Uncle Fuzzies take on Self Launchers

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:10:46 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
At 03:37 21 August 2013, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Uncle Fuzzy wrote, On 8/20/2013 7:35 PM:

My take on self-launchers launchers



� is really pretty simple. A self launcher means you can

launch

whether there�s a tow plane or not. Period. For me, that

would mean

I could launch from Jean, land somewhere, make camp (I love

�ramp

camping�), and launch the next day and fly back (conditions,

skills,

etc. permitting.) Essentially equivalent to having a tug

available

for the next day at any field. If tugs were always available, I

wouldn�t have any use for a self launcher.



You understand one half of the attraction of a self-launcher, but

like

many people, miss the other half: you can take risks with the

lift, and

if you guess wrong and the lift isn't there, you can start the

motor,

get to the next lift, and continue the flight. The ability to explore

without the consequences of a landout and a potentially long

retrieve

are just as valuable as avoiding the launch line or flying from an

airport that doesn't have a towplane.



I'm sorry you will have money left over at the end of your "final

glide", a fate I am trying to avoid. It's even harder to judge that

"glide" than one in a glider, and you don't get to practice it,

either.



Possibly, you could use some of the money to start a partnership

in a

DG1000 or other excellent two seater, like the DG1000 that

operates at

Ephrata, WA. You will have partners to fly with, they will be

introduced

to cross-country flying, and will pass that on as they become

proficient. It's well equipped, kept assembled and covered so it's

ready

to in moments, and seems to be fulfilling the mission envisioned

by the

original owner.



--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us"

to

email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS,

Flarm

http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl





Talking about motor gliders with extending masts and gas

engines: all the advantages seem (at least partially) offset by

corresponding disadvantages, either physical or psychological. For

example, the major convenience of not needing a towplane is

partially offset by the usually-greater difficulty and risk of self

launching. When it comes to cross-country flying, a large fraction

(99%?) of field landings are eliminated with a motor glider, but the

"worry element" always remains (motors don't always start, and a

field landing in a motor glider will be more difficult and risky). Overall,

my experience is that I prefer my motor glider, however

the advantages are not as great as I had imagined.

I always self launch, and have had fewer problems doing so than using a tow plane.

The "worry" about an outlanding is completely mitigated if you use common sense. In the words of the Schleicher manual, "One must always be prepared for the possibility that the engine will not provide the hoped for propulsion." If you thermal down to 1000 ft, THEN pull out the engine, THEN look for a place to land, there is significant worry. Never been a problem for me, I fly it like a glider to a safe landing site, then power up above the pattern. If it doesn't start, do a normal pattern and landing.

Nevertheless, it does add to pilot workload, particularly on marginal final glides. Should I get out the engine now? If I do I for sure won't make it. If I don't maybe I won't make it and I will be too low to pull it out. Pull it out now or not? It's always running though my mind....

son_of_flubber wrote, On 8/22/2013 4:22 PM:
On Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:49:54 PM UTC-4, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
ALL the other crap aside, a self launcher allows me to fly when the
tug needs an oil change, brakes, mags or whatever. That would mean
I could fly more. period. No wing runner, no FOO, no tow pilot.
Just go fly.

But interacting with the people that it takes to launch a bunch of
gliders on a good day is at least half of the fun of the sport.

You can still interact if you wish, and many motorglider owners do that.
Some even take tows if it's convenient, and I know a couple that tow up
their buddies using the towplane, then hop into their motorglider so
they can go flying, too. I know three pilots that fly touring
motorgliders and paid $2000 extra to get the towhook, so not only do
they fly the towplane, they also supply it!

Having a motorglider _increases_ your choices, instead of restricting them.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

Mike the Strike wrote, On 8/22/2013 1:48 PM:
A few years ago, I came across an Auxiliary Sailplane Association
fly-in somewhere out west. The ramp was full of pilots working on
engines - welding silencers, cleaning carburetors, fixing
electronics, etc. One guy was replacing instruments in his panel
that had fallen out through engine vibration!

It reminder me more of a rally of mid-century British sports cars
than a glider meet. I think I'll stick with having the engine at the
end of a 200-foot rope.

I've been to 6 or 7 of those ASA events at Parowan, and "full" is a
misleading overstatement. It's very few at most, and hardly anyone
misses a day of flying for those reasons. You can always take a tow and
work the problem later, if nothing else. There are usually more
irritated people in line for the towplane waiting their turn as the day
slips by. Six or seven motorgliders can launch in the time it takes to
put one towed glider in the air.

