Uncle Fuzzies take on Self Launchers

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

I have been flying a 26E for 6 seasons and am completely committed to having a self-launcher for reasons all of which have probably been mentioned - independence of launch queue, put yourself where you want to in the sky, ease of taxying out and back on the airfield, you don't need a crew, if you need to self-retrieve you know the engine has already run today, you lose virtually no height in the start process, and onece the engine is going you start to climb at a better rate than the engine out sink rate - so you always remain within engine out glide of where you started the engine. For the record, I have kept to starting the engine at 1,000 foot above a landable field, and so far the engine has always started on the first push of the button for air starts. On many non-competition days I have continued with my flight when others without engines have given up, and I have always been able to fly on days when I have commitments in the evening, so I have enjoyed more gliding as a result of having the engine.

This season I have been flying an Arcus M, which is a superb glider (excellent handling, about the same performance as a Ventus 2cxt). However, at the moment I am in the middle of a competition. In this context, the engine is probably a handicap. Firstly the take-off process - competition rules say I have to follow the normal tow out route, so I cannot remain within engine out glide of the airfield (the Arcus has a lower climb rate than the ASH 26 and a higher prop out sink rate). Then the switch off - the Arcus manual asks you to cool on 20% throttle for a minute, during which you may descend, or if you are in a thermal you may climb, but the competition rules say you must switch off the engine not above 2,100 feet - after which since you cannot be in a thermal or you will have gone over 2,100 feet you may lose another couple of hundred feet before the prop is away. All this while milling around with 30 or 40 other gliders. This makes the switch-off very high workload and rather fraught.

On Wednesday we were sent off for a comp flight in low, weak, blue conditions. I knew those were terrible conditions for my glider - high wing loading, floor of 1,000 feet over a landable field. Sure enough I had to start the engine much too soon (I was in second overall after three comp days, I dropped to 7th overall so far as a result of that flight). Many of those who got round the task had been below 1,000 feet during their flights, and 4 out of 6 engine equipped gliders in my class did not finish (one which did was a Nimbus 4 DM which flew with only one on board and with no water). So for those who think having an engine is a help in a competition, I find exactly the opposite.

Mark Burton, flying an ASH26E and an Arcus M from London Gliding Club, UK

On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 03:35:17 UTC+1, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
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.



While I’m feeling relatively coherent: FRONT LOAD FUN !!

Get the toys now, and play with them. I have been a renowned ‘cheap *******’ forever, and have managed to run myself up a great bank account, and no time to utilize it. I can’t fly any more, but I could damn well pay cash for a Stemme. I think I screwed up somehwere.

That said, my fun-meter has been pretty well pegged since joining the LVVSA IN 2001. Whether flying a 1-26, Speed Astir, or Janus, for me the result is pretty much a pegged fun-meter.

Hmmmm. Losing coherence. Hope this makes some sense to somebody



Cheers,

Uncle Fuzzy

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:21:01 -0700, Chris Nicholas wrote:

Tthere has been at least one fire incident in the UK of a self-launcher.
See
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/
KxCxPHmzGh6QLWpwNxzO-89qFTGEW4n0nzOv7VfjGwM?

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

I know of one ground fire in the UK. A Duo: thought to be a slightly
binding wheel brake causing dry grass in the wheelbox to catch, which lit
the plastic fuel tube on the other side of the wheelbox side wall.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:24:47 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote: I'm waiting for an electric sustainer that I can afford.

Dear Son of Flubber, What is the price target for you?
Realistically what can you afford to buy now in an electric sustainer?

Robert Mudd
Moriarty, NM

On Friday, August 23, 2013 11:31:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:

Dear Son of Flubber, What is the price target for you?

Realistically what can you afford to buy now in an electric sustainer?

Besides my expectation of cheaper and better batteries in my flying lifetime, I've not caught the XC bug yet. Plus I have 7 day a week tow availability and landable valley fields.

If I were flying XC over tiger country, a FES would be more compelling.

Robert, FWIW, the price I paid for my FES retrofit was about the same as a conventional turbo would have cost. For that I got more convenience but less range.

I don’t know current prices.

It needs some sort of step change in battery technology to improve FES range significantly. Maybe the fuel cell/hybrid will get there first, at a cost..

Chris N

Current systems allow a 700 meter launch and about 45 min cruise. Of course if you find a thermal a bit lower than 700M then you can climb in that and save battery by either shuting the motor off or just throttling back to rebuce the sink rate. Doing a car tow or a airplane tow to 300 meters then motoring away is also a big saverer of the battery.

The present systems are really pretty good. And of course as battery technology gets better the performance in a self launch glider gets better.

Robert Mudd
Moriarty, NM

On Saturday, August 24, 2013 4:06:46 AM UTC-6, Chris Nicholas wrote:
Robert, FWIW, the price I paid for my FES retrofit was about the same as a conventional turbo would have cost. For that I got more convenience but less range. I don’t know current prices. It needs some sort of step change in battery technology to improve FES range significantly. Maybe the fuel cell/hybrid will get there first, at a cost. Chris N

On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:35:17 PM UTC-4, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
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.



While I’m feeling relatively coherent: FRONT LOAD FUN !!

Get the toys now, and play with them. I have been a renowned ‘cheap *******’ forever, and have managed to run myself up a great bank account, and no time to utilize it. I can’t fly any more, but I could damn well pay cash for a Stemme. I think I screwed up somehwere.

That said, my fun-meter has been pretty well pegged since joining the LVVSA IN 2001. Whether flying a 1-26, Speed Astir, or Janus, for me the result is pretty much a pegged fun-meter.

Hmmmm. Losing coherence. Hope this makes some sense to somebody



Cheers,

Uncle Fuzzy

For me my single-seat Carat motorglider is the solution. Great sailplane, great cruising motorglider. It has a motorglider niche which is fly to and from any airport. I love the sunrise wave flights the best and I remain popular with the other glider pilots after I tow them up with the Pawnee and then launch myself in the Carat (the program is called "no pilot left behind").

As Uncle Fuzzy wrote which has a lot of truth for many..."Get the toys now, and play with them. I have been a renowned ‘cheap *******’ forever, and have managed to run myself up a great bank account, and no time to utilize it."

I can't agree more....have fun out there. Bill

I found this website with an interesting commentary on motor
gliders.

http://www.trb.8m.com/index.html

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:48:04 PM UTC-7, 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

I have attended most of the Parowan meets and that is a gross overstatement of actual maintenance record of motorgliders. And one needs to compare that to not being able to get a tow either because the tow plane has its own mechanical breakdown or no tow pilots are available that weekend or there is a 2-3 hour wait in the tow line on a great day.
When you have a MG you can decide when and where you are going to launch (yes, you don't have to go to an airport that has tows!).

Tom