Best Overall Motorglider available today?

[Nick Kennedy]

Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.

When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
Say for Western Great Basin flying.

I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well.

FACTORS

Reliability
Maintenance required to keep it running
XC flyability, performance and control feel
Storability
Rigging
Initial cost
High density climb performance
Range
Cockpit layout and seating
Parts availability
Insurance cost
Landing gear complexity
Overall quality
Nick
T

[Dan Daly]

Perhaps add > current delivery time from order

[Nick Kennedy]

Something thats available used this year maybe
Not pie in the sky vaporware
> > Nick
> >

[Dave Nadler]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 2:28:37 PM UTC-4, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> Something thats available used this year maybe
> Not pie in the sky vaporware

Perhaps 2G's 26?

[Dan Marotta]

Stemme.  Except for acquisition cost...

--
Dan, 5J

[Mike Schumann]

For a Touring Motorglider, I vote for the Phoenix.

[uncl...@earthlink.net]

Value and performance for the price- DG-400
UH

[kinsell]

I saw a Monerai kit advertised for $4K. Hard to beat that. But
sometimes you get what you pay for.

[jfitch]

Hard to beat an ASH31 for this mission. An ASH26E would be a better value for the cost conscious. Maybe an EB29 if you aren't particularly cost conscious.

[Nick Kennedy]

I was thinking single seat Cross Country flying
I've flown the Phoenix, too low performance, looking for at least 40/1
I've got a fair amount of time in the Stemme with Glider Bob.
Stemme is too much of everything, cost, weight, complexity.
I think the Stemme was concieved by mating a B-52 and a Abrams tank.
The ASH 26E is very high on the list. Bill Gawthrop loved his and put up a ton of big flights in it and I don't remember him having many problems with it.
The DG 400 is too but I've read engine parts are hard to come by these days, but they do trade hands for 60-65K.
What about the Carat? Looks kinda funny with the prop blades folded forward, but Randal Acree puts up some impressive flights in his. What do they trade hands for?
Nick
T

[Nick Kennedy]

Wikipedia say the Carat is 35/1
4 cyl Volkswagon like aircooled 1800cc engine.
Cannot be airstarted, must have battery power to engage the starter motor.
Nick
T

[2G]

As a former owner of a DG400 I can assertively say that it flunks miserably on:
1. Parts availability (no parts available for the engine)
2. Landing gear complexity (had the gear do an uncommanded retraction)
3. High-density climb performance

[kinsell]

On 9/15/20 7:24 PM, Nick Kennedy wrote:

> The DG 400 is too but I've read engine parts are hard to come by these days, but they do trade hands for 60-65K.

Parts are hard to come by, and they shake themselves off the engine as
it's mounted up on the mast. We're well beyond that now.

[AS]

What about the 'poor man's version' of the Stemme, the Pipistrel Taurus? I am not sure what the deal is reg. the Rotax 503, which according to the Rotax website is no longer in production but they are advertising an E-version. Side-by-sides rock! ;-)

Uli
'AS'

[2G]

Pipistrel made a life-time buy of engines, and I assume parts, from Rotax when they introduced the Taurus.

Tom

[Russ Owens]

Hi Nick -
I only know what I know, and that's limited, and subject to my opinion. The gas powered Taurus didn't perform well enough at 6,000 foot atlitude (Parowan) so at least one owner decided to keep flying at Sea Level and skip Parowan. The 2 cycle Solo engine on the DG-800's shake a lot and require an owner that is pretty savy about maintaining them and doing engine work. There is a lot more that an owner can do on the Solo engine than hte rotary engine installations without resorting to experts. The 26E is very smooth running and doesn't shake AT ALL! I think the rotary engine is much more reliable than the Solo, but when something really goes wrong, a lot of owners (including me) end up running to Rex at Williams for help. Rex now can pull the rotary engine apart and do work on it, but until recently, the engine used to have to go back to Austria for repair...and it's EXPENSIVE for a new engine. I've been very fortunate, that in 19 years with the ASH-26E, I have only broken a drive belt. Changing a drive belt requires engine removal and quite a bit of disassembly. Fortunately for me, it was at Parowan, and the Schleicher Factory "engine guy" (Mario Link) was there at Parowan and volunteered to change my belt along with Holgar Weitzel (sp?). I have had only VERY minor maintenance issues otherwise. There are excellent user groups for DG's and Schleichers (thank you Eric Greenwell and Jim Herd).
With towplanes getting more rare, unfortunately more of us need to move to motorgliders. There are lot's of advantages and lots of disadvantages with motorgliders!
Buying tows is MUCH cheaper than maintaining a motorglider. I'm sure you've read Eric Greenwells' excellent Motorglider publications available for FREE on www.motorglider.org (see publications).
It sure is nice though, when the line for aero tows is an hour long, to decide that.....Oh, I think I will take-off, let's see oh,.............RIGHT NOW!!!!! And off you go.
I also have my Phoenix, and love it dearly, but it is a LOW performance glider capable of great flights, but it's just not in the same league with the high performance sailplanes.
Best wishes.
Russ

[charles...@gmail.com]

Thoughts on the Pipistrel Sinus?

[Eric Greenwell]

That helps narrow the field a bit, but what we really need to know more:

-What kind of flying do you intend - recreational, contests, badges, records,
safaris (assisted/unassisted)?

-what is your price limit?

-Are you able and willing to maintain it yourself?


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Peter van Schoonhoven]

I owned a DG400 for a few years, found it to be an excellent performing sailplane , the landing gear was perfectly fine, the engine faultless, and it was great fun to fly. I never needed any engine parts, but no doubt over time I would have. I now own a Sinus Flex. A lot of fun but way too low soaring performance unless you let the engine idle, but then that is not what soaring is about. I agree that the Stemme is too big, too complicated, too expensive, etc.

What we need is for a company to build a Sinus, or a Phoenix, or a Katana or any of those similar touring motorgliders with a 4 piece wing that has a 19 or 20 meter span. The outer tips need to come off easily (like my SInus Flex) but when removed the span would be 39 feet so it goes in any hangar. With more than a 15 meter span the soaring performance would likely be close to 40/1 L/D. The 4 stroke Rotax engines are really great, the cost could hardly increase very much, and it would be in the perfect sailplane sweet spot.

