FES vs Gas Engine – Finding a Thermal?

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 11:46:05 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
My experience in the Electro mirrors Scott's, although he seems to be better at centering the low thermals than I! I'm usually closer to 30% battery used for a self launch.

My experience is similar to Tony's. I usually climb to 1000 at about 70% power then dial back to sustainer level 4 KW searching for the 1st thermal then center the thermal until I climb to 2000 then shut down. A good day I will have 70% battery left. On a bad day 50%

There is no plummet mode with the FES

Not sure an electric "engine on a stick" is sensible as a new
design for a get you home (turbo) glider - all the drag and
complexity of the erection mechanism/doors etc. Surely the
FES route make much more sense - simpler, less drag, more
efficient.
Of course if you already own a Rotax/Solo shaker stick engine
it might be attractive (outside of EASA land) you lucky
Americans.

When the engine on a stick fails the drag is very dependant on
the individual sailplane: it's not just the engine & pylon there's
often a big radiator too. From recollection the DG400(&PIK20E)
was about 14:1; the DG800B/C a bit better, a previous post
gives 20:1 for the ASH26E; the Antares 20E (no radiator) is
30:1.

Dave Walsh

As a facilities, RC electric and automotive guy, beyond depleted batteries or really crappy wiring, the "no run" on electric is likely magnitudes better than any gas.
Regardless of FES or pylon.

The electric motor is a ton less, but current battery tech (no pun intended) makes the gas/electric swap (for similar power) a wash. The batteries take a lot of weight, but it's closer to fuselage centerline so the CG effect is limited.

Cost, well, how is it certified and how open is your aviation authority?
Engineering, like marriage, there is give and take, nothing is perfect. Make the best decision you can, live with any potential downside.

I don't think that there will be much drag from the erected but not turning pylon and prop of the GP 14/15 design. The blades are folded backwards and the pylon looks pretty aerodynamic. I think it is a brilliant concept - with the added benefit of being a self launcher rather than a sustainer. If the GP 15 was more advanced through the certification and a more known design I would be waiting for one now instead of for a Solo engines self launcher.

At 09:27 30 August 2017, wrote:
I don't think that there will be much drag from the erected
but not
turning=
pylon and prop of the GP 14/15 design. The blades are
folded backwards
a=
nd the pylon looks pretty aerodynamic. I think it is a brilliant
concept
=
- with the added benefit of being a self launcher rather than a
sustainer.
=
If the GP 15 was more advanced through the certification
and a more known
=
design I would be waiting for one now instead of for a Solo
engines self
la=
uncher.

I think the crucial word here is "concept". Be interesting to
see just how close the real thing is to their website projections;
if they're even close it will be an interesting ship.
Is it just me who thinks the GP product range naming is weird
and confusing? Build a 13.5m glider and call it GP14; build a
15m glider powered by electricity and cal it a GP 15 JETA?
Did their marketing team once work for Mercedes or is this all
home grown.