. I have flown it twice without the engine installed, once when the water pump was being replaced just to see how it would fly, and once in the midst of my engine conversion when the soaring looked too good to pass up and the new engine wasn't ready. When the coil became intermittent the engine ran fine on the other coil, but I chose to take a tow that day out of an abundance of caution. Those occasions are the only instances of it being towed. Like Eric, I have flown numerous days when either there was no tow plane, or the wait was so long several pilots gave up and drank beer. So I think I can truthfully say it has gotten me launched more reliably than an engineless glider. Picking my own launch time has been the best benefit though.

Yes to the difference between the 26E engine and the Mi engine. I had a 26E and have flown a 31. If you operate in the flatlands the engine upgrade is not a reason to change, at low elevations the 26 has good take-off and climb performance (better than the more powerful and injected Arcus M which I fly now, but not as good as the DG 808). If you might need to cross high mountains the injected version would be much more suitable (there is no in-flight mixture adjustment on the carburetor 26E version) and of course the extra power is appropriate for the heavier 31.

The Schleicher gliders have used fine pitched propellers for best take-off performance since a few years after the 26 came out - the quoted ground roll reduced from 300m to 200m (from memory) when Schleicher changed the prop from the original Technoflug prop to their own prop. If you want to fly level under power for your self-retrieve the Arcus cruises faster than the 26, I presume as a result of a coarser prop.