Bonus Jet glider demo weekend

On Apr 26, 10:17*am, "Tim Mara" wrote:
why wait .....the 304S Jet is being built and delivered now with a proven
turbine sustainer.

Why wait - Because people that want self launch capability have no
interest is sustainers.

Andy

that's not at all true, the vast majority of powered gliders have
sustainers, many say they want a self launcher but not many can afford one
(there is a self launch 304 also) and few want to have to deal with the
added maintenance, extra weight and complications,Then too, waiting for a
JS1 probably isn't going to do them much good either if waiting for a self
launcher, everything I've seen says the JS1 is a sustainer Jet also, not
intended for self launch
tim



"Andy" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 10:17 am, "Tim Mara" wrote:
why wait .....the 304S Jet is being built and delivered now with a proven
turbine sustainer.

Why wait - Because people that want self launch capability have no
interest is sustainers.

Andy

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6073 (20110426) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6073 (20110426) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

On Apr 26, 2:41*pm, "Tim Mara" wrote:
*that's not at all true, the vast majority of powered gliders have
sustainers, many say they want a self launcher but not many can afford one
(there is a self launch 304 also) and few want to have to deal with the
added maintenance, extra weight and complications,Then too, *waiting for a
JS1 probably isn't going to do them much good either if waiting for a self
launcher, everything I've seen says the JS1 is a sustainer Jet also, not
intended for self launch

I don't think that the fact that the majority of powered giders are
sustainers has any bearing on the fact that people who want self
launch will not be satisfied with a sustainer.

There are perhaps many factors that make sustainers more common that
self launch. One obvious one is cost. Another, perhaps less obvious
to US residents, is that in other parts of the world a glider rating
is sufficient to fly a glider with a sustainer but is not sufficient
to fly self launch. Pilots will not buy an aircraft they are not
qualified to fly.

I'm only one pilot, and only one potential customer, but if I buy a
motorized glider I want self launch not a sustainer. Self launch
gives me the ability to fly from many airport that have no tow plane
availability. A sustainer only eliminates the inconvenience of a
retrieve.

I still think my statement was true.

Andy

I guess most of us glider pilots have a flying bug/genetic defect
that propels us to want to fly above the earth. Most of us also have
had the desire to fly jet fighters at one point or another. I guess
that is one reason I love sailplanes, it feels kind of like a jet
fighter. I'm sure Jonkers will have a perfect jet sustainer option
someday for those that want a sustainer. I think the 304-Shark is an
excellent jet sustainer if it is only a sustainer you are looking for
and you want it right now. I sat in the jet 304 at the convention
last year and it was really really nice. I even got a tingle in my
leg! I could taste the future possibility!
Many of us were not worthy enough for the military jet program due
to bad eyes or being too tall or both. Yes, I am tall and half blind
but I can fly quite well. Bob Carlton has given us military castoffs
a small window of opportunity to fly our own jet and experience the
dream. Bob Carltons turbine engine upgrade makes your sailplane dual
purpose, a self launch sailplane, but it also becomes a jet airplane
on those very blue, windless days where you just want to go fly
somewhere and have fun. From what I have heard, EASA has made
certification of jet sustainers much easier and cheaper than a self
launch jet sailplane. Manufactures following EASA regs have little
incentive to build a jet self launch at this time, or so I have
heard. That is where Bob Carltons turbine upgrade comes in!!! All
I have to do now is save the $3000 to get my turbine sailplane
endorsement from Bob Carltons certification program. Then, I would win
the lottery to by my own Bonus jet sailplane or a JS-1/Duo Discus
upgraded . In the mean time, I should travel to New Mexico and get
checked out in Bobs Bonus Jet and get my jet sailplane endorsement and
check off one more item on my BUCKET LIST!
John Ackerson

On Apr 26, 4:28*pm, "Dr. John" wrote:
* *I guess most of us glider pilots have a *flying bug/genetic defect
that propels us to want to fly above the earth. *Most of us also have
had the desire to fly jet fighters at one point or another. *I guess
that is one reason I love sailplanes, *it feels kind of like a jet
fighter. * I'm sure Jonkers will have a perfect jet sustainer option
someday for those that want a sustainer. I think the 304-Shark is an
excellent jet sustainer if it is only a sustainer you are looking for
and you want it right now. *I sat in the jet 304 at the convention
last year and it was really really nice. I even got a tingle in my
leg! *I could taste the future possibility!
* * Many of us were not worthy enough for the military jet program due
to bad eyes or being too tall or both. Yes, I am tall and half blind
but I can fly quite well. *Bob Carlton has given us military castoffs
a small window of opportunity to fly our own jet and experience the
dream. *Bob Carltons turbine engine upgrade makes your sailplane dual
purpose, a self launch sailplane, but it also becomes a jet airplane
on those very blue, windless days where you just want to go fly
somewhere and have fun. * *From what I have heard, EASA has made
certification of jet sustainers much easier and cheaper than a self
launch jet sailplane. *Manufactures following EASA regs have little
incentive to build a jet self launch at this time, or so I have
heard. *That is where Bob Carltons turbine upgrade comes in!!! * * All
I have to do now is save the $3000 to get my turbine sailplane
endorsement from Bob Carltons certification program. Then, I would win
the lottery to by my own Bonus jet sailplane or a JS-1/Duo Discus
upgraded . *In the mean time, I should travel to New Mexico and get
checked out in Bobs Bonus Jet and get my jet sailplane endorsement and
check off one more item on my BUCKET LIST!
John Ackerson

