Is the ASW-27B still being made?

[Rick Lake]

I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been replaced in production by the ASG-29.

Thanks

[Eric Greenwell]

On 5/11/2013 8:23 AM, Rick Lake wrote:
> I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been replaced
> in production by the ASG-29.

It's a 20+ year-old design. Order a DuckHawk and be happier. If the
DuckHawk seems unproven to you, buy a used 27B, fly it until you decide
you should order a DuckHawk, continue to fly it while you wait your
glider to be built, then sell the 27B.

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

[Bob Kuykendall]

On May 11, 9:49 am, Eric Greenwell <ow...@thegreenwells.netto> wrote:

> It's a 20+ year-old design...

Yes, but it does incorporate a huge amount of engineering, data,
practice, and empirical results pertaining to soaring performance and
(perhaps more importantly) crashworthiness. They turned a lot of test
articles into little white flakes in order to expand the envelope of
impact energies within which you could walk away from a crash. I don't
think you can reasonably expect to get that kind of protection from
one-off ships optimized for uber-performance. It is no accident that
all current ASx designs build upon the design principles established
by and developed for the ASW-24 and -27.

Thanks, Bob K.

[K]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:49:47 AM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 8:23 AM, Rick Lake wrote:
>
> > I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been replaced
>
> > in production by the ASG-29.
>
>
>
> It's a 20+ year-old design.

Yes, But it has been updated. Further, It is still competitive. It beat the Duckhawk at the Nationals. I think you have it backwards; Find a used DH and order a new 27B ;).

> Eric Greenwell

[Bob Kuykendall]

On May 11, 8:23 am, Rick Lake <rlak...@cox.net> wrote:
> I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been
> replaced in production by the ASG-29.

It depends on how you count. If you look at the official paperwork,
ASG-29s are actually certificated as variants of the ASW-27, under the
same type certificate.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Eric Greenwell]

The ASW 24 was great leap ahead in crash protection, in my opinion, and
they incorporated that knowledge into their later designs. Crash
protection was one of the reasons I selected the ASH 26 E twenty years
ago. It was a new design then, just like the 27!

[Eric Greenwell]

I have it frontwards: the OP can find and buy a used 27B, but not a used
DuckHawk. He'll have a lot of fun in a great glider while he waits to
see how the DuckHawk, and possibly other new 15 M gliders shake out,
then likely sell it at a good price if he decides to switch.

[cochra...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:23:05 AM UTC-5, Rick Lake wrote:
> I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been replaced in production by the ASG-29.
>
>
>
> Thanks

My understanding from John Murray (US agent) and the AS website is, yes, i.e. if you want a 27 they will build it for you. The 27 is close to 100 lbs lighter than the 29 in 15 meter mode, but does not have quite as high a top wingloading (11.5 not 12.5). Otherwise, I gather a current production 27 and a 29 - 15 are nearly identical aerodynamically. They are rare because almost nobody is ordering them -- or ASW28 / D2 either. Despite all the complaining about how expensive gliders are, faced with the decision, almost all orders are for 18 m gliders, some with dual 15 m wingtips, and most with engines too!

John Cochrane

[rla...@cox.net]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:23:05 AM UTC-5, Rick Lake wrote:

> I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been replaced in production by the ASG-29.
>
>
>
> Thanks

Thanks for all the opinions and advice guys!

Rick Lake

[Eric Greenwell]

On 5/12/2013 6:25 PM, SP wrote:

> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:47:37 PM UTC-6, rla...@cox.net wrote:
>> Thanks for all the opinions and advice guys!
>>
>>
>>
>> Rick Lake

> Rick, one last thing to follow on to what TK said. Last year I was
> helping a buddy with some glide testing and we flew a 27 and a 29 in
> the 15M config side by side. First, I was surprised when we had them
> next to each other on the ramp you could see a obvious difference in
> the wings. We ballasted the 27 to the same wing loading as the 29 and
> towed to 10K and the planes were glued together throughout the entire
> speed range. This was at a light wing loading. If you can't get the
> factory to build you a 27 there are plenty of clean used ones
> around.

