Would you have the same concers if it was an electric self launcher
or sustainer?
Chris
At 04:45 31 May 2017, 2G wrote:
>On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:24:14 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
>> > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:47:36 AM UTC-7, jfitch
wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:14:07 AM UTC-7, Dave
Nadler wrote:
>> > > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 6:59:29 AM UTC-4,
crij...@gmail.com
>wrot=
>e:
>> > > > > First of all, although I am a comerial pilot, my
experience in
>pu=
>re
>> > > > > sailplanes is very little (don=C2=B4t reach 100h). Do
you
>recomme=
>nd me to
>> > > > > wait to have more experience in pure sailplane before
making the
>=
>transition?
>> > > >=20
>> > > > YES.
>> > > > To be able to safely focus on engine management (and
especially
>whe=
>n things
>> > > > go wrong), flying the glider must be completely
automatic.
>Regardle=
>ss of
>> > > > power experience, you are not at this point with less
than 100
>hour=
>s.
>> > > >=20
>> > > > > Second point, I=C2=B4m not very handy, I
don=C2=B4t have any
>type=
> of experience
>> > > > > in mechanics so any problem the plane has I would
have to go to
>a=
> workshop.
>> > > > > Is that a big inconvenience?
>> > > >=20
>> > > > YES.
>> > > > Identify someone nearby with extensive experience
maintaining the
>t=
>ype
>> > > > you expect to buy. Hint: There isn't likely to be
anybody...
>> > > > And maintenance of these machines by folks not
intimately familiar
>> > > > with the type often goes very badly.
>> > > >=20
>> > > > > This problem would happen to me with any type of
glider that I
>bu=
>y.
>> > > >=20
>> > > > NO.
>> > > > Any motor-glider will require MUCH more (and more
specialized)
>main=
>tenance
>> > > > as compared to a non-motorized glider.
>> > > >=20
>> > > > Hope that helps,
>> > > > Best Regards, Dave "YO" (multiple offender, >2000 hrs
in
>motor-glid=
>ers)
>> > >=20
>> > > I cannot agree that having only 100 hours disqualifies you
from
>motor=
>glider ownership. For the first 200 hours of flying it, simply be
very
>cons=
>ervative with motor use: do not self launch, do not attempt air
starts at
>l=
>ess than 3000 AGL and then over a landing field, etc. After all it
will
>fly=
> fine with the motor stowed - as good as a pure glider. You can
push this
>e=
>nvelope and squeeze these margins as you gain experience. If
you are an
>un=
>disciplined pilot that will take chances with the motor, then you
are not
>a=
> good candidate for motorglider ownership, regardless of hours. If
fact
>you=
> might want to reevaluate flying at all.=20
>> > >=20
>> > > I do agree that the maintenance requirements for any
motorglider are
>=
>3x any pure glider.
>> >=20
>> > There is a big difference between "disqualification" and
>"inadvisable."=
> Flying high-performance sailplanes is a skill that takes hundreds
of
>hours=
> to become proficient. Self-launching motorgliders requires yet
another
>set=
> of skills. The test of the skills only comes when the pilot is under
>stres=
>s and the margin for error is all but gone. My advice stands:
Alfonso
>shoul=
>d get himself a pure glider and build that critical first 300-500
hours in
>=
>it before acquiring an MG. The only mitigating circumstance would
be if he
>=
>does not have tows available.
>> >=20
>> > Tom
>>=20
>> The test of skills for the motor only comes when you use the
motor. That
>=
>is my point. An auxilliary motorglider with the motor folded is a
pure
>gli=
>der. This may require discipline that the pilot may not have - that
is my
>o=
>ther point.
>
>You can always buy a MG and not use the motor, flying it as a
pure glider.
>=
>This would be curious choice and a huge waste of money. My
comment as
>"inad=
>visable" stands and you didn't address it. Advisability is a
judgment by
>an=