It is true a motorglider requires much more maintenance than an
unpowered glider, but most of it can be done when there is no soaring to
do. As a former partner in a towplane for our club, I know I spent more
time working on that towplane than I have on my motorglider, even though
there were 5 partners and a mechanic involved. Keeping it going was as
hard as the British sports cars I used to own.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

Andrew wrote, On 8/22/2013 9:10 AM:

Talking about motor gliders with extending masts and gas
engines: all the advantages seem (at least partially) offset by
corresponding disadvantages, either physical or psychological. For
example, the major convenience of not needing a towplane is
partially offset by the usually-greater difficulty and risk of self
launching.

That is a curious statement. All the motorglider pilots I know think
self-launching is easier than towing:

- you can taxi to the runway instead of pushing the glider there
- the steerable tail wheel means you go where you want to instead of
being ballistic during the start of the takeoff roll, and even cross
winds are more easily handled
- no dropped or mishandled wings due to the wing runner, because you
start with a wing tip on the ground, and raise it when you have
aerodynamic control
- it's easier to fly by yourself instead of following a towplane,
especially in turbulent conditions, and you get to go exactly where you
want to

When it comes to cross-country flying, a large fraction
(99%?) of field landings are eliminated with a motor glider, but the
"worry element" always remains (motors don't always start, and a
field landing in a motor glider will be more difficult and risky). Overall,
my experience is that I prefer my motor glider, however
the advantages are not as great as I had imagined.

If you haven't read my free "Guide to Self-launching Sailplanes" (56
pages), now would be a good time:

https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

There should be no more "worry element" than flying an unpowered glider.
As fellow motorglider put it: "Plan A is to land in that field/airport;
Plan B is the motor starts and I get to go back to soaring.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

On 23/08/2013 06:48, Mike the Strike wrote:
A few years ago, I came across an Auxiliary Sailplane Association
fly-in somewhere out west. The ramp was full of pilots working on
engines - welding silencers, cleaning carburetors, fixing
electronics, etc. One guy was replacing instruments in his panel
that had fallen out through engine vibration!

It reminder me more of a rally of mid-century British sports cars
than a glider meet. I think I'll stick with having the engine at the
end of a 200-foot rope.

Mike

That's a very good analogy. The level of engineering involved is about
the same and for the same reason. Better would be too expensive to
sell. They both have to adapt stuff designed for a different use. MG
tail lights and back axles, for example. A pump in my refuelling system
is from a VW Polo windscreen washer.

Further, all 2-stroke self-launcher engines are the same. They're
reliable engines as engines - but vibration kills everything attached to
it. Electrical systems, fuel systems, instrument sensors, instruments,
wiring, airframes, everything.

Mine even had an AD because vibration was rattling apart the crankshaft
from the starter ring. Why wasn't it a single piece design? That would
have been too expensive.

Like SOF, I look forward to the battery technology which will make
electric viable - unless I buy a Schleicher Wankel first.

GC

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:33:40 PM UTC-4, GC wrote:

Like SOF, I look forward to the battery technology which will make
electric viable - unless I buy a Schleicher Wankel first.

There was a prototype hybrid self-launcher shown last summer in Europe (reported in Gliding International). The prop and electric motor is in the nose, a diesel generator is mounted near the CG. No mast. Smaller battery pack. Less volatile fuel.

Do any self-launchers have the option to dump fuel before "landing rough"?

son_of_flubber wrote, On 8/22/2013 6:57 PM:
On Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:33:40 PM UTC-4, GC wrote:

Like SOF, I look forward to the battery technology which will make
electric viable - unless I buy a Schleicher Wankel first.

There was a prototype hybrid self-launcher shown last summer in
Europe (reported in Gliding International). The prop and electric
motor is in the nose, a diesel generator is mounted near the CG. No
mast. Smaller battery pack. Less volatile fuel.

Do any self-launchers have the option to dump fuel before "landing
rough"?

I don't know of any. I carry 4 gallons at most, and that's only 25
pounds, so weight isn't an issue; further, it's tucked up in the gear
well, about as safe as it can get. I'm not aware of any incidents
involving the fuel in an accident.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

Tthere has been at least one fire incident in the UK of a self-launcher. See https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...n0nzOv7VfjGwM?

There are also reports of 2 fires on the ground, in Australia. I have no more details. There have been no fires yet of battery-driven motors in gliders (AFAIK), but that does not mean there won’t be. Mine has thermal sensors in the battery packs (and motor) so I hope (a) it won’t happen and (b) if it does I have time to get out, but only time will tell. The glider in the picture above did not give warning sufficient if any at all, to the pilot of the fire. He was lucky that it happened when approaching to land.