If Rick has the slightest interest in a motorglider, I suggest the used
route. I think the next few years will see some very interesting
motorgliders based on front mounted electric motors (and lighter, more
powerful batteries), plus jet powered self-launching and sustainer
equipped gliders.

For example, Windward Performance is now building at least two jet
powered DuckHawks (aka "JetHawk"). I'm really looking forward to
learning the performance details.

[Don Johnstone]

So buy a glider designed by Gerhard Waibel or a glider designed by someone
else. I think that is what they call a no brainer. If it starts ASW it's
gonna be right.

[cochra...@gmail.com]

>I think the next few years will see some very interesting
> motorgliders based on front mounted electric motors (and lighter, more
> powerful batteries), plus jet powered self-launching and sustainer
> equipped gliders.
>
>
> For example, Windward Performance is now building at least two jet
> powered DuckHawks (aka "JetHawk"). I'm really looking forward to
> learning the performance details.
>
>

A bit off topic by now, but what the heck...

It strikes me the right answer for sailplanes is a front electric sustainer powered by a very small battery and fuel cell.

Gliders need light weight. Batteries are all sorts of things but they are not light weight.

Is this to appeal to "green?" Listening to the Antares owners recharge their huge batteries by running loud gas powered generators all night makes a mockery of green. Besides which, the fuel for the motorhome dwarfs what we use for gasoline sustainers.

Gas engines are heavy, and complex to start and operate.

Jet engines are cool, light, and start easily (I gather), but inefficient so you have to carry a lot of fuel. The duckhawk is already suspiciously high wingloading. To say nothing of the FAA's attitude towards experimental jets.

The FES starts instantly, has little drag when extended so needs less power, and if powered by a fuel cell would be really light too.

If fuel cells are impractical, why not a small motor recharging the battery? Then you could have a much smaller battery and motor. You're low, press the switch. The battery fires up and gives you instant power. In a few seconds the motor starts too and you use both battery and electricity from motor and generator for a fast 2000' climb. When the battery is out, engine->generator->motor to sustain or climb slowly. When you shut down, the motor keeps running to recharge the battery. If the motor didnt' start you'd have say 1000' of climb and a few minutes of battery to sort things out for your off field landing.

The energy density of gasoline is hard to beat.

John Cochrane
Still motorless

[mattm...@gmail.com]

Cool, the flying Volt! :-)

[Eric Greenwell]

On 5/14/2013 9:35 AM, cochra...@gmail.com wrote:

> The FES starts instantly, has little drag when extended so needs less
> power, and if powered by a fuel cell would be really light too.
>
> If fuel cells are impractical, why not a small motor recharging the
> battery? Then you could have a much smaller battery and motor. You're
> low, press the switch. The battery fires up and gives you instant
> power. In a few seconds the motor starts too and you use both battery
> and electricity from motor and generator for a fast 2000' climb. When
> the battery is out, engine->generator->motor to sustain or climb
> slowly. When you shut down, the motor keeps running to recharge the
> battery. If the motor didnt' start you'd have say 1000' of climb and
> a few minutes of battery to sort things out for your off field
> landing.
>
> The energy density of gasoline is hard to beat.

The FES is very attractive, for sure. Windward is also working on one of
those for the SparrowHawk R. They call it "front mounted tractor", since
FES is taken.

I don't know enough about fuel cells to be sure, but I suspect one with
enough power for a good climb of 5 knots might be very expensive. Maybe
have a Li battery for the 2000' of climb, and recharge slowly from a
small fuel cell.

I've wondered if a gas-electric hybrid would be practical. A gas motor
powerful enough to supply half the energy of a 2000' climb at 500 fpm
would be about 20 hp, a fair sized motor. So again, maybe the solution
is a big enough Li battery to do the whole 2000', then use 4 hp motor to
recharge the battery over the next 30 minutes or so.