John,

I logged my time in the Bonus Jet as glider pilot in command as I am
"grandfathered" to act as pilot in command of motor gliders. Since you
raised the issue of special training I checked how the Bonus Jet is
registered. There were two surprises:

1. The aircraft is registered as Type - Fixed Wing Single-Engine (Not
glider)
2. Type Engine is specified as Reciprocating.

Looks like I need to change my log entry since I'm also qualified to
fly fixed wing aircraft with one or more reciprocating engines.

Also noted the experimental category is racing, with no mention of
exhibition or development which also seems strange.

Anyone else confused??

Andy

On Apr 26, 10:22*am, "Dr. John" wrote:
I can't wait to hear about the JS-1 turbine installation. *Once again
I dream of a lottery winning that would precipitate a quick order to
Jonkers and a delivery to Bob Carlton for a Turbine upgrade. *Or would
it be a Duo discus XLT without the lawn mower engine. * I guess the
Bonus sailplane would be fine although I would not consider it my
dream ship. * Having the TBO raised from 300 hours to 2000 hours
really gives strength to the quality and capability of these turbine
engines. *I wonder what the risk of a engine bird strike might be?
Since I have yet to hit any bids, it is probably pretty low. Congrats
Bob on being a trailblazer in a time of economic depression with a
weak currency. *I wonder if there has been any interest from over
seas. *Cheap dollars make our products a deal in Europe. *I guess my
only hope now is that Bob sells a bunch of Turbines which might make
them available on the used market in 20 years at price my wife might
think is not completely insane. *Something about a toy airplane
costing more than our house sours the discussion of my dream ships.
John Ackerson

John the answer is simple: Buy a more expensive house!

On 4/26/2011 7:31 PM, gotovkotzepkoi wrote:
Mark628CA;770355 Wrote:
The BonusJet's fuselage was post cured at the TsT factory to 200
degrees F. Data from the engine manufacturer PBS show the radiant heat
at various distances from the exhaust. Using the data, Bob determined
that an exhaust splitter would be necessary. PBS manufactured a
special exhaust that split the heat plume 6 degrees per side (12
degrees total). Subsequent testing with the engine at full throttle on
a 95 degree F day, using heat sensitive tape labels on the vertical
and horizontal surfaces showed a maximum temperature of 145 degrees F,
well below the 200 degrees that would subject the tail to deformation
and/or damage.

BTW, the poster that was concerned about a "bomb" on board undoubtedly
rides his bicycle or walks to the airfield if he is concerned about
travelling in a vehicle that actually carries (gasp) fuel on board.
Like every vehicle on the road. And the aircraft that tows him up.

How did you guess? Actually, I do ride my bike to the airfield. Prior to
sitting in the coffin like glider cockpit I need to get some exercise!

I'm aware of very few fuel related accidents in self-launched
sailplanes. The only one that I can recall right now was in Australia,
on the ground, with the likely cause that a fuel line was torn loose
during the engine extension. I can recall a couple canopy caused fires,
suggesting canopies may be a greater risk :^)

A jet powered self-launcher will surely carry much more fuel than the
equivalent two or four stroke engine powered self-launcher, but it's not
clear this makes it more dangerous. Owners will have to handle greater
quantities of fuel, perhaps increasing risk, but the fuel is less
volatile than gasoline, decreasing risk; however, the ignition
temperature is lower, increasing risk; and so on.

Based on our experience with automobiles fueled with diesel, and
kerosene's widespread use as a heating fuel in rural areas, I don't
think the fuel handling risk is a significant problem. Gasoline hasn't
significantly increased the accident risk in current two and four stroke
powered gliders. Overall, the promise of jet power is more reliable and
simpler operation leading to fewer accidents.

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

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

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Interesting that FAA registration shows fixed wing, recip engine and
racing (only). The airworthiness certificate says Glider, exhibition
& racing. The operating limitations specifically address the turbine
engine. My guess is whoever typed it in just couldn't fathom the idea
of turbine engine and glider on the same form. I'd say the FAA is
confused...imagine...Thanks for pointing it out, Andy. I'll see about
getting the FAA records corrected.

As for logging PIC time, because my BonusJet has been approved for
training for hire under a Letter Of Deviation Authority or LODA
(91.319h, for those who like to look up interesting regs), I agreed to
an operating limitation requiring an LOA to be PIC. So, technically,
you can't be PIC of this particular aircraft without the specific
rating. Not so with my Salto or with my twin jet Silent (also didn't
require a multi-engine rating).

BTW, the jet Silent was de-engined and sold as a non-powered glider
last year.

