![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 3:03:05 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Somehow this turned into a FES thread, not what I had intended. I would like comments from those with curent generation pop up factory installed sustainers. I noticed the POH's do not have performance information other than Standard conditions. Say if you have a solo 2350 what is the ceiling of climb ability? What are actual achieved results? Do you find you get less soaring as you have to stop looking for lift at a much higher altitude, and yo have a high minimum wing loading. Are you happy with the sustainer or do you wish you had gotten a pure glider? What are the downsides, the upsides. Have you experienced a failure to extend or to start, any idea what is the glider ration with engine extended. Do you prefer the two blades of Schleicher designs or the five blades of Schempp-Hirth, anyone flow a JS with jet? Does the sustainer make your flights safer as the possibility of a land is reduced. Has anyone suffered a failure resulting in damage? I am looking for as much information as the readers are willing to share. As for FES, we can start another thread but for this discussion I am interested in factory installed sustainers. Thank you all very much for your time and input. I do not own a sustainer, rather a motorglider (ASH26e) but some of the experience is relevant. 1) If you are looking at any auxiliary engine as a safety device, I think you will eventually be disappointed if not injured. 2) An engine significantly increases the pilot workload at just the moment you would like it to be reduced, that is when low and looking for lift or a landing site. 3) An engine increases maintenance for a glider by around 2x or maybe more. These are realities that must be considered along with any perceived benefits. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 7:55:55 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
An engine increases maintenance for a glider by around 2x or maybe more. 2x? Dream on!!! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I owned a V2CXT for 4 years. Started the engine every flight. It never failed. Not one time. I never touched the solo
engine. Never even changed the spark plugs. An excellent machine. 5U |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
5U, did you ever use the engine for a low save, is there such a thing or is it always a save from 2,000 agl? How long do you run the engine on each flight, what type of climb rate did you achieve to what density altitude? thank you
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boost performance of Solo 2350 turbo (sustainer) | [email protected] | Soaring | 10 | January 4th 19 12:37 PM |
ASG-29E vs. JS-1Jet Sustainer | Gerry Simpson | Soaring | 52 | July 8th 15 01:29 PM |
Turbo performance vs non-turbo | John Doe | Owning | 22 | October 8th 05 02:34 AM |
sustaining (turbo) gliders | Pilot626 | Soaring | 4 | March 1st 05 03:30 AM |
Converting engine from Turbo to non-Turbo | Dick Kurtz | Home Built | 7 | October 31st 03 04:48 PM |