FES - Take 2

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 gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage 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 rates.

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being 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 newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

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 gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage 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 rates..

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being 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 newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

no

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 gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage 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 rates.

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being 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 newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

no

RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!

Otherwise, no, yes.

Kirk
66

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 similar level of risk, the one with the motor will break off earlier.

Cheers

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 gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage 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 rates.

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being 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 newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

no

RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!

Otherwise, no, yes.

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 gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage 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 rates.

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being 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 newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

no

RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!

Otherwise, no, yes.

Kirk
66

The one with the motor has one more option if he doesn't want to give up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also land and relight if he is too low to start the engine.

Ramy

Ramy wrote, On 10/31/2014 8:06 PM:
The one with the motor has one more option if he doesn't want to give
up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also land and
relight if he is too low to start the engine.

Not an option in the "sustainer" context of this thread, unless there is
a tow plane there.


--
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
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

Have you seen the video of the LAK-17b FES self-launching? Just keep
the tail wheel on the ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0288vzCSHI

Dan Marotta

On 10/31/2014 11:26 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Ramy wrote, On 10/31/2014 8:06 PM:
The one with the motor has one more option if he doesn't want to give
up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also land and
relight if he is too low to start the engine.

Not an option in the "sustainer" context of this thread, unless there
is a tow plane there.

On Friday, October 31, 2014 10:50:22 PM UTC-4, Paul B wrote:
... 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.

Not in the "FES" aspect of this thread...

On Sunday, 2 November 2014 00:45:49 UTC+10, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 10:50:22 PM UTC-4, Paul B wrote:
... 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.

Not in the "FES" aspect of this thread...

Agreed, my response was an explanation why the SZD-55 driver had lower break off points than the motor / sustainers gliders, which I think Kirk was questioning.

Paul

On Sunday, November 2, 2014 1:21:54 AM UTC-5, Paul B wrote:

Agreed, my response was an explanation why the SZD-55 driver had lower break off points than the motor / sustainers gliders, which I think Kirk was questioning.

Paul

And again, why would an FES (or jet, or even a classic "turbo") sustainer have a higher break off point than a pure glider? You would still look for lift until it became obvious that the day was over, then while setting up a pattern, fire up the sustainer and either fly away, or land - and the drag of an extended sustainer (and the workload of starting it) is nowhere near that of an SLS.

So what penalty, other than the drag of the FES system (not present in classic "turbos" or jets) does a sustainer suffer over a pure glider? Weight? Does that mean that skinny pilots should be penalized over fat (ahem, "mature") pilots? Especially in "no-ballast" contests, the difference in wingloading is more affected by the "beer ballast" that the presence or lack of a sustainer!

Kirk
LS6 "66"
Happy at my 8psf dry wingloading!
I'll have another Stag, please...