Take the wings and wheels motorglider listings. Usually I might see 1
for sale, today there are at least 4. http://wingsandwheels.com/want-ads10.htm
Are these people already upgrading to the Antares? ;-) I'm not
trolling, but rather am looking for actual information and opinions on
the S10-VT motorglider.
Thx in advance.
VARR
P.S. I would consult a dedicated Stemme owner/operator site, but the
Stemme Owners Group is closed to prospective owners, and the
simpletons actually redirect discussion to R.A.S. http://stemme.org/
sez "Please note that the list is not open to prospective Stemme
aircraft owners, and those interested in acquiring one ... are invited
to contact one of the Stemme sales agencies noted above or to consult
Internet resources such as the rec.aviation.soaring Usenet newsgroup."
But that's only speculation ;-)
Maybe one AD too many pushed the current round of sellers over the
edge.
The Stemme has to go down in gliding history as the most AD'ed
aircraft I can think of.
Al
For many years I've been on a quest to own a motorglider. It has been
a long time dream of mine to enhance my soaring with the flexibility
only a motorglider offers. I have been watching and learning as much
as I can about all motorgliders (self launchers too) in general. When
I first saw the Stemme in 1992 at Oshkosh (its USA debut) I was very
impressed and I've followed the development of it closely. It's an
awesome machine. No doubt, the Stemme is by far the most complicated
sailplane ever. Also note that it does things no other sailplane has
ever done before. We have a saying in the Aerospace world....."if it
was easy it would have been done before".
I too tried to join the Stemme group, but like you I'm not an owner so
I too was not allowed to join. I agree with you that this is very
frustrating if you are trying to learn more about the Stemme. However
I also understand why the group took this course of action. From what
I've learned they felt that by keeping it only for owners they could
deal with the issues (AD's etc...) more frankly, openly and honestly
between themselves and not become distracted by outside commenter's
and sometimes trolls. This was a tough decision for the group but from
an engineering viewpoint probably the best way to get through what I
call teething problems. I've been around airplanes and gliders my
entire life, I'm an A&P and a professional aerospace engineer for 31
years so I'm well aware of the way aircraft can develop their own set
of rumors and gossip that can take on a life all their own. Rumor
mongering usually leads to nothing productive. I gave up trying to
talk to non-owners who all had an opinion but really were not
knowledgeable and I put them into the category of just generating more
gossip and rumor mongering.
So I too was frustrated in truly trying to learn more about the
Stemme. What I eventually did was talk to owners of Stemme's. Some
were far more open and knowledgeable than others. In general here are
some of what I've learned and some of my observations.
I've learned much about each problem, and AD and they all seem to make
logical sense for why the issue arose and the associated fix. Another
issue I feel is equally important is the preventative maintenance.
With such a complicated aircraft and so many newly developed systems
many of the needed preventative measures were not known or
understood. Time in the fleet has now started to address this. As
far as I can tell Stemme and the owners group have dealt with each
problem. And as far as I know each AD has fixed the problem and it
has not been a recurring problem after the AD was complied with. I
am of the belief that properly maintained and with an understanding
eye one could truly enjoy the unique capabilities only offered by the
Stemme.
The Stemme is certainly on my "short list" of aircraft I'd like to
own.
Dan Rihn
Rihn Aircraft Corp.
PS- Some of my own personal observations on all motorgliders in
general-
One of my nagging concerns with all motorgliders has been the use of
commercial off the shelf (COTS) components, in other words automotive
parts or motorcylcle parts. This has become more and more prevalent
in the aircraft industry and sometimes it works great and sometimes
not so well. Personally I prefer the use of as much more typical (at
least in the USA) AN fittings, certified hoses, TSO'd oil coolers,
wheels tires brakes etc... The rigorous testing these parts have had to
undergo is worth every penny and maybe your life. I also prefer
reliance on as much tried and true system design standards. I
understand that in many cases there are not "certified" parts that can
be used but in areas where they can I wish they would be used as much
as possible. On several motorgliders I've looked into I've seen many
non-standard practices used, I certainly don't like plastic hose
fittings on fuel and oil lines. Obviously several motorgliders also
use non certified engines (some 2-stroke). I'm also not keen on this,
so it's important to look at the fleet reliability. Some of the VW
conversions have been made to work well. But again I prefer as much
typical certified aircraft sub system components as possible.
>Are these people already upgrading to the Antares? ;-) I'm not
>trolling, but rather am looking for actual information and opinions on
>the S10-VT motorglider.
I have been granted the right to use a Stemme for 2years, tgether with
4 other friends. I must say I was lucky to get this opportunity.
I've had some good flights, including a trip from Italy to Morocco and
back.
It was an S10-v (not "T"). Excellent performance in cruise, not ideal
takeoff perfo. But I must say, with 2 people and full tanks, I was way
beyond MTOW.
Good for taking friends in the air, excellent for soaring safaris,
quite good for serious XC, especially if the center of gravity had
been optimised (if setup for a 70kg solo, than it's quite awkward in
thermals with 200kg in the cockpit...)
I never lost a day due to technical malfunctions.
TE probe never worked well.
Manoevrabily with positive flaps is less than satisfactory: better
revert to zero, manoever, than +flaps again.
Maintenance costs are quite high, due to low propeller TBO almost
doubling engine costs. I was told that later the TBO had been
extended, thus reducing propeller costs by some 30%
Tough for landing in a crosswind. Things get easier on a long runway.
The long legs of the undercarriage are much tougher than they look.
But you do need a smooth surface.
Beware of small holes, ditches etc when taxiing on grass: it's quite
easy to damage the propeller on a ground impact.
The VT has much better takeoff performance.
