shark selflauncher

I see that pricing is available for a self-launch capable 304S from HPH but- what system are they using, Jet or Solo?
The pricing is not yet available for a turbo model alone
Pricing is available for jet-sustainer
No mention of the actual mechanics are made, they must know though, as there is an exact pricing for self launch.
Does this mean the self-launch is jet as well?
Anyone know?

The price list for the 304S including option is on my website
http://www.wingsandwheels.com/pdf/HP..._E_1%20(2).pdf
The Jet as of today is as a sustainer, completely computer controlled and
fixed power. Though it is designed as a sustaine the factory test flights
were accomplished with a short 50' auto tow with rather remarkable climb and
cruise performance. Also to be offered are conventional solo sustainer
(recip) and self launch "Binder" system Solo 2625-01 systems (also now on
this page) as used on most other self launch sailplanes.
The 304S prototype has already shown pretty remarkable contest performances
as a pure sailplane and the only thing better will likely be the production
models..the 304S prototype is currently in 3rd place in the Hungarian
nationals after 7 contest days http://www.lhdv.cwi.hu/dokument_eng.html
....not bad since it's the only 304S to compete in any contest against a
fleet of gliders from DG(LS), S-H, AS and the rest and always is well in the
top of the pack and always flying with a new pilot with littel or no
previous experience in the 304S until contest day 1 ..the first USA 304S is
also due to land in Texas within days....hopefully Dick Johnson will be up
to another sailplane evaluation in the not too distant future
best regards
Tim

--
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com


"bagmaker" wrote in message
...

I see that pricing is available for a self-launch capable 304S from HPH
but- what system are they using, Jet or Solo?
The pricing is not yet available for a turbo model alone
Pricing is available for jet-sustainer
No mention of the actual mechanics are made, they must know though, as
there is an exact pricing for self launch.
Does this mean the self-launch is jet as well?
Anyone know?




--
bagmaker

The Jet as of today is as a sustainer, completely computer controlled and
fixed power. Though it is designed as a sustaine the factory test flights
were accomplished with a short 50' auto tow with rather remarkable climb and
cruise performance.

Thanks Tim-

Fixed power as in non-throttling?
Can you give us a burn time/saw-tooth range estimate yet?
Everyone will be hanging on with questions like -altitude loss before full power time, noise output, electric requirements, actual thrust available -all the details so sparse from eastern europe.

Thanks,
bagger

On 12 Jul, 02:25, bagmaker
wrote:
-
The Jet as of today is as a sustainer, completely computer controlled
and
fixed power. Though it is designed as a sustaine the factory test
flights
were accomplished with a short 50' auto tow with rather remarkable
climb and
cruise performance. -

Thanks Tim-

Fixed power as in non-throttling?
Can you give us a burn time/saw-tooth range estimate yet?
Everyone will be hanging on with questions like -altitude loss before
full power time, noise output, electric requirements, actual thrust
available -all the details so sparse from eastern europe.

Thanks,
bagger

--
bagmaker


The Schempp-Hirth website says the jet Ventus 2cxaJ gets a pretty
marginal 0.6 to 0.7 m/sec (say 130 f/min) climb from the AMT Olympus
turbine which [according to the very detailed pdf specification sheet
available through their website at http://www.amtjets.com] produces
230N max thrust. Fuel burn is quoted as 0.6 to 0.8 litres/min.

The HPH Shark uses the TBS-J40 turbine which produces 400N rated max
thrust. [http://www.wingsandwheels.com/pdf/30...Turbine01.pdf]

The (proposed but in abeyance) Hollister jet club say about the Jet
Shark's performance: "The best rate of climb is about 550 fpm at 75
knots and you still get 125 fpm at 95 knots." [http://
www.soarhollister.com/jet_club.htm]

If correct that would be a big difference in performance between the
two gliders for an extra 70% or so of thrust in the Shark. The
Hollister site quotes a fuel consumption of 12 gal/hour which
(assuming it is small US gallons) equates to 0.76 litres/min - pretty
much the same as SH quote for the much less powerful Olympus.

I am not sure that it all adds up - but it would be a hoot if it did!

