If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Which sustainer system would you chose for your sailplane?
Dear gliderpilots!
Manufacturers are not completely sure which is the way to go. So here you can vote for your favorite sustainer system: http://www.front-electric-sustainer.com/voting.php Thank you, Luka |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Which sustainer system would you chose for your sailplane?
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 6:55:27 AM UTC+1, wrote:
Dear gliderpilots! Manufacturers are not completely sure which is the way to go. So here you can vote for your favorite sustainer system: http://www.front-electric-sustainer.com/voting.php Thank you, Luka Can you give us some facts on the comparison - price, weight incl fuel, endurance in amount of climb available, rate of climb. Take typical 18m gliders, presumable LAK for the FES and Solo, JS1 for the jet. Does the FES prop have any effect on performance? For how many gliders is it certified, because for many they choose the glider first, and take the system which is available with that glider? And why not include self launch options? I fly an ASH 26E, and I like that when I need to start up over a field I am more confident that everything will work because I used it to take off today, I have an electric start, and when it starts (in 6 seasons so far always first time) I am able to climb away at 500 or 600 ft per min. This has a real safety benefit over a Solo sustainer - that I am always within prop out glide range of the field over which I started up. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Which sustainer system would you chose for your sailplane?
Most pilots aren't knowledgeable about the attributes of all the
choices, so the voting might not be well informed. Because there are significant differences between the types, I suggest you revise the page to give the voters some realistic choices. For example, you could have a table with these columns: Engine type Performance effects: Added weight and drag Typical retrieve distance Retrieve speed (cruise and sawtooth) Ease of use Reliability (failure to start rate) Costs: Purchase price and maintenance Personally, I want the sustainer with the simplicity of the FES, the high speed of the jet, and the distance obtained by the petrol engine! Kidding aside, I think most glider pilots would find their enjoyment of soaring quite enhanced by a sustainer that provided as little as 3000 feet of climb. I think most landouts could be avoided with that much "reserve", and it would give pilots the confidence to fly more often and fly further. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) Dear Eric, Your comments are appreciated, but I can not do such a table as it could be biased. Such comparison table would become probbably too complicated as there are too many factors which need to be taken in account to have fair comparison. Actually I would like to see the result with existing knowledge of pilots. Just too see in which way pilots are thinking... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Which sustainer system would you chose for your sailplane?
Kidding aside, I think most glider pilots would find their enjoyment of soaring quite enhanced by a sustainer that provided as little as 3000 feet of climb. I think most landouts could be avoided with that much "reserve", and it would give pilots the confidence to fly more often and fly further. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) 3000 feet of climb would do it for me -- especially if "instant on" like the FES, no drag (sorry, serious competitions), light weight (a big issue. I like to climb in weak lift, not turn on the motor!) and little maintenance. For almost all contest flying 3000' gets you to an airport if it does not get you home. From an engineering standpoint, I don't really see why the electrics don't also charge the battery. If you climb to 3000', in 20 minutes, surely running the prop in generator mode for 20 minutes or so, doubling your sink rate temporarily, should recharge the batteries? This could make a 3000' capacity enough for self launch and retrieve!. John Cochrane |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Which sustainer system would you chose for your sailplane?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Which sustainer system would you chose for your sailplane?
On 9/23/2012 10:16 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
From an engineering standpoint, I don't really see why the electrics don't also charge the battery. If you climb to 3000', in 20 minutes, surely running the prop in generator mode for 20 minutes or so, doubling your sink rate temporarily, should recharge the batteries? This could make a 3000' capacity enough for self launch and retrieve!. I haven't heard a designer discuss this, but it is intriguing. My guess is the cost and the complexity are great enough, it's a better tradeoff to increase the battery size from a 3000' climb capacity to a 5000' climb capacity, so you still have 3000' left after a self-launch. The Silent and similar electric gliders have about that climb capacity; in fact, I think they allow you to choose the climb capacity by buying additional battery packs. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Which sustainer system would you chose for your sailplane?
Dne nedelja, 23. september 2012 20:01:53 UTC+2 je oseba Eric Greenwell napisala:
On 9/23/2012 10:16 AM, John Cochrane wrote: From an engineering standpoint, I don't really see why the electrics don't also charge the battery. If you climb to 3000', in 20 minutes, surely running the prop in generator mode for 20 minutes or so, doubling your sink rate temporarily, should recharge the batteries? This could make a 3000' capacity enough for self launch and retrieve!. I haven't heard a designer discuss this, but it is intriguing. My guess is the cost and the complexity are great enough, it's a better tradeoff to increase the battery size from a 3000' climb capacity to a 5000' climb capacity, so you still have 3000' left after a self-launch. The Silent and similar electric gliders have about that climb capacity; in fact, I think they allow you to choose the climb capacity by buying additional battery packs. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) Vote is between sustainers, not including selflaunching systems! Sustainers have all very similar weight, and also pricing. The difference is in mainly in range, noise, operation, maintenance etc. Just a few comments: 1.Manufacturers would like to produce what they will be able to sell, but is not obvious what pilots will choose. So that is the reason of this voting! 2.Using prop in regenerative way is not really efficient (maybe 5%) due to wrong airfoil curvature for this mode. 3.At Silent Electro (FES) is not possible to chose between two different packs, as this would change CG position and also total voltage of cells, and caused some additional problems. Silent can climb about 6500' with only 30kg of batteries which is more than enough. Adding more batteries would be just more costs and more weight. Regards, Luka Znidarsic, designer of FES system |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Which sustainer system would you chose for your sailplane?
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Which sustainer system would you chose for your sailplane?
On 9/23/2012 12:00 PM, wrote:
3.At Silent Electro (FES) is not possible to chose between two different packs, as this would change CG position and also total voltage of cells, and caused some additional problems. Silent can climb about 6500' with only 30kg of batteries which is more than enough. Adding more batteries would be just more costs and more weight. I see the Silent models have changed a bit from the last time I looked, now with the FES version, which has much more climb capacity the older electric versions. 6500' is plenty for self-launching and a long self-retrieve. It would be enough to get most pilots home, and almost everyone to at least an airport! I've added the FES site to the "Dealer Contacts" list on the Auxiliary-powered Sailplane Association site (http://motorglider.org). Apparently, I misunderstood the purpose of the two battery packs in the FES Lak 17 that was at the SSA convention earlier this year. You need both, as Luka points out. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Front Electric Sustainer | Dan Marotta | Soaring | 28 | January 31st 13 01:32 AM |
would an electric sustainer be practical | Brad[_2_] | Soaring | 7 | July 24th 09 06:29 PM |
Which Came First, the Santa Monica Airport, Or Those Who Chose To Build Their Homes Adjacent To It? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 16 | May 7th 07 10:34 PM |
BAF or CEF? I chose BAF. | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 23rd 04 04:33 PM |
DG goes the sustainer option. | Paul | Soaring | 25 | June 4th 04 12:16 AM |