[mattm...@gmail.com]

So, have I done my H.S. physics correctly: a 360kg glider needs about 1hp to
sustain it, given that its normal sink rate is about 1m/s? At that rate your
4hp motor would work really well with enough battery capacity for a 2000' climbout.

Matt

[Jim White]

At 16:35 14 May 2013, cochra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>It strikes me the right answer for sailplanes is a front electric

>sustainer=
> powered by a very small battery and fuel cell.=20
>
I like your thinking John. Fuel cells also produce water (useful for
hydration) and heat (useful for socks). If you choose a direct ethanol
version you would also have a ready supply of hooch for when you eventually
land out and need a drink!

Jim

[Wallace Berry]

In article <kmuggj$alt$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Eric Greenwell <ow...@thegreenwells.netto> wrote:

> small fuel cell.
>
> I've wondered if a gas-electric hybrid would be practical. A gas motor
> powerful enough to supply half the energy of a 2000' climb at 500 fpm
> would be about 20 hp, a fair sized motor. So again, maybe the solution
> is a big enough Li battery to do the whole 2000', then use 4 hp motor to
> recharge the battery over the next 30 minutes or so.

Apparently there was a gas-electric hybrid glider at the AERO
Friedrichshafen show, or at least a poster about one. SoaringCafe has
pictures from the show. One pic is of a diagram of an Albastar 18m
glider with internal gasoline engine driving a generator linked to a FES.

[Dan Marotta]

"Prius of the Sky"

Real men (and women) fly pure sailplanes.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just kidding!


"Wallace Berry" <ber...@auburn.edu> wrote in message
news:berrywd-40E32B...@free.teranews.com...

[Bill D]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:35:52 AM UTC-6, cochra...@gmail.com wrote:

> It strikes me the right answer for sailplanes is a front electric sustainer powered by a very small battery and fuel cell.

> Gliders need light weight. Batteries are all sorts of things but they are not light weight.

It depends on the energy density of the chemistry (in Mega Joules/kg.)
Lead-acid: .17 mJ/kg.
Lithium Ion: 0.72-0.875 mJ/kg
lithium-Air: 9.0 mJ/kg.
Hydrogen-air fuel cell: 97 mJ/kg
IC engine w/fuel: Typically 9 mJ/kg

Lithium-air looks promising. Hydrogen-air fuel cells have proven to have long endurance in aircraft propulsion systems. Lithium batteries can deliver a huge surge of power for takeoff. A "range-extender" fuel cell/lithium battery hybrid looks interesting for electric vehicles but in a glider...?

[Eric Greenwell]

I like the idea of starting the motor before you have to commit to using
it. There is a glider with an enclosed, internal gasoline engine - the
Stemme - but it can't be started independently of propeller operation,
and the drive shaft is a difficult technical problem requiring the side
by side seating. The Albastar has a substantial engine of 65 hp, and the
use of using a generator/electric motor for power transmission to the
propeller gives it a lot of flexibility in design the Stemme did not have.

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

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[dbra...@gmail.com]

> Jet engines are cool, light, and start easily (I gather)

Unless you have a wet start.

[plantain]

The original LS8-t did just that - engine could be started before the prop extended.

[Eric Greenwell]

plantain wrote, On 5/16/2013 1:52 PM:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:41:44 AM UTC+9:30, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>
>> I like the idea of starting the motor before you have to commit to using
>>
>> it. There is a glider with an enclosed, internal gasoline engine - the
>>
>> Stemme - but it can't be started independently of propeller operation,
>>
>> and the drive shaft is a difficult technical problem requiring the side
>>
>> by side seating. The Albastar has a substantial engine of 65 hp, and the
>>
>> use of using a generator/electric motor for power transmission to the
>>
>> propeller gives it a lot of flexibility in design the Stemme did not have.
>>

> The original LS8-t did just that - engine could be started before the prop extended.

How did the exhaust get out of the glider? Was the engine fixed in
place, and only the propeller and mast went up?