[Dave Walsh]

The Virus/Sinus are low performance and the view out when thermal
turning is appallingly bad.

The bubble canopy Taurus is better and in strong conditions seems to
go quite well, plus it has a Rotax engine not that heap of junk Solo
found in DG800x & others. You'd struggle to call it high performance.

The DG400 has the usual DG self collapsing U/C feature. Once you
know about this design triumph it's easy to keep the U/C in working
order. It's nice to fly and has really good performance in strong
conditions; the view out is excellent. The engine parts (at least in EASA
land) are not a problem and it's a Rotax not a Solo and it doesn't
regularly break its drive belt. The gel coat/finish is excellent, as usual

with DG. Dealing with DG as a company was a joy. The engine
management man/machine interface is very last century; if you have
three arms you will have no problem, it's nearly as bad as many current
turbo/self-launch gliders: plenty of scope for finger/brain malfunction.
The 400 wing section does NOT like rain or bugs. One of the four
Hoteliers (flaperons & air-brakes) is a tricky blind fiddle to fix &
secure.
Vibration related failures are a known issue: that said my "400" was
significantly more reliable than my much newer Solo powered DG808C
or my Antares 20E.

My choice would be a DG800A (basically a 400 type fuselage/Rotax
engine + DG800 type wings). It doesn't like rain or bugs either but is
significantly better than the DG400 as a glider.

I think all newer DG800x have a vastly improved "one-switch does it
all" engine management system that really is very good?

I've got lots of hours in someone else's Stemme S10, the Limbach
engined one, it was very reliable but the VP propellor overhaul costs
were eye watering even 20 years ago. It's a very competent glider but
big and heavy, not at its best scraping low on the rocks.

I can't think of anything polite to say about Wankel engines... a
vibration free engineers nightmare?

If economics are at all an issue just buy a proper sailplane and get a
tow: it's a FAR FAR cheaper way to fly.
>
>

[Mark Jardini]

Pipistrelle Apis is a fun sport glider with maybe 40:1 at best LD- 50 kts. Goes well up to 80 kts. Engine used to be Rotax 447 which is bombproof but don't know anything about the new engine install. Really stout carbon construction with 121 kts vne. Light wing load with no ballast so you can get bounced around pretty good on strong days at high speed.

Comfortable cockpit and easy handling. Spring trim could be better. 10,000 hour airframe and 300 hour engine. In 10 years I have 40 hours on the engine, 400 hours on the airframe. Seems to handle the obligatory vibrations well. Pretty much trouble free so far.

Good price point.

[jfitch]

That is a curious statement. The Austro Wankel seems to be measurably more reliable than the Rotax as installed in the DG.

I will agree that tows are far more economical - provided you can get one. Of the four Great Basin soaring operations, 4 out of 4 experienced some period of reduced tow availability this year, a trend that is increasing.

[Eric Greenwell]

Dave Walsh wrote on 9/16/2020 9:06 AM:
> I can't think of anything polite to say about Wankel engines... a
> vibration free engineers nightmare?

How is "vibration free" an "engineers nightmare"? It's certainly a pilots dream!
After 200 engine hours spread over 25 years, I have not had a significant
vibration induced problem! Try achieving that with a two stroke.

Here's some actual comparisons: a while ago, I searched the postings on the Wankel
powered Schleicher glider group for key words like "vibration", and also on the
DG/Solo group. There were few to found for the Wankel engine, and they were a
small minority of the issues discussed. The search of the DG/Solo group found a
LOT "vibration" issues, and they were the big majority problems.

[Dan Marotta]

The Stemme can be a touring motorglider if you want to fly it that way.  I prefer to fly mine as a self launching glider with a rock solid, certificated, engine for self retrieve.  It has never failed to start.  Still, I don't take it anywhere that I can not land on a paved runway but, with 50:1 glide at a decent cruise speed, there are plenty of landing spots available.

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

Patti and I sat in a Taurus and, while we liked the idea, it was pretty
lightly built.  Plus it was too simple.  I'd go to sleep from not having
to monitor any "systems".  Not like the spawn of a B-52 and an Abrams
Tank. =-O And I won't have anything beyond a lawn mower or a chain saw
with a two stroke engine.

--
Dan, 5J

[Dave Walsh]

My poor use of English, perhaps I should have said the Wankel is an
engineering nightmare (without vibration problems)? Clearly some
pilots have reliable Wankel engines; others are not so fortunate. Luckily
we're in a democracy so we can choose which (unreliable) engine to
buy. Current DG models have Solo not Rotax engines. I don't like any of
them. There are some nice Japanese two strokes out there, just not in
any sailplane. Despite the reported lack of vibration the bolts holding
some Wankel engines together seem to have a habit of falling out?
Assuming all motor-gliders are unreliable seems a safe bet.

[Dan Marotta]

We owned one for a couple of years.  It's very light and was a handful
at Moriarty during our windier months.  It will thermal and gain
altitude, but not with a sailplane.  It's a great cruiser, capable of
exceeding redline in level flight, so be careful with the throttle.  The
Rotax ULS delivered 100 hp with no more than around 7 gallons/hour at
max power, IIRC, and it cruise it burned under 4 gph.  Oh, and it has a
ballistic parachute.

On 9/16/2020 5:56 AM, charles...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thoughts on the Pipistrel Sinus?

--
Dan, 5J

[Eric Greenwell]

Dave Walsh wrote on 9/16/2020 1:11 PM:
> Despite the reported lack of vibration the bolts holding
> some Wankel engines together seem to have a habit of falling out?
> Assuming all motor-gliders are unreliable seems a safe bet.

The 26E was not affected, so I am not an expert on it; however, my understanding
is it's a bolt problem, not vibration related. Seriously, it has so little
vibration, I can't imagine that it could break a bolt. Vibration is simply not an
issue in our Wankel powered gliders.

It is a bad bet to assume all motor-gliders are unreliable, when so many are quite
good. I have had fewer lost soaring days because I couldn't self-launch than when
I had to use tows, and I'm very glad to be a FORMER owner of towplane!