I am very happy with my FES (self sustainer, not launcher). The decision height for using the motor can be much lower (no added drag if it does not fire up), the workload is minimal, the response is a matter of 3 seconds or less if it works (and if not, as said above, plan A is to land safely and only plan B is to use the motor if it works),.

IMHO, a better solution for hassle-free preparation and avoiding outlandings, in spite of the limited range with present batteries.

Chris N

On 23/08/2013 14:21, Chris Nicholas wrote:
Tthere has been at least one fire incident in the UK of a
self-launcher. See
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...n0nzOv7VfjGwM?

There are also reports of 2 fires on the ground, in Australia. I

There was also a Stemme in Australia which crashed disastrously after a
fire developed in the air.

GC



have no more details. There have been no fires yet of battery-driven
motors in gliders (AFAIK), but that does not mean there won’t be.
Mine has thermal sensors in the battery packs (and motor) so I hope
(a) it won’t happen and (b) if it does I have time to get out, but
only time will tell. The glider in the picture above did not give
warning sufficient if any at all, to the pilot of the fire. He was
lucky that it happened when approaching to land.

I am very happy with my FES (self sustainer, not launcher). The
decision height for using the motor can be much lower (no added drag
if it does not fire up), the workload is minimal, the response is a
matter of 3 seconds or less if it works (and if not, as said above,
plan A is to land safely and only plan B is to use the motor if it
works),.

IMHO, a better solution for hassle-free preparation and avoiding
outlandings, in spite of the limited range with present batteries.

Chris N

At 00:34 23 August 2013, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Andrew wrote, On 8/22/2013 9:10 AM:

Talking about motor gliders with extending masts and gas
engines: all the advantages seem (at least partially) offset by
corresponding disadvantages, either physical or psychological.
For
example, the major convenience of not needing a towplane is
partially offset by the usually-greater difficulty and risk of self
launching.

That is a curious statement. All the motorglider pilots I know
think
self-launching is easier than towing:

- you can taxi to the runway instead of pushing the glider there
- the steerable tail wheel means you go where you want to
instead of
being ballistic during the start of the takeoff roll, and even cross
winds are more easily handled
- no dropped or mishandled wings due to the wing runner,
because you
start with a wing tip on the ground, and raise it when you have
aerodynamic control
- it's easier to fly by yourself instead of following a towplane,
especially in turbulent conditions, and you get to go exactly
where you
want to

When it comes to cross-country flying, a large fraction
(99%?) of field landings are eliminated with a motor glider, but
the
"worry element" always remains (motors don't always start,
and a
field landing in a motor glider will be more difficult and risky).
Overall,
my experience is that I prefer my motor glider, however
the advantages are not as great as I had imagined.

If you haven't read my free "Guide to Self-launching Sailplanes"
(56
pages), now would be a good time:

https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...tions/download
-the-guide-1

There should be no more "worry element" than flying an
unpowered glider.
As fellow motorglider put it: "Plan A is to land in that
field/airport;
Plan B is the motor starts and I get to go back to soaring.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us"
to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS,
Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl



Hi Eric,

thanks for your comments. I have read your Self-Launching
Guidebook many times, and it's invaluable. I'll add my brief
comments here towards the points in your message:

1. My experience with my steerable tailwheel is that its a great
help at low power settings, taxying out and getting aligned on the
runway, but once the tailwheel gets light on the grass, as it always
does with full power, I am back to rudder control of heading, and
it takes a LOT of rudder in a XW to provide as good a directional
control as the pull from a towrope. Maybe it would be better on
tarmac, I don't know. My MG manual quotes a demonstrated XW
of 11kts.

2. Compared to aerotows, the ease of the stick-and-rudder part of
self-launching is clearly little different, but self launching is more
difficult in that it requires the MG pilot to additionally perform
engine monitoring, management, shutdown. I also use a right-
turnout as soon as possible, to remain close to the airport while
low. Regarding launch risk, I suspect engine failure is more likely
in a MG, and faster reactions would be needed in the event of a
low-level power loss.

3. About the 'worry' of field landings. As you say, there are
completely logical procedures for staying safe in a MG if a field
landing becomes imminent. However I also think it would be very
easy to fail to get an extending-mast gas engine up and running,
and the unknown risks of any field landing always worry me. The
result, for me, is that my MG does not produce the worry-free XC
flying I had imagined it would.

Overall, I do prefer my MG to a pure glider, mostly because of the
freedom from scheduling or waiting for an aerotow. That's a pure
advantage that I get every flight, and is very enjoyable.

regards
andrew