Help with FAA glider exemption petiton

On Oct 17, 2:04*pm, John Cochrane wrote:
§ 61.58 * Pilot-in-command proficiency check: Operation of an aircraft
that requires more than one pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet-
powered.

We could almost argue that since it is a glider, it is not a "turbojet-
powered aircraft." *An engine in a glider is used as a launch method,
not "power," as if it had the latter it would be an "airplane"

Maybe too clever......The jet sustainers certainly hinge on the
outcome here

John Cochrane

Not much use trying to apply logic to this. FAA has, for some bizare
reason decided that turbojets and turbofans require some special skill
set. In fact, modern electronically controlled turbojets and
turbofans are incredibly simple to operate as compared to recips with
manually controlled propeller pitch, fuel flow, cooling, and starting.

The only reason to assume turbofans and tubojets require a special
skill set is that they are typically higher performance that recips.
Perhaps the main reason to oppose the rule is that a turbojet equipped
self launch, or sustainer, glider has no higher performance than the
same glider without the motor. The Vne is no greater and the climb
rate under power is far less than can be achieved on a winch launch or
even behind a high powered tug.

Even if an exemption is granted, I suspect that the current
requirement for a type rating will kill any introduction of turbojet
powered gliders in USA. Again the FAA failed to understand that a
turbojet is far easier to manage, and likely far more reliable, than a
recip.

Andy

Andy,

Correct on all points except one. The climb rate of my two seat turbine glider is NOT less than a high powered tug. I easily out-climb our club's 250 HP Pawnees and I'd bet my turbine Salto would probably out-climb a winch.

Bob

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:13:09 PM UTC-6, Andy wrote:
On Oct 17, 2:04*pm, John Cochrane wrote:

§ 61.58 * Pilot-in-command proficiency check: Operation of an aircraft

that requires more than one pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet-

powered.



We could almost argue that since it is a glider, it is not a "turbojet-

powered aircraft." *An engine in a glider is used as a launch method,

not "power," as if it had the latter it would be an "airplane"



Maybe too clever......The jet sustainers certainly hinge on the

outcome here



John Cochrane



Not much use trying to apply logic to this. FAA has, for some bizare

reason decided that turbojets and turbofans require some special skill

set. In fact, modern electronically controlled turbojets and

turbofans are incredibly simple to operate as compared to recips with

manually controlled propeller pitch, fuel flow, cooling, and starting.



The only reason to assume turbofans and tubojets require a special

skill set is that they are typically higher performance that recips.

Perhaps the main reason to oppose the rule is that a turbojet equipped

self launch, or sustainer, glider has no higher performance than the

same glider without the motor. The Vne is no greater and the climb

rate under power is far less than can be achieved on a winch launch or

even behind a high powered tug.



Even if an exemption is granted, I suspect that the current

requirement for a type rating will kill any introduction of turbojet

powered gliders in USA. Again the FAA failed to understand that a

turbojet is far easier to manage, and likely far more reliable, than a

recip.



Andy

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 6:27:22 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Andy,



Correct on all points except one. The climb rate of my two seat turbine glider is NOT less than a high powered tug. I easily out-climb our club's 250 HP Pawnees and I'd bet my turbine Salto would probably out-climb a winch.



Bob,

By "high powered tug" I was thinking of the SAIA-Marchetti SM.1019 (turbine Birddog), or an Ag-Cat. I need no special qualification to tow behind either. Can the Bonus Jet beat those with your normal reduced climb thrust, or even at max thrust?

In any event I still think the type rating remains the major obstacle to the introduction of turbine sustainers or self launch. If that was fixed the other requirement would look silly and would be more likely to go away.

Andy