It is not a good bet to assume the engine will start when it is your only chance
of avoiding a crash. It's not just the engine that may malfunction, but the pilot
might make a mistake.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

[John Cochrane]

The question comes down to what do you want, power-plane flying with some soaring ability or self-launch, self retrieve cross country sailplane? And how much money do you have?
For the latter mission, the ASH31 is right now a great glider. (Of course, my toy.) Strong climb performance -- I self-launch at Truckee, often 8000+ density altitude, with full water ballast, and no trouble. It has great cross country performance, keeping up well with 18m contest gliders. Its one limitation is not quite enough water ballast (legally), 10.8 lbs/sq foot. The 26 is a good substitute if you don't have lots of money. No 21 meter wings, top about 9.2 lbs, for much less money you lose a few MPH on your friend in a 31. The engine is very reliable.
I would not choose it though if I routinely wanted to fly 100s of miles under power and occasionally soar a bit.
John Cochrane BB

[charles...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> We owned one for a couple of years. It's very light and was a handful
> at Moriarty during our windier months. It will thermal and gain
> altitude, but not with a sailplane. It's a great cruiser, capable of
> exceeding redline in level flight, so be careful with the throttle. The
> Rotax ULS delivered 100 hp with no more than around 7 gallons/hour at
> max power, IIRC, and it cruise it burned under 4 gph. Oh, and it has a
> ballistic parachute.

> On 9/16/2020 5:56 AM, charles wrote:
> > Thoughts on the Pipistrel Sinus?
> --
> Dan, 5J

I was thinking to use it as a long distance low cost/hr cruiser. Sort of like sailboat cruising. Not in a hurry to get where I'm going.

What do you think about its thermaling ability? Do you agree that visibility in, say, 45 degree banked turns is terrible? or is it like, say a Cessna 152 (not great but not terrible)? I wouldn't be soaring it with other gliders in gaggles or such. Just cruise-thermaling to save fuel.

Was also thinking to use it to teach off-field landing approaches at various clubs around the US.

Glide ratio appears to vary depending on config. 30:1 is advertised but tech data shows 27:1 for one model and 23:1 for the heavier model:

https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/sinus/

Ben

[danlj]

> > On 9/16/2020 5:56 AM, charles wrote:
> > > Thoughts on the Pipistrel Sinus?

> Glide ratio appears to vary depending on config. 30:1 is advertised but tech data shows 27:1 for one model and 23:1 for the heavier model:
>
> https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/sinus/
>
> Ben

My flights in a Pipistrel Sinus showed that in a 45-degree bank, the sink rate is quite dramatic, and it takes strong thermals to soar effectively. I enjoyed giving rides to power pilots in which we'd fly around for awhile in airplane ,mode; then I'd stop the engine and feather the prop, and let the airplane pilot glide to a landing (they always handed it back to me at pattern altitude).
Lots of fun, but not a "sailplane" in the XC sense. I can't imagine flying it in weak conditions.
Dan J

[Dan Marotta]

Very astute, Eric.

On 9/16/2020 3:20 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> It's not just the engine that may malfunction, but the pilot might
> make a mistake.

--

Dan, 5J

[Ramy]

The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.

Ramy

[jfitch]

I'll just say you need to do a little more research (and not just on English) before you post. Most of what you have said is wrong, or in modern parlance, "alternative facts".

[2G]

Personally, I am not satisfied with the reliability and safety of the FES batteries and would not fly with them. The percentage of installations that have had fires is unacceptably high. Eventually, the glider community will acquire millions of hours of operational data to establish its reliability (or lack thereof).

Tom

[Eric Greenwell]

What is the percentage of installations that have had fires? What would be an
acceptable percentage of installations with fires? And are the hours you mention
motor hours or airframe hours?

[John Iacobucci]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 1:48:13 PM UTC-4, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
> This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
>
> When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
> Say for Western Great Basin flying.
>
> I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
> CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well.
>
> FACTORS
>
> Reliability
> Maintenance required to keep it running
> XC flyability, performance and control feel
> Storability
> Rigging
> Initial cost
> High density climb performance
> Range
> Cockpit layout and seating
> Parts availability
> Insurance cost
> Landing gear complexity
> Overall quality

> Nick
> T

I would give a shout for the Ventus 2CXM. Great performance. Only one minor problem with the self launch mechanism (it wasn't the motor) that our AP mechanic could fix in two hours. Up and flying same day. Extremely reliable.
One can argue the Wankle is less vibration on the whole, but maintenance for problems would be problematic. Pluses and minuses.
I chose the servicable Solo and the handling of the Ventus 2CX

[Peter van Schoonhoven]

Regarding the Pipistrel Sinus Flex:
Soaring performance claims are not consistent in all places where advertised and published in the owners manual, L/D numbers range from 21 to 30 . After flying mine a short time I believe with short wing tips (40 feet) the glide ratio is around 20-21, long tips (50 feet) around 25-27.

Visibility in turns while thermalling is very bad, in a Cessna 150 you can at least lean forward and look around the corner of the leading edge. In the SInus your head is behind the spar, you can not lean forward far enough to see. You would have to lift the wing to see where you are going in a turn and of course that would move the center of the circle you are flying. I am mounting cameras on top of the wing to give me a view above the wing. Hopefully that will help.

On the other hand, the SInus is fun to fly, extremely stable , roomy and very comfortable cockpit, makes a great two place airplane that easily cruises at 110 knots on 3 GPH , and you can operate from essentially every airport easily.

Peter van Schoonhoven
Battle Ground, WA

[moshe....@gmail.com]

Airframe hours, years, charge cycles...

Anecdotally I got the impression that there have been more battery fires in FES gliders than fires in gliders with gasoline-fueled engines, at least in recent years, and the number of FES gliders is relatively small. Li-ion seems risky. Personally I hope better battery chemistry will be developed, that is both safer and has the needed energy density. LiFePO4 is safer, and its energy density is improving, some electric cars are switching to it. Other chemistries are in the pipeline.

[jfitch]

So, you've owned the Wankel and had problematic maintenance? Or you are guessing? The Wankel is an ICE, it has a fuel system, ignition system, cooling system, and belt drive reduction system as they all do. Maintenance tasks are identical in most respects with any glider ICE. Only if you have to tear the engine down completely will you see the differences (and here the Wankel is somewhat simpler, having 2 moving parts).