I regret having lost the opportunity to fly it: the owner has finally
sold it.
Aldo Cernezzi
dg600M
Forest
At 00:06 30 October 2007, Pigro wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 04:23:25 -0000, VARR wrote:
>
>
>>Are these people already upgrading to the Antares?
>> ;-) I'm not
>>trolling, but rather am looking for actual information
>>and opinions on
>>the S10-VT motorglider.
>
On motorgliders generally. I can't understand why a piece of crap
engine installed into glider costs more than a new car. Some things
are totally wrong. Can't the engineers build a reliable engine on a
reasonable price? Cost of motorglider is enourmous now'a'days. Way too
much.
This is the only sport where a sport equipment costs ~$100000 and up
and when you are world champion, you get absolutely nothing. Maybe a
trophy, which you need to ship back home and pay extra fees to
airlines.
Costs are a big dilemma and that is the biggest reason why soaring is
declining...
PS
Which certainly doesn't mean that the certification of the engine would
prevent is from quitting on you during takeoff...
<patrick.seb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193743436....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
The Stemme is a very special aircraft - it can tour great
distances at high speed, with a friend and maybe even
a toothbrush. It has good performance as a glider.
It is complicated to do all these things...
The Antares is a very different machine for a different use.
It has extremely high performance, but only one seat.
Not for touring under power, though more than enough
capacity for launching and reserve (I've never had mine
below 65% capacity). I rig and derig my Antares quickly
by myself, the Stemme needs a Hangar. The Antares
is more agile than some 15-meter ships, the Stemme
is a bit, um, deliberate about changing direction.
So it wouldn't be an upgrade so much as a change
for a different kind of flying !
Best Regards, Dave "YO"
Dan Rihn
ASW-20 WO
Only ~1:40 but the Pipistrel Taurus would also be a good option given the
requirements you set.
Bruce
The Stemme allowed me to go soaring as easily as pulling a Mooney out of the
hangar. It also allowed operations at a tower controlled airport (Napa, CA)
with no hassles either as a power plane taxiing out or, a few hours later,
as a glider returning to land. There's no way I could have enjoyed such
spur-of-the-moment soaring with the ASH26E I own now.
The Stemme S10-VT is uniquely capable when it comes to ground handling,
cruising under power, cruise climb to high altitude (great for saw-tooth
eating distance), and soaring performance including high speed polar. All of
this capability rolled into one package does come at a price. Systems are
complex and ship maintenance shouldn't be ignored. Yearly maintenance costs,
while not a deal breaker, will be significantly more that with a pylon
self-launcher.
So why did I sell the Stemme for a ASH26? I retired and moved to Minden, so
some of the Stemme's advantages were no longer needed. I continue to fly the
26E alongside my Stemme friends. The ships perform very similarly, though
the 26E will outclimb the S-10 in smaller or weaker thermals. Running
between thermals at 90 knots, the sink rate is so close it's hard to tell a
difference.
Under power there is no comparison. The S10-VT easily climbs at 90 - 100
knots and is still going strong at 18K. In level cruise it easily does 125
knots without pushing hard. The ASH26E can climb 8K AGL if you're patient.
In level cruise it'll do 70 knots (due to the climb prop). On the plus side,
my 26E has been very reliable.
Yup, I lived through the VT's early-on prop, gear box recalls and most of
the AD's. Even so, if I needed the capabilities of the Stemme I'd consider
buying another.
As far a bemoaning the prices of self-launchers and motorgliders in general
. . . have you checked the price of a new Cessna? Even with the weak dollar,
compared to the aluminum stuff new gliders still look pretty good.
bumper
Quiet Vent kit & MKII "high tech" yaw string (the cheapest toys you can get
for your glider)
Bruce,
Yes, I've been following the Taurus as well as waiting for the Mangus/
Maxus to fly. Also keeping an eye on the latest from Stemme. At the
same time saving my money and waiting for the dollar to turn around.
Meanwhile loving my ASW-20 and wishing it could taxi, takeoff, climb
out and motor home at the end of the day!
Dan
Bumper,
As usual you are right on. My situation is more like yours when you
operated out of Napa. Also like you, my living situation may change
when I retire. That would change my requirements and a self launcher
would be more acceptable.
Dan
If you lose your medical (fail an FAA medical test), then it's my
understanding that you can't fly gliders, motorgliders or LSAs
either. You don't need to pass an aviation medical for the latter,
but you need to self-certify that you are fit to fly. Failure of an
FAA medical would overrule any self-certification.
So, if you think you are going to fail the FAA medical, just allow it
to lapse, then you can (fairly) honestly self-certify.
Perhaps specialists in this medical area would like to comment.
Mike
Partly right.
You can fly gliders or motorgliders without a medical, whether or not
medical certification has been formally denied by the FAA.
LSA's can be flown with just a driver's license medical clearance, AS LONG
AS the pilot has not been formally denied FAA medical certification. Thus,
if you know you're going to fail (and be denied), just let your medical
lapse.
That stated, there are many medical conditions for which a pilot assumes
they will be grounded that the FAA will actually clear.
I recommend a confidential discussion with the aeromedical docs at Virtual
Flight Surgeons, www.aviationmedicine.com . You might be surprised by what
you find out.
Bullwinkle
Posting a 2002 incident (whose cause was identified
and corrected), coupled with a 2006 incident (the cause
of which is not stated/unknown) is unfair. I would
remind Mal that the majority of aircraft crashes are
caused by pilot error, not aircraft problems.
I can't really speak to the reason why more may be
on the market at any given time .... LSA may be a factor,
or perhaps sellers are considering purchasing the new
S6.
I have yet to meet a dissatisfied S10-VT pilot ....
quite the contrary!