A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Which sustainer system would you chose for your sailplane?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 23rd 12, 06:55 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default 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  
Old September 23rd 12, 09:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
waremark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 377
Default 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.
  #3  
Old September 23rd 12, 04:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default Which sustainer system would you chose for your sailplane?

On 9/22/2012 10:55 PM, 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

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)
  #4  
Old September 23rd 12, 06:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default 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  
Old September 23rd 12, 06:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default 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
  #7  
Old September 23rd 12, 07:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default 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  
Old September 23rd 12, 08:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default 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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Front Electric Sustainer Dan Marotta Soaring 28 January 31st 13 02:32 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.