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:51:39 AM UTC-7, John Iacobucci wrote:

[Eric Greenwell]

moshe....@gmail.com wrote on 9/17/2020 8:23 AM:
> On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 8:48:10 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> 2G wrote on 9/16/2020 9:10 PM:
>>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:56:25 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>>>> The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
>>>> For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
>>>> I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
>>>> Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
>>>> Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.
>>>>
>>>> Ramy
>>>
>>> Personally, I am not satisfied with the reliability and safety of the FES batteries and would not fly with them. The percentage of installations that have had fires is unacceptably high. Eventually, the glider community will acquire millions of hours of operational data to establish its reliability (or lack thereof).
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>> What is the percentage of installations that have had fires? What would be an
>> acceptable percentage of installations with fires? And are the hours you mention
>> motor hours or airframe hours?
>>

> Airframe hours, years, charge cycles...
>
> Anecdotally I got the impression that there have been more battery fires in FES gliders than fires in gliders with gasoline-fueled engines, at least in recent years, and the number of FES gliders is relatively small. Li-ion seems risky. Personally I hope better battery chemistry will be developed, that is both safer and has the needed energy density. LiFePO4 is safer, and its energy density is improving, some electric cars are switching to it. Other chemistries are in the pipeline.
>

Because there were significant changes in the FES batteries after the fires, I
think the current reliability should be estimated using the number of fires
post-updates. I'm not aware of any, but perhaps there are not enough
hours/flights/years on the revised batteries to have a good estimate.

[Eric Greenwell]

You make a persuasive analysis for installing an FES, and I'm sure you will enjoy
the independence and freedom to explore in your flying. Too bad, though, for the
pilots that now occasionally finish above you on the OLC, who will disappointed
that you will push even harder than before :^)

[Matthew Scutter]

The UK AAIB/EASA did an investigation into the fires, which is a great and thorough read : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f5a3f27e90e07208106a72c/HPH_Glasflugel_304_eS_G-GSGS_09-18.pdf
30 word summary: Suspected either metal contamination at manufacture or owner physical damage to the battery, recommended all batteries be withdrawn from use and redesigned/refurbished, which they .

Don't think there have been any since the redesign in ~2018. There is a fire warning system in new FES gliders now.

[Mike Schumann]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 6:57:02 AM UTC-5, charles...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thoughts on the Pipistrel Sinus?

If you are interested in a Touring Motorglider, the Phoenix is the way to go. With the wing tips removed (takes 30 seconds, each weighing 15 lbs) the wingspan is 35 ft and the plane will comfortably fit in any standard T hangar. The Sinus wingspan with tips removed is over 40’ making it a challenge to fit in a regular size T hangar.

[discus239]

My Phoenix is not a substitute for a hi performance sailplane, I've owned a few, but it is a substitute for a light airplane, it is easy to live with, has the big canopy sailplane view, 2 seats side by side, doesn't need a towplane, of which I've owned a few, and climbs nicely in good lift.
Mine has the optional tow hook, haven't used it yet, but its there in case I ever want another sailplane, nearest tow for me is way too far away,
living on an airport means in a few minutes I can be checking out the clouds or taking a sunset flight down the beach.

[Nick Kennedy]

Hey There Russ Owens
Hello to you and yours!
Thanks for the response.
Question on the ASH25E
It the Rotary engine eats itself up and you drop it off at Rex's shop to fix it, whats your educated guess to completely replace it with all the extra bits.
Nick
T

[Eric Greenwell]

Probably should ask Rex, or pilot that's had to do it, and not somebody like Russ
(or me) that hasn't had any problems.

[2G]

Would have to know the total number of installations and fires, and I don't know either, but it is going to be in the one or two percent range. An acceptable number would be 0.1% or less.

Tom

[Eric Greenwell]

2G wrote on 9/17/2020 5:54 PM:
> On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:48:10 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> 2G wrote on 9/16/2020 9:10 PM:
>>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:56:25 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>>>> The Carat has relatively low performance according to a pilot I fly with often.
>>>> For me (cost constrain, strong tendency towards simple low maintenance, reliable, simple, safe and quick to operate with small risk of getting into trouble, minimal performance compromise, as close to pure glider as possible) the only solution I can think of is adding Self launching FES option to my glider.
>>>> I figured it would have got me home 80-90% of the times I landed out, and to a better landout place the rest of the time, have the potential of saving my butt if I make bad decisions again, and may allow me to fly when the tow plane is grounded, there is a long line or I want to fly from somewhere else, and would allow me to explore further than I would otherwise, and overall reduce my dependency on others.
>>>> Range is not a significant constrain, I rarely land out more than 100km from home.
>>>> Unless someone convinces me I am wrong, I will seriously consider adding an FES to my ASG29.
>>>>
>>>> Ramy
>>>
>>> Personally, I am not satisfied with the reliability and safety of the FES batteries and would not fly with them. The percentage of installations that have had fires is unacceptably high. Eventually, the glider community will acquire millions of hours of operational data to establish its reliability (or lack thereof).
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>> What is the percentage of installations that have had fires? What would be an
>> acceptable percentage of installations with fires? And are the hours you mention
>> motor hours or airframe hours?
>>

>

> Would have to know the total number of installations and fires, and I don't know either, but it is going to be in the one or two percent range. An acceptable number would be 0.1% or less.
>
> Tom

0.1%? How did you choose that? It's not that good on Schleicher Wankel
installations, like you and I fly. There are about 600 Wankel powered gliders, and
at least 4 fires I know of, which is about 0.6%.

[2G]

Well, if I was going to fly today and the odds of dying were worse than 1 in a 1000 I probably wouldn't.

Tom

[2G]

You have to calculate the odds on a per flight basis. With Schleicher motorgliders I would guess that to be something in the neighborhood of 1 in 100,000. And none of the fires that did occur did resulted in the loss of the glider.

The bottom line is we have a lot more operational experience with internal combustion motorgliders than with electric. The incidents I have seen with the FES are disturbing to me: I wouldn't fly one at this point, but I am open to being presented with more data on the issue in the future. I had one FES owner explicitly say to me that he is disturbed by its poor reliability, but is willing to trust his emergency parachute!

