Antares 18S Maiden Flight

Marc Ramsey schrieb:
Stefan wrote:
Paul Remde schrieb:

I wish I could afford one!

See? They probably decided that they need to sell a couple of them to
survive. BTW, the Antares flies sweetly as glider, as I hear from a
friend who can afford one. And isn't *that* the main criteria for a
glider?

A glider that flies sweetly is a joy, but that criteria is pretty much
irrelevant if you can't afford to fly it...

Which was exactly my point.

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
Marc Ramsey schrieb:
Stefan wrote:
Paul Remde schrieb:

I wish I could afford one!

See? They probably decided that they need to sell a couple of them to
survive. BTW, the Antares flies sweetly as glider, as I hear from a
friend who can afford one. And isn't *that* the main criteria for a
glider?

A glider that flies sweetly is a joy, but that criteria is pretty much
irrelevant if you can't afford to fly it...

Which was exactly my point.

Stefan


Be like me, buy a 1-26.

You won't have more fun in anything else -- you'll just temporarily fool
yourself into thinking you've become a better pilot simply by shredding
your checkbook.


Jack
#588

Jack wrote:
Stefan wrote:
Marc Ramsey schrieb:
Stefan wrote:
Paul Remde schrieb:

I wish I could afford one!

See? They probably decided that they need to sell a couple of them
to survive. BTW, the Antares flies sweetly as glider, as I hear from
a friend who can afford one. And isn't *that* the main criteria for
a glider?

A glider that flies sweetly is a joy, but that criteria is pretty
much irrelevant if you can't afford to fly it...

Which was exactly my point.

Stefan


Be like me, buy a 1-26.

You won't have more fun in anything else --

I can't speak for Stefan, but for me, unless it's one of those rare
self-launching 1-26M models - wrong!

you'll just temporarily fool
yourself into thinking you've become a better pilot simply by shredding
your checkbook.

I do wonder how what percentage of pilots have gone from a 1-26 to a
higher performance glider, and were glad they did so, and what
percentage have gone from a higher performance glider to a 1-26, and
were glad they did so.

Personally, when I went from a Ka-6E to a Std Cirrus, I was pleased with
the additional soaring the higher performance allowed me. The next
significant increase in enjoyment occurred when I went from a "towed"
glider to a self-launching sailplane.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Jack wrote:

Be like me, buy a 1-26.

You won't have more fun in anything else --

I can't speak for Stefan, but for me, unless it's one of those rare
self-launching 1-26M models - wrong!

you'll just temporarily fool yourself into thinking you've become a
better pilot simply by shredding your checkbook.

I do wonder how what percentage of pilots have gone from a 1-26 to a
higher performance glider, and were glad they did so, and what
percentage have gone from a higher performance glider to a 1-26, and
were glad they did so.

Personally, when I went from a Ka-6E to a Std Cirrus, I was pleased with
the additional soaring the higher performance allowed me. The next
significant increase in enjoyment occurred when I went from a "towed"
glider to a self-launching sailplane.


I see no conflict between our respective positions.

How fast you want to go = how much money you have. Neither has anything
to do with how good you are at doing whatever you can afford to do.

As far as going from higher performance to a 1-26, or any other glider,
there are a number of us on r.a.s. who have gone from much higher
performance aircraft (think mach+ and/or Boeing/McD/Airbus) to whatever
our current choices are and we know very well that performance is in the
stick actuator.

To each his own: have all the fun you can afford, I say.


Jack

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
MaD wrote:
schrieb:

The 18T sustainer would be the sinky kind.



And the reason for that is given he
http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.de/engl...u/menu-akt.htm

The engine could be smaller but the battery pack almost the same size
as for the 20E would make it a *very* heavy 18m glider.

From the Antares site:

"Building a self-sustainer utilizing electrical propulsion is currently
not possible, because in order to achieve the range required for a
self-sustaining glider, the size of the battery-pack would have to be
comparable to the pack installed in the Antares 20E. This is contrary to
the basic idea behind a self sustaining glider, which is to provide a very
economical way of staying aloft."

