$1 billion BMS Ooops...

On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 3:48:54 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 3/16/2021 12:46 PM:
Landing out in eastern Nevada is serious business; some may chose to fly non-motorized gliders there (which, in my mind, the GP15 is) and get away with it.
I forgot to respond to the "non-motorized" portion of your remarks. Perhaps you will be
surprised (or at least interested) to learn the GP15 climb rate from the runway on a typical
flying day at Ely will be nearly double the climb rate of my ASH26E. A major reason is the
electric motor still has the same power at 9000' DA, while the carbureted Wankel has lost about
18%. The better climb on takeoff in high density altitudes was an important factor in my
choice. It's not important at Ely, but it is at Parowan, and a few other places I've flown (or
wanted to fly but decided it was marginal).

Now, I realize you think 90 miles of self-retrieve is the same as zero miles, but that view is
not shared by every "pure" glider pilot out there!
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Where do you get 90 miles? GP's website doesn't list it. Their numbers are dry - if you can trust them (nobody's verified them and they may be estimated for all you know). The self-retrieve distance they list for the B battery is 100km (63 miles) with a 800m launch with no ballast. Now add ballast, add an 3,000 ft obstacle and a 20kt headwind (all realistic conditions at Ely) and refigure what the hypothetical retrieve distance is, if any.

Tom

2G wrote on 3/16/2021 10:17 PM:
On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 3:48:54 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 3/16/2021 12:46 PM:
Landing out in eastern Nevada is serious business; some may chose to fly non-motorized gliders there (which, in my mind, the GP15 is) and get away with it.
I forgot to respond to the "non-motorized" portion of your remarks. Perhaps you will be
surprised (or at least interested) to learn the GP15 climb rate from the runway on a typical
flying day at Ely will be nearly double the climb rate of my ASH26E. A major reason is the
electric motor still has the same power at 9000' DA, while the carbureted Wankel has lost about
18%. The better climb on takeoff in high density altitudes was an important factor in my
choice. It's not important at Ely, but it is at Parowan, and a few other places I've flown (or
wanted to fly but decided it was marginal).

Now, I realize you think 90 miles of self-retrieve is the same as zero miles, but that view is
not shared by every "pure" glider pilot out there!
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Where do you get 90 miles? GP's website doesn't list it. Their numbers are dry - if you can trust them (nobody's verified them and they may be estimated for all you know). The self-retrieve distance they list for the B battery is 100km (63 miles) with a 800m launch with no ballast. Now add ballast, add an 3,000 ft obstacle and a 20kt headwind (all realistic conditions at Ely) and refigure what the hypothetical retrieve distance is, if any.

Take a look at this page: https://www.gpgliders.com/offer/gp-15-e-se-jeta Here's the pertinent
portion:

Usable battery capacity: 9,23 kWh
Operational battery capacity: 8,36 kWh (10% buffer to preserve battery life)
Weight: 52 kg (115 lb)

Motor glider’s self-launch and climb performance on a single charge, equipped with “B” battery
pack (TOW: 320 kg [705 lb]):

5 x take-off and climb to 800 m (2 625 ft) altitude
or 1 x take-off and climb to 800 m (2 625 ft) altitude + 150 km (93 mi) range
or 1 x take-off and total climb to 4 000 m (13 120 ft)
Max. climb rate: 4,4 m/s (8,55 kts)
Ground-roll take-off distance: 180 m (197 yards)

Because the wing area is 84 ft2, the 705lb TOW = 8.4 lb/ft2, about the same wing loading I have
in the ASH26E, unballasted.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

On 2/24/2021 4:41 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
https://insideevs.com/news/490300/hy...ll-82000-bevs/

Discuss amongst yourselves...

I'm glad to see this has generated some good discussion, but there were
a few rather bizarre posts. To be extremely clear:

1) I'm not "hating" on anyone, and I sincerely wish success for the
manufacturers, even those who have behaved badly...

2) The purpose of the post, for those it seems lost on, was to
illustrate that even the big boys in industry with colossal resources at
their disposal have problems. This stuff (electronics in general and
certainly battery storage and propulsion systems) is not easy.

3) Because it is not easy, the manner in which engineering is approached
matters. A lot. I've spent decades unsnarling engineering problems of
all stripes, and certainly in gliding I've seen how the sausages are
made. And I've seen, and continue to see how the same mistakes are
repeated and repeated...

I hope this all has helped general understanding of the issues,
Best Regards, Dave

PS: Really now, How Hard Could It Be?

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 4:28:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On 2/24/2021 4:41 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
https://insideevs.com/news/490300/hy...ll-82000-bevs/

Discuss amongst yourselves...

