Vans RV-11

Earlier, (Mark James Boyd) wrote:

...Turbines are also quite elegant and reliable,
with the only drawback being fuel consumption.

Personally, I consider ear-splitting shrieks at decibels above the
threshold of pain to comprise a third drawback. I suspect that my
neighbors would agree.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

"John Mason" wrote in message
...

I don't like the idea of a touring motor glider. I don't see the point,
they don't glide well enough to be much use as a glider except in
exceptional conditions.



Hmmm, generalizations?

The Stemme S10-VT tours quite nicely, thank you. It also handles adverse
conditions, such as being able to taxi out in 30+ knot crosswinds with no
wing walker, stuff that would keep most gliders in their trailers (I'm not
recommending this BTW, but I watched 4 Stemmes do it at Cedar City, UT a
couple of years back - - one being mine.). The point you failed to see is
that it glides well too, with a claimed L/D of 50 to1 (but most owners find
47 is probably closer), no matter, it is still a capable glider even in
relatively light conditions. Does okay in exceptional conditions as well
(g).

Okay, there are lessor performing touring MGs as well. Most do what they
were designed to do and their owners enjoy them . . . *that's* the point.
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."

"bumper" wrote in message
...

"John Mason" wrote in message
...

I don't like the idea of a touring motor glider. I don't see the point,
they don't glide well enough to be much use as a glider except in
exceptional conditions.



Hmmm, generalizations?

The Stemme S10-VT tours quite nicely, thank you. It also handles adverse
conditions, such as being able to taxi out in 30+ knot crosswinds with no
wing walker, stuff that would keep most gliders in their trailers (I'm not
recommending this BTW, but I watched 4 Stemmes do it at Cedar City, UT a
couple of years back - - one being mine.). The point you failed to see is
that it glides well too, with a claimed L/D of 50 to1 (but most owners
find
47 is probably closer), no matter, it is still a capable glider even in
relatively light conditions. Does okay in exceptional conditions as well
(g).

Okay, there are lessor performing touring MGs as well. Most do what they
were designed to do and their owners enjoy them . . . *that's* the point.
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."


The Stemme is not a touring motor glider, according to the UK definition it
is a self launching motor glider. I don't have issue with your comments on
the Stemme. What I was referring to was for example the Grob 109b, the
Dimona the Falkes and Fourniers etc. They all are pretty awful gliders,
especially in the UK where we need good min sink figures and low thermaling
speeds and good glide angles.

To elaborate on what I meant when I say I don't see the point: Why get an
aircraft that purports to be a glider when it isn't? There are perfectly
good touring aeroplanes around - ah! but they are usually more expensive,
perhaps that is the point. You can buy an aeroplane cheaply in the
misguided hope of being able to glide sometimes as a bonus. I suspect that
is the reasoning behind the purchase. I would say though that unless you
can use it properly as a glider and not just for field landing practice or
the occasional strong wave flight then it is pointless to have the gliding
capability as it detracts from the cruising ability and adds cost. You can
see the cost/benefit equation from the Diamond aircraft range. I think if
the owners made better decisions and didn't buy these horrid aircraft then
they would enjoy the alternatives much more.

From: "John Mason"

To elaborate on what I meant when I say I don't see the point: Why get an
aircraft that purports to be a glider when it isn't?

How about the case where one can only get a glider license due to inability
to pass the physical exam required for powered planes. Or perhaps the
significantly less cost/hassle of only needing a glider license with a self
launch endorsement. Mind that I am not trying to imply that the above is
necessarily a great idea, but for some it could be important and OK.

-Doug

At 12:00 31 December 2003, Doug Hoffman wrote:
From: 'John Mason'

To elaborate on what I meant when I say I don't see
the point: Why get an
aircraft that purports to be a glider when it isn't?


What if a club needs a new towplane? (Assuming the
RV has sufficient power and climb rate to tow safely.)
Then, when it might not be towing, it could be used
for instructions in landings and cross country flying.

I think some European clubs use touring-style motor
gliders for tugs.

Just a thought.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

John Mason wrote:
Not a great idea. Turboprops cost, even in the cheapest incarnation several
hundred thousand $s and the lowest powered engines available are really big
and heavy compared to what is needed. A warp drive proton engine would be
suitable though.

I don't like the idea of a touring motor glider. I don't see the point,
they don't glide well enough to be much use as a glider except in
exceptional conditions.

Do you count the Carat as a touring motorglider? If not, what is your
definition of "touring"?
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Perhaps there is no point for a MG in the UK which can be transversed in an
hour but here......
Oh the pleasure of flying under power for 700 NM to your destination and not
talk to a living soul. Ah ... the quiet, the peace.
The ability to fly past Mt. McKinley and shut off the motor and soar and
soar and soar. Ah ... the pleasure.
The ability to launch when nobody else is flying and capture conditions that
no others can capture on that day. Ah ... the satisfaction.
The thrill of seeing lennies and launching at 15:00 to greet the rising
air - when all others are already back. Ah ... the beauty.