Tom

[Randy Acree]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 10:48:13 AM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
> Didn't want to hijack the current FES tread so I thought I'd start a new one.
> This topic came up over dinner a couple of weeks ago.
>
> When you add all the following into a pot and stir, whats the "Best"
> Say for Western Great Basin flying.
>
> I think it may be the Carat, but I don't know much about it.
> CX thinks its the DG 800 series, but all I know is since he bought that thing its been a endless battle to keep it running. But it does climb well.
>
> FACTORS
>
> Reliability
> Maintenance required to keep it running
> XC flyability, performance and control feel
> Storability
> Rigging
> Initial cost
> High density climb performance
> Range
> Cockpit layout and seating
> Parts availability
> Insurance cost
> Landing gear complexity
> Overall quality

> Nick
> T
I have been flying my Carat for 3 yrs now and have no regrets. I purchased it for retirement so I can go to the local airport when I travel to fly. Scarcity of towplanes was the driving factor. The Carat is the Discus wing and tail mounted on their fuselage. I have never had a problem with the Sauer engine. Performance has been great with summer time launches in Tucson and Moriarty. One other flies out of Parowan, Ely and Nephi. I love the upright seating and the convenentional gear makes taxiing a breeze since neither wing is down. The only two negatives have been high wing loading in weak conditions and it tends to do poorly in heavy sink. Falls out of the sky if you have to fly above 90 kias. Super easy assembly and great trailer. I'm told it sounds like a J3 cub. Love it.

[Russ Owens]

Sorry Nick, I can't help with the cost to replace an ASH-26E engine with all the bits. Fortunately, I haven't had to find out! I do hope to see you again sometime in the Great Basin. It's been a long time. Maybe someone that's been thru this exercise could help. Painful, I'm sure!
Russ

[kevin anderson]

Love my DG 400. I have had to do a little work but able to get parts so far. No motor breakdown work.

On the gear, there is a service bulletin that covers a number of the DG models. It was done to my glider and makes the mechanism more robust with a positive catch and spring on the handle. Also changing the gas spring on the gear is important if not done in years.

Vibration, I have had the prop balanced by Russel Brown at Seminole when flying at the Seniors. Took about an hour using a Dynavibe. Put small washers in different locations around the prop hub where it bolts together. Very significant vibration reduction, pitch of prop changed, and even got a couple hundred RPM on static run.

Great bird for the money.

Kevin
92

[waremark]

If you are considering a high end new or newish high performance glider, the obvious choice is between an ASH 31 and a Ventus 3M (shows my prejudice against DG's and full size open class gliders)!. At significantly lower cost it could be an ASH 26E or Ventus 2 CM. I think I would choose a Ventus 3M

I have had two motorgliders, a Wankel engined ASH 26E and a Solo engined Arcus M. The engine technologies have pros and cons. The Wankel is as others have said perfectly smooth but it needs warming up and cooling down. The Solo engine may be fractionally less smooth but I really don't find an issue with it in practise. I think most of the problems experienced with either type have been from causes which have nothing to do with the internals of the engine - things like pylon position sensors out of position or going wrong, exhaust issues, or aspects of the electrics. Most of the time either type will do a good job of self-launching or self-retrieving, and an adequate though not great job of repositioning.

In considering the advantages of an ASH 31 over an ASH 26, apart from the availability of 21m tips as well as 18m tips, consider that 26's are getting to an age where they are likely to be less reliable (the one I used to own currently has wiring issues, not for the first time) and may need refinishing now or before long. The 31 also has injection whereas the 26 has a somewhat mickey mouse carburettor, which should make the 31 more suited to high altitude flight as well as more reliable.

Currently, I would not be ready to buy an electric self-launcher - I would want more endurance if buying a self-launcher. My calculations suggested that the petrol Arcus has about 8 times the endurance of the electric version (of which extremely few have been built) and I heard of someone switching off the motor after climbing to 500 feet in order to preserve battery for a potential self-retrieve. Admittedly that was for flight in very hostile terrain, but I like to think I have enough fuel on board to climb to a reasonable height, to relight if necessary, and to self-retrieve at the end of the day. I must admit that I have never needed to do all that! But I have certainly enjoyed being able to taxi back after tailing to stay up and immediately take a relight without worrying about the endurance I have left. I expect that as the energy density of batteries improves electric engines will become dominant, and I worry that this will affect the sale-ability of petrol engined self-launchers.

[Ramy]

I consider FES as primarily a sustainer with a bonus self launch capability. You don’t get both in the same flight. The self launch is primarily for the occasional situation you can’t otherwise get a tow (mid week, tow plane down, tow pilot unavailable etc]. The self launch may get you in the air when you otherwise can’t, but probably wouldn’t be sufficient for a relight at the end of the day.

Ramy

[2G]

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 3:18:06 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> I consider FES as primarily a sustainer with a bonus self launch capability. You don’t get both in the same flight. The self launch is primarily for the occasional situation you can’t otherwise get a tow (mid week, tow plane down, tow pilot unavailable etc]. The self launch may get you in the air when you otherwise can’t, but probably wouldn’t be sufficient for a relight at the end of the day.
>
> Ramy

The guy with a MiniLAK FES at Ely, NV this year took tows. On his first flight, he got stuck 60 miles out. He knew that the energy in the battery did not permit climbing to an altitude to clear the mountain ranges between him and the airport, and cruise the 60 mi back to Ely, so he used his battery capacity to, wisely, search for a landable area (which can be hard to find in this area of NV). He landed out successfully and was retrieved by ground. This is yet another story. Personally, I would not fly any electric glider out of Ely.

Tom

[kinsell]

On 9/22/20 3:09 PM, waremark wrote:


> I expect that as the energy density of batteries improves electric engines will become dominant, and I worry that this will affect the sale-ability of petrol engined self-launchers.

Even without advances like dilithium crystal batteries, we have the
prospect of politicians getting into power who have sworn to get rid of
fossil fuels altogether. That brings up the prospect of electric
towplanes that can do one or two launches a day, then back to the hangar
for their recharge.

[Dan Daly]

Or electric winches tied into main distribution, or perhaps solar power to batteries. Or electric car tow to 1,000', then FES.

[Eric Greenwell]

Electric towplanes? An odd response to the question of the Best Overall
Motorglider available today, where the idea is to get rid of the towplane entirely.

[Dave Walsh]

You won't need tow planes or winches when everyone has an electric self
launch: everyone just has to get a lot richer.
It's not a problem, our politicians have it all under control, look at how

well we Europeans are doing with Brexit & Covid.....
And, yes, it's raining.