John Galloway

This data is I believe all quite accurate. The 304S isn't just another new
version of an existing glider design with a model aircraft Jet attached.
the engine used for the 304S is totally unlike the tiny jets used on other
gliders
it is computerized also so extension, starting and running are all done by
one switch, shut-down and retraction are essentially the same. The complete
extension, start up takes only a few seconds....and doesn't require
priming, diving ect like the current sustainer systems, shut down is the
same. Reasons being obvious, glider pilots may fly a motorized sailplane
without having an airplane rating and even few airplane rated pilots are Jet
trained....jest are quite simple in design, but are not operated as simply
as your lawn mower and handing a Jet over to the would-be F-18 sailplane
pilot without such controls could create some problems of it's own...even
many recip sustainers have little or no controls the pilot can actually
change.

http://www.wingsandwheels.com/Hph%20new.htm
tim

--
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com


wrote in message
...
On 12 Jul, 02:25, bagmaker
wrote:
-
The Jet as of today is as a sustainer, completely computer controlled
and
fixed power. Though it is designed as a sustaine the factory test
flights
were accomplished with a short 50' auto tow with rather remarkable
climb and
cruise performance. -

Thanks Tim-

Fixed power as in non-throttling?
Can you give us a burn time/saw-tooth range estimate yet?
Everyone will be hanging on with questions like -altitude loss before
full power time, noise output, electric requirements, actual thrust
available -all the details so sparse from eastern europe.

Thanks,
bagger

--
bagmaker


The Schempp-Hirth website says the jet Ventus 2cxaJ gets a pretty
marginal 0.6 to 0.7 m/sec (say 130 f/min) climb from the AMT Olympus
turbine which [according to the very detailed pdf specification sheet
available through their website at http://www.amtjets.com] produces
230N max thrust. Fuel burn is quoted as 0.6 to 0.8 litres/min.

The HPH Shark uses the TBS-J40 turbine which produces 400N rated max
thrust. [http://www.wingsandwheels.com/pdf/30...Turbine01.pdf]

The (proposed but in abeyance) Hollister jet club say about the Jet
Shark's performance: "The best rate of climb is about 550 fpm at 75
knots and you still get 125 fpm at 95 knots." [http://
www.soarhollister.com/jet_club.htm]

If correct that would be a big difference in performance between the
two gliders for an extra 70% or so of thrust in the Shark. The
Hollister site quotes a fuel consumption of 12 gal/hour which
(assuming it is small US gallons) equates to 0.76 litres/min - pretty
much the same as SH quote for the much less powerful Olympus.

I am not sure that it all adds up - but it would be a hoot if it did!

John Galloway

Tim Mara wrote:
This data is I believe all quite accurate.


Tim, when is HpH going to release to the public their performance
figures from actual testing of the jet?

It seems odd that the only figures available come from the Hollister web
site. And those figures have been on the website for quite a while, so
I believe they are (very optimistic?) projections, not results from
actual testing.

By now, HpH should have a very good idea of fuel consumption, climb
rate, speed, and range. Yet I sure don't see this information anywhere
on their site.



The 304S isn't just another new
version of an existing glider design with a model aircraft Jet attached.
the engine used for the 304S is totally unlike the tiny jets used on other
gliders
it is computerized also so extension, starting and running are all done by
one switch, shut-down and retraction are essentially the same. The complete
extension, start up takes only a few seconds....and doesn't require
priming, diving ect like the current sustainer systems, shut down is the
same. Reasons being obvious, glider pilots may fly a motorized sailplane
without having an airplane rating and even few airplane rated pilots are Jet
trained....jest are quite simple in design, but are not operated as simply
as your lawn mower and handing a Jet over to the would-be F-18 sailplane
pilot without such controls could create some problems of it's own...even
many recip sustainers have little or no controls the pilot can actually
change.

http://www.wingsandwheels.com/Hph%20new.htm
tim

I can't say when they will do any web updates.....sorry..they are naturally
more concerned and involved with production than web publishing but I'm sure
this data will be published soon....the data from Hollister was from data
given to them by HpH.
The only delivered gliders so far have been pure gliders but all are built
to accept any of the available engine options

I have the latest published data on my website when I get it....
tim

--
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Greg Arnold" wrote in message
...
Tim Mara wrote:
This data is I believe all quite accurate.


Tim, when is HpH going to release to the public their performance figures
from actual testing of the jet?

It seems odd that the only figures available come from the Hollister web
site. And those figures have been on the website for quite a while, so I
believe they are (very optimistic?) projections, not results from actual
testing.

By now, HpH should have a very good idea of fuel consumption, climb rate,
speed, and range. Yet I sure don't see this information anywhere on their
site.



The 304S isn't just another new
version of an existing glider design with a model aircraft Jet attached.
the engine used for the 304S is totally unlike the tiny jets used on
other gliders
it is computerized also so extension, starting and running are all done
by one switch, shut-down and retraction are essentially the same. The
complete extension, start up takes only a few seconds....and doesn't
require priming, diving ect like the current sustainer systems, shut down
is the same. Reasons being obvious, glider pilots may fly a motorized
sailplane without having an airplane rating and even few airplane rated
pilots are Jet trained....jest are quite simple in design, but are not
operated as simply as your lawn mower and handing a Jet over to the
would-be F-18 sailplane pilot without such controls could create some
problems of it's own...even many recip sustainers have little or no
controls the pilot can actually change.

http://www.wingsandwheels.com/Hph%20new.htm
tim