I'm glad to see this has generated some good discussion, but there were
a few rather bizarre posts. To be extremely clear:

1) I'm not "hating" on anyone, and I sincerely wish success for the
manufacturers, even those who have behaved badly...

2) The purpose of the post, for those it seems lost on, was to
illustrate that even the big boys in industry with colossal resources at
their disposal have problems. This stuff (electronics in general and
certainly battery storage and propulsion systems) is not easy.

3) Because it is not easy, the manner in which engineering is approached
matters. A lot. I've spent decades unsnarling engineering problems of
all stripes, and certainly in gliding I've seen how the sausages are
made. And I've seen, and continue to see how the same mistakes are
repeated and repeated...

I hope this all has helped general understanding of the issues,
Best Regards, Dave

PS: Really now, How Hard Could It Be?

I would appreciate hearing from you what problems you have had with your Antares if you are interested in sharing. Eric seems to think that all of these problems have been solved, but I am not convinced. In fact, significant new problems have materialized that weren't present in the Antares, like fires.

Tom

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 9:00:04 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 3/16/2021 10:17 PM:
On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 3:48:54 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 3/16/2021 12:46 PM:
Landing out in eastern Nevada is serious business; some may chose to fly non-motorized gliders there (which, in my mind, the GP15 is) and get away with it.
I forgot to respond to the "non-motorized" portion of your remarks. Perhaps you will be
surprised (or at least interested) to learn the GP15 climb rate from the runway on a typical
flying day at Ely will be nearly double the climb rate of my ASH26E. A major reason is the
electric motor still has the same power at 9000' DA, while the carbureted Wankel has lost about
18%. The better climb on takeoff in high density altitudes was an important factor in my
choice. It's not important at Ely, but it is at Parowan, and a few other places I've flown (or
wanted to fly but decided it was marginal).

Now, I realize you think 90 miles of self-retrieve is the same as zero miles, but that view is
not shared by every "pure" glider pilot out there!
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Where do you get 90 miles? GP's website doesn't list it. Their numbers are dry - if you can trust them (nobody's verified them and they may be estimated for all you know). The self-retrieve distance they list for the B battery is 100km (63 miles) with a 800m launch with no ballast. Now add ballast, add an 3,000 ft obstacle and a 20kt headwind (all realistic conditions at Ely) and refigure what the hypothetical retrieve distance is, if any.

Take a look at this page: https://www.gpgliders.com/offer/gp-15-e-se-jeta Here's the pertinent
portion:

Usable battery capacity: 9,23 kWh
Operational battery capacity: 8,36 kWh (10% buffer to preserve battery life)
Weight: 52 kg (115 lb)

Motor glider’s self-launch and climb performance on a single charge, equipped with “B� battery
pack (TOW: 320 kg [705 lb]):

5 x take-off and climb to 800 m (2 625 ft) altitude
or 1 x take-off and climb to 800 m (2 625 ft) altitude + 150 km (93 mi) range
or 1 x take-off and total climb to 4 000 m (13 120 ft)
Max. climb rate: 4,4 m/s (8,55 kts)
Ground-roll take-off distance: 180 m (197 yards)

Because the wing area is 84 ft2, the 705lb TOW = 8.4 lb/ft2, about the same wing loading I have
in the ASH26E, unballasted.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Eric, I'm curious about the wing loadings quoted for the Jeta from 7,58-13,72 lb/ft^2. For the conditions I fly in Ontario where thermals average 2 to 4 kts, I see these heavy wing loadings as a disadvantage even in a flapped ship. I fly my D2 mostly dry at less than 6 lb/ft^2. What am I missing?
Ian IN

I fly my D2 mostly dry at less than 6 lb/ft^2. What am I missing?

Decent lift.

On 3/18/2021 11:50 AM, India November wrote:
Eric, I'm curious about the wing loadings quoted for the Jeta from 7,58-13,72 lb/ft^2. For the conditions I fly in Ontario where thermals average 2 to 4 kts, I see these heavy wing loadings as a disadvantage even in a flapped ship. I fly my D2 mostly dry at less than 6 lb/ft^2. What am I missing?

Ian, newer flapped designs do well in weak conditions even with higher
wing-loadings. The glider I'm flying at the moment has a minimum
wing-loading of 9.5 lbs/ft2 (and I'm a lighter pilot), but I've never
landed it when someone else was able to climb away. Span-loading helps
(18m better than 15m). Not comparable to older unflapped designs.