[Eric Greenwell]

There is an alternative to getting a lot richer: clubs and partnerships. With just
two people in a partnership, your purchase cost is one half, and you no longer
have to support a tow plane or pay tow fees. If you can fly near your home, you
can avoid travel and motel costs, too. The partners can fly whenever their
schedule and the weather permit, and even take advantage of marginal soaring
conditions without the inconvenience or expense of a retrieve, so the utilization
of the glider is higher than a towed glider.

So, instead of "a lot richer", you only have to be "modestly richer", and with
three owners of a glider, maybe not even richer at all, especially as the used
market for FES gliders increases in the next few years. A club might find an FES
glider a good value, particularly if they want to encourage cross-country soaring.

[Dan Marotta]

Well, then...  You'll need one or more old fart partners because there
are only two days in a weekend. :-D

Signed,
Dan (an old fart)

On 9/24/2020 6:59 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Dave Walsh wrote on 9/24/2020 5:11 AM:
>> You won't need tow planes or winches when everyone has an electric self
>> launch: everyone just has to get a lot richer.
>> It's not a problem, our politicians have it all under control, look
>> at how
>>
>> well we Europeans are doing with Brexit & Covid.....
>> And, yes, it's raining.
>>
> There is an alternative to getting a lot richer: clubs and
> partnerships. With just two people in a partnership, your purchase
> cost is one half, and you no longer have to support a tow plane or pay
> tow fees. If you can fly near your home, you can avoid travel and
> motel costs, too. The partners can fly whenever their schedule and the
> weather permit, and even take advantage of marginal soaring conditions
> without the inconvenience or expense of a retrieve, so the utilization
> of the glider is higher than a towed glider.
>
> So, instead of "a lot richer", you only have to be "modestly richer",
> and with three owners of a glider, maybe not even richer at all,
> especially as the used market for FES gliders increases in the next
> few years. A club might find an FES glider a good value, particularly
> if they want to encourage cross-country soaring.
>

--

Dan, 5J

[2G]

That strategy has been in use since the Wright Brothers started selling aircraft, so it is not going to change anything. If an electric towplane can only make 2 launches per day you will need more towplanes and the much higher cost would have to be passed on to the same number of club members.

Tom

[Martin Gregorie]

The least exploited strategy is electric winches, since they can be run
off the mains and, with a battery bank you get off-peak charging and/or
to ability operate off a relatively small trailer generator.

We looked at using electric winches a few years back, but dropped the
idea when we found out what wiring up our usual winch points would be
(we'd ideally wire up three or four, with two being at the opposite end
of the runs to the clubhouse & mains supply, (we are on an ex-RAF bomber
field and regularly launch on 04, 22, less frequently on 340 and
occasionally on 160). We have a pair of Skylaunch winches that run on LPG.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Eric Greenwell]

Exactly! And us OF's are ready to do our part! But, we may not need to: these
days, with so many people working remotely, or can otherwise shift their working
hours around, it's not just OF's that can fly during the week. You don't have to
live near each other, either: rotate the glider among the owners' airports every
week or so, making it practical to have owners that don't live in the same town.

[tow...@gmail.com]

> There is an alternative to getting a lot richer: clubs and partnerships.

I've been in several partnerships, and they all were much better in every way, than owning a glider alone (which I also have done). Better financially, and by having helpers, and when I landed out the nice feeling that someone else had a large interest in getting the glider (and me) back home.

[Eric Greenwell]

tow...@gmail.com wrote on 9/25/2020 5:01 PM:
>
>> There is an alternative to getting a lot richer: clubs and partnerships.
>
> I've been in several partnerships, and they all were much better in every way, than owning a glider alone (which I also have done). Better financially, and by having helpers, and when I landed out the nice feeling that someone else had a large interest in getting the glider (and me) back home.
>

Join a partnership in an FES glider, and when you fly you will have the nice
feeling that you will not land out :^)

[Slawek Piela]

Why nobody mentioned Antares 20/21E?

S

[Dave Walsh]

At 06:18 28 September 2020, Slawek Piela wrote:
>Why nobody mentioned Antares 20/21E?
>

The Antares 20E is a very nice handling machine with a good high speed
glide angle, comfortable (crash resistant) cockpit and excellent simple
engine controls (one lever does it all). The climb rate is very good (a
large, 2m diameter, slow revving prop and engine doors that are closed
during climb all help). The build quality is very nice.
In EASA land you can extend the actual ARC inspection to every three
years; the A/C can generate its own system reports which can be sent to
your inspector, if all is well a physical inspection is not required
annually.
However the total full power engine run time is only about 13 minutes so
after a ~3000 foot climb (I've averaged 6 minutes/launch over the last 5
years) you might have 50 - 60% battery capacity remaining: realistically
this will give you one further good climb so for many pilots the limited
battery capacity is seen as a problem.
The A/C is electrically/electronically very complex, the engine doors, the

engine erection/retraction and the U/C are all electro-hydraulic: even in
Europe any serious issue might mean a trip to Lange Aviation,
Zweibrucken, NW Germany.
It's expensive; it's the nicest motor glider I've owned/operated. Things
that could be better: -
(i) Engineers & inspectors with experience of Antares maintenance are
thin on the ground.
(ii) The official Flight & Maintenance Manuals are in still in German!
>

[Dave Nadler]

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 2:18:07 AM UTC-4, Slawek Piela wrote:
> Why nobody mentioned Antares 20/21E?

Before you purchase any motorglider, you will want to talk to a few owners
about their ownership experience, especially reliability and factory support.

[Dave Walsh]

>I agree totally: what you might well discover is that the reliable motor
glider does not yet exist. Given this, good factory support is very
desirable.

[jfitch]

At least individual examples do exist. I've owned mine for 20 years, in that time I have had exactly 1 failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plugs), and no inflight failures at all. Other than scheduled maintenance per the manual, the list of repairs in 20 years has been:

* replaced exhaust muffler per A/D
* replaced water pump due to progressively worsening seal
* preemptively replaced belt idler bearings which were judged to be noisy
* replaced coil #1, internally intermittent

I've rarely owned a car that had fewer repairs. I'm not going to argue that this glider is as reliable as a modern car, but with vigilant maintenance, reliability has not been bad relatively speaking. Perhaps I have been lucky, but I know other owners who are equally lucky. I own two boats, each of which has required more unscheduled maintenance than has the glider. Boats and gliders are both made in prototype quantities, an expectation of reliability equal to an automobile (made in millions) is naive. But of course, even in an automobile, good factory support is desirable.

