Will cheaper motorgliders increase the number of soaring pilots?

Eric Greewall wrote...
A moderate performance, moderately priced motorglider might be just
what it takes to get them into the sport!

So what is the closest we can get to this today, right now,
check-signing pen ready to write? Moderate performance, moderate
price, quality glider, or in other words affordable self-launching fun.

Fun is the key word here.

I own a self launch sailplane, in my case an Alisport Silent-IN
and am completely happy with it's performance. Mine cost less
than half as much as a Ventus Cm or a DG 808 and still I have
a great time in it.

I can stay up all day on a dollar fifty (tow). I know their performance is
higher, but I am not in competition with them. I fly sailplanes for fun.
My ship is comfortable, easy to rig with light wings, climbs well
and turns on a dime. I get the handling of a 1-26 with a 31:1 glide ratio.

I can and do fly it cross country. With shorter wings and a low stall speed
I am confident I could land in even the short fields that other big glass
would pass up.

This is the ideal type of ship for young or new pilots to build hours in,
learn cross country in and just enjoy for an afternoon of flying.

Willie
EK (echo kilo)

Willie wrote:

Fun is the key word here.

I own a self launch sailplane, in my case an Alisport Silent-IN
and am completely happy with it's performance. Mine cost less
than half as much as a Ventus Cm or a DG 808 and still I have
a great time in it.

I can stay up all day on a dollar fifty (tow). I know their performance is
higher, but I am not in competition with them. I fly sailplanes for fun.
My ship is comfortable, easy to rig with light wings, climbs well
and turns on a dime. I get the handling of a 1-26 with a 31:1 glide ratio.

And Alisport also has the similar Silent 2, sleeker and with 39:1, but
with the same qualtities that Willie likes.

They also have pictures of the "2nd generation" twin-jet self-launcher,
with improved performances. See

http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/news.htm

and scroll down about 1/4 the way.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

They also have pictures of the "2nd generation" twin-jet self-launcher,
with improved performances. See

http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/news.htm


No details on the insurer, or if the pilot needs a twin engine rating :0

In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Willie wrote:

Fun is the key word here.

I own a self launch sailplane, in my case an Alisport Silent-IN
and am completely happy with it's performance. Mine cost less
than half as much as a Ventus Cm or a DG 808 and still I have
a great time in it.

I can stay up all day on a dollar fifty (tow). I know their performance is
higher, but I am not in competition with them. I fly sailplanes for fun.
My ship is comfortable, easy to rig with light wings, climbs well
and turns on a dime. I get the handling of a 1-26 with a 31:1 glide ratio.

And Alisport also has the similar Silent 2, sleeker and with 39:1, but
with the same qualtities that Willie likes.


and scroll down about 1/4 the way.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

No details on the insurer, or if the pilot needs a twin engine rating

Insured by Costello, higher than normal rates because it is used for air show
work.
No multi engine rating needed or held because there is no such thing in the FAA
world as a multi engine glider.

Robert Mudd

In article ,
Robertmudd1u wrote:
No details on the insurer, or if the pilot needs a twin engine rating

Insured by Costello, higher than normal rates because it is used for air show
work.
No multi engine rating needed or held because there is no such thing in the FAA
world as a multi engine glider.

Dang. Now that IS fantastic. Costello should get a reeeel nice
Christmas card for being so reasonable.

I was aware that there is no FAA cat/class requirement for
multi-engine single-place experimental turbine glider in the
general CFR's , but to see that the insurer shows such
flexibility is reassuring.

I'd sure love to see performance data on this aircraft:
climb rates and speeds, fuel consumption, acceleration
to rotation, etc...

Good for you guys! I'm going to absolutely have to see this
act at an airshow at some point. Oct 2,3 at Kingman, AZ 2005.
Hmmm...maybe we need to get him all the way out to Calif. before that


It also seems pretty clear that if two 45# thrust engines can do this
to a 660# total flying weight glider, one 45# thrust engine may be
enough for a 400# total flying weight glider. And talk about safer:
I can't imagine the turbine drag is more than a prop, so
engine failures at launch should be less dramatic.

Thanks for the response, Robert. Cheers to you...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

I was aware that there is no FAA cat/class requirement for
multi-engine single-place experimental turbine glider in the
general CFR's , but to see that the insurer shows such
flexibility is reassuring.

I'd sure love to see performance data on this aircraft:
climb rates and speeds, fuel consumption, acceleration
to rotation, etc...

Good for you guys! I'm going to absolutely have to see this
act at an airshow at some point. Oct 2,3 at Kingman, AZ 2005.
Hmmm...maybe we need to get him all the way out to Calif. before that


He is talking about it at the Convention in Ontario, CA in February.