BC

On Apr 26, 6:20*pm, Andy wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:28*pm, "Dr. John" wrote:



* *I guess most of us glider pilots have a *flying bug/genetic defect
that propels us to want to fly above the earth. *Most of us also have
had the desire to fly jet fighters at one point or another. *I guess
that is one reason I love sailplanes, *it feels kind of like a jet
fighter. * I'm sure Jonkers will have a perfect jet sustainer option
someday for those that want a sustainer. I think the 304-Shark is an
excellent jet sustainer if it is only a sustainer you are looking for
and you want it right now. *I sat in the jet 304 at the convention
last year and it was really really nice. I even got a tingle in my
leg! *I could taste the future possibility!
* * Many of us were not worthy enough for the military jet program due
to bad eyes or being too tall or both. Yes, I am tall and half blind
but I can fly quite well. *Bob Carlton has given us military castoffs
a small window of opportunity to fly our own jet and experience the
dream. *Bob Carltons turbine engine upgrade makes your sailplane dual
purpose, a self launch sailplane, but it also becomes a jet airplane
on those very blue, windless days where you just want to go fly
somewhere and have fun. * *From what I have heard, EASA has made
certification of jet sustainers much easier and cheaper than a self
launch jet sailplane. *Manufactures following EASA regs have little
incentive to build a jet self launch at this time, or so I have
heard. *That is where Bob Carltons turbine upgrade comes in!!! * * All
I have to do now is save the $3000 to get my turbine sailplane
endorsement from Bob Carltons certification program. Then, I would win
the lottery to by my own Bonus jet sailplane or a JS-1/Duo Discus
upgraded . *In the mean time, I should travel to New Mexico and get
checked out in Bobs Bonus Jet and get my jet sailplane endorsement and
check off one more item on my BUCKET LIST!
John Ackerson

John,

I logged my time in the Bonus Jet as glider pilot in command as I am
"grandfathered" to act as pilot in command of motor gliders. Since you
raised the issue of special training I checked how the Bonus Jet is
registered. There were two surprises:

1. The aircraft is registered as Type - Fixed Wing Single-Engine (Not
glider)
2. Type Engine is specified as Reciprocating.

Looks like I need to change my log entry since I'm also qualified to
fly fixed wing aircraft with one or more reciprocating engines.

Also noted the experimental category is racing, with no mention of
exhibition or development which also seems strange.

Anyone else confused??

Andy

It is true that in Europe (where the vast majority of gliders are
sold), there are more sustainers than self-launchers being sold. Two
reasons - there are many winch launch operations where an inexpensive
winch launch, followed by a sustainer search for lift makes sense.
Also, the EASA requirements for sustainers are far less stringent than
for self-launchers (no takeoff distance or noise requirements).
Neither of these is true of the US market.

Jonker is well along on a sustainer jet (I have very little
information on the engine other than it is a European manufacturer).
I have provided them with a design for the TJ-100 engine and retract
mechanism that will fit the JS-1 fuselage. Still very preliminary,
but there is interest in the idea. Performance would be unbelievable!

I've visited the HpH factory a couple of times. I wish Jaroslav and
the guys at HpH all the best with their latest jet engine. They are
great guys and their craftsmanship is the best in the industry. The
304S is a beautiful ship.

BC

On Apr 26, 10:42*am, Cliff Hilty
wrote:
At 14:23 26 April 2011, jcarlyle wrote:

On Apr 26, 9:57 am, ContestID67 *wrote:
I just worry that given enough time the heat may affect the structure
of the tail (glass? carbon fiber?) with the potential of loosing the
tail. *While I might be able to live with loosing a rudder, loosing
the elevator is a whole other matter.

If you were losing the tail, rudder or elavator, it'd be a problem.
Loosing it, though, it'll probably just rattle...

-John

I believe that Bob has that data on his website mentioned earlier but I
remember that it reached a max of 140 degrees in testing and his glider
was post cured to past 200 so should not be a factor, also it mainly seems
to hit the tail much lower than the horisontal stab and didn't effect the
controlability at all.

CH

I understand what you are saying about the post curing being higher
than the max temperature during flight. My contention is that a one
off 200 degree cure temperature is distinctly different than the long
term reoccurring 140 degree ambient temperatures on the vertical fin
from jet exhaust over the 30+ year lifespan of the glider. A very
simplistic example are the corregated fiberglass panels often used for
carport roofs. Right out of the factory they are very strong. But
put them in the sun for several years and they become quite brittle.
Ask me how I know. I know that UV is different than infrared heat but
the degredation concept is applicable. I just would really hate to
read in a few years about a glider's tail coming off during flight due
to the long term degredation of the glass/fiber from jet exhaust
heat.

About the controlability - my question was about adding a heat shield
on the vertical fine (with gap) might affect the rudder
effectiveness. Sure seems like simple safety fix for a potentially
deadly problem.

Maybe I am all wet on this. But hey, this is EXPERIMENTAL! Life on
the thin red line!

As always, my $0.02. - John "Mr Conservative" DeRosa