[Eric Greenwell]

My experience with my ASH 26E parallels Jon's: over 26 years, 4000+ hours, 200
engine hours, except for these engine related issues...

-I've had one failure to start in-flight; probably my fault as it started
immediately on the ground shortly after landing
-replaced the propeller drive belt after 20 years "just because"
-the air spring on the mast was replaced once
-oil sensor leaked, replaced
-I have not replaced a coil, but I did replace the flywheel per an AD the second
year or so.
-I've only lost two or three soaring days due to propulsion system issues, as most
maintenance could be deferred to non-soaring periods (like winter)

I flew towed gliders for about 3000 hours, and lost many days due to towplane
issues: no pilot or towplane down for various mechanical problems. I can take my
26E to almost any airport, where I can expect to launch and then return 5-6 hours
later, even the weather doesn't cooperate. That's my idea of a reliable glider!
Try that with a towed glider, and your "reliability" will be much worse.

[mmc...@gmail.com]

You did not say which aircraft you own...

Matt

[jfitch]

ASH26Mi. Eric's story reminds me that I have had to replace the oil sender as well (though that was done at the scheduled annual, no down time). I have lost only one day of soaring, the failure to start after winter layup. I have flown it twice without the engine installed, once when the water pump was being replaced just to see how it would fly, and once in the midst of my engine conversion when the soaring looked too good to pass up and the new engine wasn't ready. When the coil became intermittent the engine ran fine on the other coil, but I chose to take a tow that day out of an abundance of caution. Those occasions are the only instances of it being towed. Like Eric, I have flown numerous days when either there was no tow plane, or the wait was so long several pilots gave up and drank beer. So I think I can truthfully say it has gotten me launched more reliably than an engineless glider. Picking my own launch time has been the best benefit though.

I've been meticulous about maintenance, and make no mistake, there is much more maintenance on a motorglider than one without.

[mmc...@gmail.com]

Thanks! I am familiar with the ASH-26E, but I haven't seen much online about the -Mi. Are these quite different?

Matt

[waremark]

Presumably an ASH26 Mi is a 26 which has had an engine conversion to the engine introduced in the ASH31 - with fuel injection increasing quoted power from 50 hp to 57 hp.

[kinsell]

On 9/30/20 5:28 PM, waremark wrote:
> Presumably an ASH26 Mi is a 26 which has had an engine conversion to the engine introduced in the ASH31 - with fuel injection increasing quoted power from 50 hp to 57 hp.
>

Basically right, but the FI motor was available in the ASH-25Mi well
before the '31 cam along.

Probably should note that there's plenty of items that can and do go
wrong on the wankel and its accessories, the iron apex seals are weak
points, drive belts break, bearings go bad. If a great motorglider
propulsion system existed, everyone would be using it.

[jfitch]

Waremark is correct, it was a 26E for my first 17 years of ownership, I swapped in the Mi motor. The injected motor starts quicker, runs a little smoother, has a little more power, and of course is altitude corrected. Climb rate is improved by about 25%. Other than the injection, the propulsion system is the same. It is a bit more work than might be apparent due to the changes in the wiring harness necessary to support the injection control, and the two high pressure fuel pumps replacing the low pressure ones. The 31 and 26 fuselage are otherwise identical, so everything fits and works properly. To the extent that there are mechanical problems with the engine, they will be the same between E and Mi. I've just not had that many, with either engine.

[waremark]

Yes to the difference between the 26E engine and the Mi engine. I had a 26E and have flown a 31. If you operate in the flatlands the engine upgrade is not a reason to change, at low elevations the 26 has good take-off and climb performance (better than the more powerful and injected Arcus M which I fly now, but not as good as the DG 808). If you might need to cross high mountains the injected version would be much more suitable (there is no in-flight mixture adjustment on the carburetor 26E version) and of course the extra power is appropriate for the heavier 31.

The Schleicher gliders have used fine pitched propellers for best take-off performance since a few years after the 26 came out - the quoted ground roll reduced from 300m to 200m (from memory) when Schleicher changed the prop from the original Technoflug prop to their own prop. If you want to fly level under power for your self-retrieve the Arcus cruises faster than the 26, I presume as a result of a coarser prop.

[jfitch]

While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate for high altitude operation. I did not adjust the carburetor between sea level and high altitude, it would climb to 13,000 ft. well and begin to run a bit rough between there and 14,000 ft. I have calculated the climb rate for the first 1000 ft on all of my flights out of Truckee (typical density altitude at takeoff is 8800 - 9200 ft.). With the E engine it was around 430 ft/min average, with the Mi engine it has been about 550 ft/min. It out climbs a Pawnee towplane towing a similar glider. My E engine had the original Technoflug prop, however comparing Technoflug and AS props, the climb rate is similar (acceleration is better with the AS). Climb rate at sea level is over 800 ft/min.

[Dave Nadler]

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 12:46:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> While the Mi engine is better, the E engine is certainly adequate

Thanks Jfitch for showing us your beautiful 26mi at the convention.
Can you remind us why you decided to do the conversion from original engine?

Thanks,
Best Regards, Dave

[John Galloway]

I flew an ASH26e for 2 seasons and now have a V3M which matches its advertised climb rate of 630fpm with its 62hp fuel injected Solo engine taking off from 360ft msl. The 26e with the carb engine got around 500pm so I surprised me to hear the the 26Mi, with a lower power engine than my V3M, will manage 800fpm from sea level. 800fpm seems an extraordinary increase.

The 26e is a lovely glider and the engine is, of course, much quieter smoother than 2 cylinder 2-strokes but the rotary engine is too vulnerable to catastrophic internal damage if anything goes wrong with the marginal at the best of times rotor air cooling and the internal oil misting. The saying about self launching glider IC engines is - "with the Solo you will probably get lots of relatively small problems, with the rotary you'll get fewer problems but when you do it could be a very big one". There are certainly a few replaced rotaries in gliders that I know of and that is a big bill. I had the fan belt fall off and the engine rotor air rapidly overheat but got away with it.