India November wrote on 3/18/2021 8:50 AM:
On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 9:00:04 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 3/16/2021 10:17 PM:
On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 3:48:54 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 3/16/2021 12:46 PM:
Landing out in eastern Nevada is serious business; some may chose to fly non-motorized gliders there (which, in my mind, the GP15 is) and get away with it.
I forgot to respond to the "non-motorized" portion of your remarks. Perhaps you will be
surprised (or at least interested) to learn the GP15 climb rate from the runway on a typical
flying day at Ely will be nearly double the climb rate of my ASH26E. A major reason is the
electric motor still has the same power at 9000' DA, while the carbureted Wankel has lost about
18%. The better climb on takeoff in high density altitudes was an important factor in my
choice. It's not important at Ely, but it is at Parowan, and a few other places I've flown (or
wanted to fly but decided it was marginal).

Now, I realize you think 90 miles of self-retrieve is the same as zero miles, but that view is
not shared by every "pure" glider pilot out there!
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Where do you get 90 miles? GP's website doesn't list it. Their numbers are dry - if you can trust them (nobody's verified them and they may be estimated for all you know). The self-retrieve distance they list for the B battery is 100km (63 miles) with a 800m launch with no ballast. Now add ballast, add an 3,000 ft obstacle and a 20kt headwind (all realistic conditions at Ely) and refigure what the hypothetical retrieve distance is, if any.

Take a look at this page: https://www.gpgliders.com/offer/gp-15-e-se-jeta Here's the pertinent
portion:

Usable battery capacity: 9,23 kWh
Operational battery capacity: 8,36 kWh (10% buffer to preserve battery life)
Weight: 52 kg (115 lb)

Motor glider’s self-launch and climb performance on a single charge, equipped with “B” battery
pack (TOW: 320 kg [705 lb]):

5 x take-off and climb to 800 m (2 625 ft) altitude
or 1 x take-off and climb to 800 m (2 625 ft) altitude + 150 km (93 mi) range
or 1 x take-off and total climb to 4 000 m (13 120 ft)
Max. climb rate: 4,4 m/s (8,55 kts)
Ground-roll take-off distance: 180 m (197 yards)

Because the wing area is 84 ft2, the 705lb TOW = 8.4 lb/ft2, about the same wing loading I have
in the ASH26E, unballasted.

Eric, I'm curious about the wing loadings quoted for the Jeta from 7,58-13,72 lb/ft^2. For the conditions I fly in Ontario where thermals average 2 to 4 kts, I see these heavy wing loadings as a disadvantage even in a flapped ship. I fly my D2 mostly dry at less than 6 lb/ft^2. What am I missing?
Ian IN

Are you really sure of that wing loading? The numbers on the Schmepp site suggest a wing
loading for a pilot 165lb pilot with a 15 lb parachute is over 6.5 lb/ft2. But even it's 7
lb/ft2, it is definitely a lighter wing loading than the newer flapped 15m gliders; eg, the new
AS33-15M has a minimum wing loading of 8.5 lb/ft2, and that is without a motor.

As Dave mentions, span loading (weight/span^2) is a better indicator of thermalling ability,
and since the Discus 2A and the Jeta have the same span and about the same minimum weight
(using the weight from the Schmepp site), I'd expect them to thermal the same. It may seem
strange a lighter wing loading doesn't help more, but aspect ratio matters: the Discus has a 22
ratio, while the Jeta has 29.

And, the Jeta has a motor, so even if it did not thermal quite as well as your Discus, you'd
still have fewer landouts in it than the Discus 2. Plus, you'd love the extra speed the higher
wing loading allows during the cruise, at least 15% faster (and with a higher glide ratio, due
in part to the higher aspect ratio).

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

On Thursday, 18 March 2021 at 19:48:23 UTC, wrote:

Ian, newer flapped designs do well in weak conditions even with higher
wing-loadings. The glider I'm flying at the moment has a minimum
wing-loading of 9.5 lbs/ft2 (and I'm a lighter pilot), but I've never
landed it when someone else was able to climb away. Span-loading helps
(18m better than 15m). Not comparable to older unflapped designs.

When flying the Arcus M with a copilot and no ballast my wing loading is 49 kg/m2 (10 lbs/ft2). In spite of being a 'newer flapped design', in very weak lift pure gliders without ballast simply climb away from me. You may rightly assume that is indicative of my piloting skills, or lack of them! But when a good pilot joined me for a comp, the first time he was flying in very weak lift he quickly admitted that I hadn't been fibbing about not being able to climb in weak lift.

On 3/17/2021 11:59 PM, 2G wrote:
...significant new problems have materialized that weren't present in the Antares, like fires.

2 of 4 Antares in USA had notable fires about a decade back (also some
in Europe). These fires were from unspeakably bad electronics design and
nothing to do with the battery system. Fortunately both fires in USA
happened on the ground without too much drama (burned up an electronic
module without spreading).