Sustainer/turbo gliders

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 1:08:53 AM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Was hoping to get comments regarding a glider with a sustainer engine. Would you buy another one, are you happy with the sustainer, do you wish you had gotten a motor glider, a pure glider, how do you fly differently, do you actually get more soaring in or less because of the extra weight......

do you use headsets for hearing protection with engine running... engine can achieve a positive rate of climb to what density altitude....? Am considering purchasing a glider with a sustainer and am looking for all information I can get. i am a Western USA pilot, but have flown in many parts of the country.

My partner and I flew down to see 5U's 2CXT and liked it so much the we bought a new one two and a half years ago. I can echo everything 5U said and add to it. I had a self-launcher and probably will never have another due to the extra weight and complexity. I did indeed spend 2x thinking about THAT engine, plus a moderate degree of frustration. Did i mention weight? Wing loading was high and it was awfully hard for me to rig and de-rig. The engine battery itself weighed a lot and was difficult to get to. As to technique, yes, of course you have a field picked out. But you don't think too much about "well I'm 1200', time to get out the engine. It's more like, hey, I've been in dead air for a good while, nothing looks promising, I still have good maneuvering height, but I'm not leaving this area where this good field is below me, I think I'll drop the gear (always do that), and start a pattern. Oh, now, by the way, I'll see if the engine will start. It has never failed me, and I start it at the beginning of almost every flight. Only if the engine will be on for more than two minutes do I use the little orange "ribbed" earplugs that shooters wear. At what alt did I start it? I honesty don't know, but I'd guess usually around 1000'. If I had promising lift ahead and in range of a good field, I'd go down a bit lower. If the field is an airport, I'd go even lower.
But here's the selling point: Compared to the way I used to fly pure sailplanes, I now leave the airport earlier, I fly farther away, I come back later, I fly on weaker days, and I don't worry about a crew. I am relaxed flying with a sustainer ...... there is less stress and worry. The higher price tag is so worth it! About the third time you use the engine for a retrieve you'll decide that it has paid for itself. There are a lot of great pilots who rarely land out and don't need an engine; I am not one of them.

I got tired of pulling out of fields .... been there, done that. Now I get home in time for dinner.

Was wondering why you purchased the vents 2cXt, did you look at a ASG-29E or other turbo? Any comment on the five flooding blades of the S-H gliders as opposed to the two bladed fix prop on Schleicher"s. I would think the Schleicher would produce more thrust, but have higher vibration and noise level.

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 3:10:44 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Was wondering why you purchased the vents 2cXt, did you look at a ASG-29E or other turbo? Any comment on the five flooding blades of the S-H gliders as opposed to the two bladed fix prop on Schleicher"s. I would think the Schleicher would produce more thrust, but have higher vibration and noise level.

Never looked at the ASG-29E. I've always been a S-H fan. The five blades work fine.

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 2:10:44 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Was wondering why you purchased the vents 2cXt, did you look at a ASG-29E or other turbo? Any comment on the five flooding blades of the S-H gliders as opposed to the two bladed fix prop on Schleicher"s. I would think the Schleicher would produce more thrust, but have higher vibration and noise level.

The two blade system is likely more quiet however the Schempp Hirth system uses 5 blades, all of which are different lengths and spread the noise out over 5 different frequencies.

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 10:54:33 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 2:10:44 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Was wondering why you purchased the vents 2cXt, did you look at a ASG-29E or other turbo? Any comment on the five flooding blades of the S-H gliders as opposed to the two bladed fix prop on Schleicher"s. I would think the Schleicher would produce more thrust, but have higher vibration and noise level.

The two blade system is likely more quiet however the Schempp Hirth system uses 5 blades, all of which are different lengths and spread the noise out over 5 different frequencies.

Noise is controlable using ear plugs. It would be about my last consideration in choosing a sustainer.

At 22:03 05 April 2015, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Somehow this turned into a FES thread, not what I had intended. I would
li=
ke comments from those with curent generation pop up factory installed
sust=
ainers. I noticed the POH's do not have performance information other
than=
Standard conditions. Say if you have a solo 2350 what is the ceiling of
cl=
imb ability? What are actual achieved results? Do you find you get less
s=
oaring as you have to stop looking for lift at a much higher altitude,
and
=
yo have a high minimum wing loading. Are you happy with the sustainer or
d=
o you wish you had gotten a pure glider? What are the downsides, the
upsid=
es. Have you experienced a failure to extend or to start, any idea what
is=
the glider ration with engine extended. Do you prefer the two blades
of
=
Schleicher designs or the five blades of Schempp-Hirth, anyone flow a JS
wi=
th jet? Does the sustainer make your flights safer as the possibility of
a=
land is reduced. Has anyone suffered a failure resulting in damage? I
am=
looking for as much information as the readers are willing to share. As
f=
or FES, we can start another thread but for this discussion I am
interested=
in factory installed sustainers. Thank you all very much for your time
an=
d input.


A couple of further points. I don't think I have ever climbed above about
4500 amsl,and never noticed any fall off in climb. Our engine was retro
fitted to a glider already made to take an engine, but not fitted when new.
The engine takes 25 seconds to erect, so away from home I use 1500 above
ground as the height to get the engine out, but quite happily start it from
a 1000 winch launch. My partner in another glider has a Ventus 2t which
only takes 15 seconds to erect, but occasionally pops the circuit breaker.
I suspect on later engines they reduced the gearing to reduce amps, our
circuit breaker has never popped.
We always ensure that the carbs are filled before flying, but our engine
rarely starts cleanly, it seems to fire on one cylinder for 5/10 secs
before developing full power.
Dave

The only "stink glider" I've owned had a Wankel, and I felt it a good decision. It would climb to over 12,000' if necessary to get over a ridge. Cooling (systems, time/power/speed management) is a concern with the AE50R.
Seems one problem with all 2-stroke engines in gliders is that the fuel must be put into the tank as premix. If you don't use it, the fuel and oil will separate and you'll likely be burning the wrong mixture. Once did a test run on a sustainer for 1/10th of an hour, still unable to produce sufficient power.
Motorcycles have been using oil injection technology, but only for a few decades.
A few friends have JS-1Js which are very simple, quite reliable and produce enough power. But they're thirsty and noisy.
The newish European retrofit jet kit doesn't appear to have enough thrust or burn time for Southwestern US conditions.
Wanted to visit the (not allowed to mention here) factory during a day off in Kaunas, Lithuania a couple of weeks ago, but there was a directors meeting that afternoon. They have a very interesting approach.
Jim