I think it is odd they accepted the range limitations of an electric
system for the 20E, which has about 1/3 the powered range my ASH 26 E, but
weren't willing to accept a similar range limitation for a sustainer. I
suggest a sustainer that could climb 3000' on it's battery would be enough
for a majority of pilots, and this would allow a significantly smaller
battery to be used.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

Of course, a possible future alternative is a micro jet turbine. Roughly
speaking, the typical glider's 30 gallon ballast tanks, if converted to hold
Jet A, would give three hours at 120 knots. That would most likely get the
pilot to a comfortable landing spot in time for a steak and beer. I've done
the "back-of-envelope" nembers for my Nimbus 2C and they say it would do 120
knots for 7.5 hours with flameout near 18,000 feet.

Neither quiet nor green but effective.

Bill Daniels

Eric Greenwell schrieb:


I think it is odd they accepted the range limitations of an electric
system for the 20E, which has about 1/3 the powered range my ASH 26 E,
but weren't willing to accept a similar range limitation for a
sustainer. I suggest a sustainer that could climb 3000' on it's battery
would be enough for a majority of pilots, and this would allow a
significantly smaller battery to be used.

--

Yes, then the battery could be 1/3rd of the 20E-size. But:
No, I don't think 3000' would be widely accepted. That would only give
you an extra 60km range, so basically only good enough if you missed
the last thermal on your way home over flat country. In the Alps, with
two or three mountains between you and home: no good.

Marcel

Do you need (vs. want) to get home or do you need to get to the next
closest airport?

Bill Daniels wrote:
"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...

MaD wrote:

schrieb:


The 18T sustainer would be the sinky kind.



And the reason for that is given he
http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.de/engl...u/menu-akt.htm

The engine could be smaller but the battery pack almost the same size
as for the 20E would make it a *very* heavy 18m glider.

From the Antares site:

"Building a self-sustainer utilizing electrical propulsion is currently
not possible, because in order to achieve the range required for a
self-sustaining glider, the size of the battery-pack would have to be
comparable to the pack installed in the Antares 20E. This is contrary to
the basic idea behind a self sustaining glider, which is to provide a very
economical way of staying aloft."

I think it is odd they accepted the range limitations of an electric
system for the 20E, which has about 1/3 the powered range my ASH 26 E, but
weren't willing to accept a similar range limitation for a sustainer. I
suggest a sustainer that could climb 3000' on it's battery would be enough
for a majority of pilots, and this would allow a significantly smaller
battery to be used.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"


Of course, a possible future alternative is a micro jet turbine. Roughly
speaking, the typical glider's 30 gallon ballast tanks, if converted to hold
Jet A, would give three hours at 120 knots. That would most likely get the
pilot to a comfortable landing spot in time for a steak and beer. I've done
the "back-of-envelope" nembers for my Nimbus 2C and they say it would do 120
knots for 7.5 hours with flameout near 18,000 feet.

Neither quiet nor green but effective.

Bill Daniels

With a very quiet ele thrust system, Would it be feasable
to dial in a lesser thrust setting to achieve an operational
higher performance polar? For example; a setting
for 'Nimbus 4' and another seting for 'ETA', and a
low setting for a 'Cirris'..... A charging mode to
achieve the polar of a 1-26 : )......


Jeff

MaD wrote:
Eric Greenwell schrieb:


I think it is odd they accepted the range limitations of an electric
system for the 20E, which has about 1/3 the powered range my ASH 26 E,
but weren't willing to accept a similar range limitation for a
sustainer. I suggest a sustainer that could climb 3000' on it's battery
would be enough for a majority of pilots, and this would allow a
significantly smaller battery to be used.

--

Yes, then the battery could be 1/3rd of the 20E-size. But:
No, I don't think 3000' would be widely accepted. That would only give
you an extra 60km range, so basically only good enough if you missed
the last thermal on your way home over flat country. In the Alps, with
two or three mountains between you and home: no good.

So, not a good choice for the Alps, but two thirds of the USA (the part
east of the Rockies) doesn't have the "problem" of multiple tall
mountains. Even the Western USA has mostly mountains separated by wide
valleys with fields and airports.

Do the sustainer equipped gliders have enough altitude capability to get
over the mountains in the Alps, or does the pilot return by flying
through the valleys?


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

Eric Greenwell wrote:


Do the sustainer equipped gliders have enough altitude capability to get
over the mountains in the Alps, or does the pilot return by flying
through the valleys?

A very good question. It is my impression that the sustainers really
can't climb at all, and that you need to get a self-launching plane if
you want to get over a mountain.

There hasn't been much talk on RAS about the Apis electric
self-launcher, but it seems that it could work quite well as a
sustainer, and at a price that is much cheaper than the Antares.