[Paul T]

Is there a rec.aviation.mortorglider for all these boys that don't fly
sailplanes???

[Eric Greenwell]

Paul T wrote on 10/3/2020 12:56 AM:
> Is there a rec.aviation.mortorglider for all these boys that don't fly
> sailplanes???
>

You are asking about what we call "touring motorgliders". The best place to start
is the Touring Motorglider Association forums:

https://www.motorgliders.org

[Dan Marotta]

Touring motorgliders seem to be simply airplanes with longer wings.

On 10/3/2020 7:07 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Paul T wrote on 10/3/2020 12:56 AM:
>> Is there a rec.aviation.mortorglider for all these boys that don't fly
>> sailplanes???
>>
> You are asking about what we call "touring motorgliders". The best
> place to start is the Touring Motorglider Association forums:
>
> https://www.motorgliders.org
>

--

Dan, 5J

[jfitch]

Dave, there was no good reason to do it. The E engine was running fine, had 45 hours on it, and it still running today in another glider. A number of 26E owners over the years have expressed interest in this conversion. We had the engine and were curious about AS claim that this was not a trivial endeavor. Also, I was going to need to replace the Technoflug prop at some point, and the Mi engine already had that prop. It turned into a bit more work than we (Rex and I) had imagined - perhaps AS was right - but the result is a nice upgrade. The alternative way to get an Mi engine is to spend the $1/4M dollar bill for a 31.

[jfitch]

I have written an application that will analyze an IGC file (or many IGC files at once) to calculate time to climb and climb rate. I dumped 20 years worth of my IGC files into it. The climb rate at sea level with the E engine was a bit over 600 if memory serves, and a bit over 800 with the Mi (I do not fly often at sea level). About the same percentage increase at high altitude. If you want to send me some IGC files, I can throw them into the same app.

There have been a couple of instances of fan belt failures on the rotary, a few of us have installed warning indicators for this possibility.

[2G]

I think if you factored in the cost of the engine and the cost of the labor you would be better off selling your 26e and buying a new 31Mi. You definitely can't get your money back when you sell your converted 26Mi (which really doesn't exist as it is not an AS model).

Tom

[kinsell]

On 10/3/20 7:07 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Paul T wrote on 10/3/2020 12:56 AM:
>> Is there a rec.aviation.mortorglider for all these boys that don't fly
>> sailplanes???
>>
> You are asking about what we call "touring motorgliders". The best place
> to start is the Touring Motorglider Association forums:
>
> https://www.motorgliders.org
>

I believe he was saying that motorgliders aren't really sailplanes and
would like discussions on such to move elsewhere.

Maybe if he doesn't want to read about motorgliders, he could avoid
clicking on threads mentioning motorgliders?

[Paul T]

Such a cynic - but no, anything with an engine in it is not a sailplane -
its a
different game - maybe better, maybe worse, but definitely different - but

personally I'd have a JS2/5 if I win the lottery.

[Eric Greenwell]

Equipment does change the game: 1-26 vs Nimbus 4 is a different game.

The area also changes the game: Appalachian ridges vs Argentina wave is a
different game.

The launch availability changes the game: Daily access to a tow vs weekend only is
a different game.

Retrieve ease changes the game: a very dedicated (or paid) crew vs the unassisted
pilot is a different game.

My point: The common factor is we are all flying sailplanes, and there are many
factors affecting the "game". To argue a Nimbus 4 is a sailplane and a Nimbus 4M
isn't ignores what happens between the start and finish of the soaring.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to em"l me)

[jfitch]

The cost of the parts wasn't that high and the labor was free. Certainly far less than the $100K or so difference. I considered a 31 but prefer the one piece wings, leaving the only advantage (for me) of the 31 the higher wing loading on rare occasions when I could be bothered with water. Nevertheless, it isn't wise to look too closely at the cost of soaring, it is phenomenally expensive at this level. Everyone makes their own decisions, and I made mine with full knowledge.

Regarding auxiliary motors, this prejudice will die away eventually. Sailboats with auxiliaries are now universal and are thought of as sailboats, but it took about 50 years to get there. With motorgliders currently outselling non-engined gliders by about 5:1, it may not take that long.

[kinsell]

Obviously it wasn't trivial, but look at what they did with the '25.
Sold as a straight glider, a sustainer with a Solo engine, and a
self-launch with a carbureted Wankel, an injected Wankel, and a twin
jet. So much re-engineering went into that ship, but not the '26.

[markm...@gmail.com]

I don't believe the '25 was ever sold as a twin jet, but there was one converted by the owner. (in Australia, I believe)

[Matthew Scutter]

On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 10:01:09 PM UTC+2, markm...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't believe the '25 was ever sold as a twin jet, but there was one converted by the owner. (in Australia, I believe)

Which subsequently ended in tragedy :(

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2018/aair/ao-2018-009/

[jfitch]

The 26 was re-engineered into the 31. The fuselage is the same, the Mi motor drops in and bolts up to the 26 fuselage without any structural or mechanical changes at all. Only the wiring and fuel system has to be upgraded to match the induction system. To fit an engine into the originally engineless 25 was, I'm sure, a much larger job. I don't think converting an engineless 25 into a 25Mi is practical, without purchasing a new fuselage. I believe it has been tried on a 22, the cost is prohibitive.

[2G]

The telling difference for was when I did a 30nm glide at Ely in my 26e with an ASG29; I ended up 3,000ft below him! I was down below ridge height scratching and he easily connected with a thermal and was gone. The better glide of the 31 is really substantial as is the engine performance at high-density altitudes.

Valuing your labor at zero doesn't make sense as you can always work at your profession and pay someone else to do the work. If you make less than what it will cost in labor, then do it yourself, but set the labor cost at your deferred labor rate. Even worse, when it is time to sell potential buyers will consider it to be a 26e, not a 26Mi (which doesn't exist).

I've stopped worrying about the obscene cost of these toys a long time ago. If it bothered me, I could just play golf at zero additional cost (I have an annual membership at the course I play whether I fly or not).

Tom

[RW]

Tom,
Energy line is not big highway.
Your friend read a line a bit better.
We all trying the best, but we sometimes miss.
Its not a glider !
Ryszard