Most of all, if you don't see the point, then perhaps you are one of those
mechanical pilots who can not see the beauty and excitement each time you
take to the air.

Allan
Former Katana Extreme owner and eagerly awaiting Carat 012


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
John Mason wrote:
Not a great idea. Turboprops cost, even in the cheapest incarnation
several
hundred thousand $s and the lowest powered engines available are really
big
and heavy compared to what is needed. A warp drive proton engine would
be
suitable though.

I don't like the idea of a touring motor glider. I don't see the point,
they don't glide well enough to be much use as a glider except in
exceptional conditions.

Do you count the Carat as a touring motorglider? If not, what is your
definition of "touring"?
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"John Mason" wrote in message
...


The Stemme is not a touring motor glider, according to the UK definition
it
is a self launching motor glider. I don't have issue with your comments
on
the Stemme. What I was referring to was for example the Grob 109b, the
Dimona the Falkes and Fourniers etc. They all are pretty awful gliders,
especially in the UK where we need good min sink figures and low
thermaling
speeds and good glide angles.



What are the various UK catagories/definitions?

I'm new to soaring, having only had my glider rating since'98, so I may goof
up on this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In the US, I'm aware of the
following catagories/defenitions:

Glider - - sometimes used to describe the WWII and prior, low performance
"tow it up - glide back down" class. Term often also used to refer to high
performance sailplanes too - - this is confusing :c)

Sailplane - - still with no engine, performance is high enough that lift can
be used to stay up, gain altitude, or fly cross country.

Turbo - - as above but with a small sustainer engine not usually used for
self-launch, can be used to sustain or self-retrieve.

Self-launch sailplane - - Emphasis is on soaring. Propulsion system cleverly
designed to be strong enough to provide robust take-off and climb.
Engine/prop combination may be geared toward max climb performance. This,
and sometimes minimal fuel supply, tends to make this aircraft not so
suitable for prolonged power operation. Long distances may still be covered,
in weak or no lift conditions, using saw-tooth mode. When engine/prop is
stowed and gear retracted, drag is minimized and ship looks like other high
performace sailplanes.

Motor glider - - a glider or sailplane with a larger more capable engine and
fuel supply. Configuration is usually tractor and sustained operation under
power is accomodated in the design, though this is typically at the expense
of reduced soaring performance. L/D may be compromised by cooling drag or
feathered prop drag. Usually has tricycle or conventional gear, which may be
fixed or retractable, to allow for convenient ground handling and taxiing.

Until now (?) I wasn't aware of a sub-catagory called "touring motor glider"
which would exclude other motor gliders types. Though of course I've heard
and used the term "touring motor glider" and know that both self-launchers
and motorgliders have been used for touring. The Stemme, which you say is
*not* a touring motorglider, seems to fit squarely over both the last two
catagories I listed . . . at least in terms of benefits. The S10 retains
most or all of the good soaring performance of a self-laucher while still
keeping most all the benefits of any other motor glider I can think of. As
such, the Stemme is perhaps most uniquely qualified to be the ultimate
"touring motorglider". Unfortunately, like most things that fly, there are
some compormises. In Stemme's case, it is relatively expensive and complex.

all the best,
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
ASH26E . . . self-launch
S10-VT . . . touring motor glider (?)

ADP wrote:
Perhaps there is no point for a MG in the UK which can be transversed in an
hour but here......
Oh the pleasure of flying under power for 700 NM to your destination and not
talk to a living soul. Ah ... the quiet, the peace.
The ability to fly past Mt. McKinley and shut off the motor and soar and
soar and soar. Ah ... the pleasure.
The ability to launch when nobody else is flying and capture conditions that
no others can capture on that day. Ah ... the satisfaction.
The thrill of seeing lennies and launching at 15:00 to greet the rising
air - when all others are already back. Ah ... the beauty.

Most of all, if you don't see the point, then perhaps you are one of those
mechanical pilots who can not see the beauty and excitement each time you
take to the air.

The two "touring" MGs (Ximango and Taifun 17) here (eastern Washington
State, USA) make good wave explorers: good speed against a headwind to
the wave, two pilots get to go, heat from the idling motor to warm the
pilots and keep the frost off the canopy, taxi well in the wind.

They make adequate thermal soarers, too, about like a Blanik in
cross-country performance. And a good pilot will make a longer
cross-country in one of them than in a Blanik, because he isn't worried
about a retrieve.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

One of the more remarkable flights from last summer
was a 500k flight done by Dieter from Parowan, with
a passenger in a L-13.


They make adequate thermal soarers, too, about like
a Blanik in
cross-country performance. And a good pilot will make
a longer
cross-country in one of them than in a Blanik, because
he isn't worried
about a retrieve.
--
-----
change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA