[I posted a copy below of two comments from another thread, because I think a new thread
will better serve the discussion of the subject - Eric Greenwell]

Ramy wrote:

I would like to add one more thing to this discussion, to bring it back to the subject.
While I haven’t flown motorgliders myself, I fly with a lot of motorglider pilots. The vast majority fly way more conservatively than I do. I am willing to risk landout and expensive aero retrieve or Uber self retrieve, much more than they are

willing to risk a relight. Honestly I have no logical explanation to this, but this is a fact. There are very few of them flying aggressively, and when they fly without motor, they fly equally aggressive.

So to Bob’s original point, I don’t agree that motorgliders fly differently or take any advantage of their motor. Now if I get a motorglider, then there may be a point to this discussion… I will sure use this option to explore further, fly from

more places etc. how about coast to coast safari adventure? How come we only had 2 pilots trying it in the US all these years? All you retired motorglider pilots, can you imagine a better way to tour the US? Wife drives the motor home with the trailer
while you fly from point to point. Why not?

Jim Hogue wrote:

Yes, it seems to me also that many, maybe most motor glider pilots fly much more conservatively than they need to, and I admit (with some embarrassment) that I am one of these. I am NOT talking about forging off over unlandable territory (depending

solely on an engine start to save you, yikes!), but about just what Ramy refers to - use of the exploration capability inherent in self-launch and sustainer functions. Your comments and your example, Ramy, are inspiring me to reach out more in my flyingâ
€¦. And I have a wife-approved motor home on order, hmmmmm, coast to coast in my future???

Ramy's observation agrees with what I've seen over the 27 years I've been flying a
motorglider: a lot of motorglider pilots don't use the motor to expand the soaring they
do, but instead seem to use it mostly for launch convenience and a little bit of retrieve
convenience; ie, it makes their soaring "more reliable".

I have done as Ramy suggests, and used my motorglider to really expand where, when, and
how I fly. It's my great fortune my wife, Jan, has been a willing, usually eager, and able
crew for me on these adventures. We actually did it for a few years before I got a
motorglider, using the ASW20C and our pickup camper. It was harder then, in the late 80s:
no cell phones, no inReach, paper maps (LOTS of paper maps when you cross the US) and
prayer wheels, and an SSA list of clubs and people to call about getting a tow. We did
have very good radio contact, so it worked out, never needed a real retrieve, but a lot
effort and stress at times (especially for my wife). A flight from Aspen, CO, to Price,
UT, was a very memorable. What long slog it was for her to drive that distance.

The motorglider arrived in 1995, and quickly became my wife's favorite glider because "it
always gets home". No more hunting down towplanes, and now it was a certainty that I would
be at the airport where I said I was headed - much easier for her. Plus - Cell phones! And
later - GPS car navigation and Spot/inReach. The most memorable flying was to Alaska and
back from our home in Washington state, but I had other ones on trips to Florida, Texas,
Minnesota, and elsewhere.

Jan has retired from what she calls those "fly/drive vacations" (I fly, she drives), but
we still travel with the motorhome and motorglider, stopping here and there for me to fly,
but now I return to the launch airport instead of going towards our destination. More
sewing, less driving for her; I still fly as much over new territory, so it's still
working out.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/23/2022 1:24 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:

[I posted a copy below of two comments from another thread, because I think a new thread
will better serve the discussion of the subject - Eric Greenwell]

Ramy wrote:

I would like to add one more thing to this discussion, to bring it back to the subject.

...

Jim Hogue wrote:
Yes, it seems to me also that many, maybe most motor glider pilots fly much more

...

Eric wrote: >> Ramy's observation agrees with what I've seen over the 27 years I've

been flying a

No replies? Did I set the bar too high?

One more remark about exploring with a motorglider: you can do it without a crew! Several
pilots have published their experiences with "unassisted" (no crew following them)
safaris, even pilots that fly their glider from France to Africa with all their stuff
crammed into the small baggage area, behind the seat, and the few nooks and crannys in the
engine bay or ahead of the pedals. This is one use that is easier done with the longer of
range of a fossil fueled motorglider (fossil flyers, take a victory lap!), though an
electric glider might work nearly as well in the eastern US, or in Europe.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Eric, crewless flights (crewless and clueless as we like to call them) are done with pure gliders as well. All you need to do is land at an airport where you can get a tow the next day.
My favorite epic crewless flight was the flight of 3 (TG from Byron, ER from Hollister and 5H from Avenal) to Warner springs (some 400+ miles away) and back to our respective airports the following day, totally spontaneous and without crew. We decided
to go for it in the air, spent the night in San Diego and made it back. Along the coastal convergence nonetheless. This was an experience of a lifetime.
Now of course if I had a motorglider I would done it more often…

Ramy

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:00:35 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:

On 5/23/2022 1:24 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:

[I posted a copy below of two comments from another thread, because I think a new thread
will better serve the discussion of the subject - Eric Greenwell]

Ramy wrote:

I would like to add one more thing to this discussion, to bring it back to the subject.

...

Jim Hogue wrote:
Yes, it seems to me also that many, maybe most motor glider pilots fly much more

...

Eric wrote: >> Ramy's observation agrees with what I've seen over the 27 years I've

been flying a

No replies? Did I set the bar too high?

One more remark about exploring with a motorglider: you can do it without a crew! Several
pilots have published their experiences with "unassisted" (no crew following them)
safaris, even pilots that fly their glider from France to Africa with all their stuff
crammed into the small baggage area, behind the seat, and the few nooks and crannys in the
engine bay or ahead of the pedals. This is one use that is easier done with the longer of
range of a fossil fueled motorglider (fossil flyers, take a victory lap!), though an
electric glider might work nearly as well in the eastern US, or in Europe.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Eric,

When I was flying Pik20E, I was certainly starching my flight more than on pure glider.
The engine extension is manually and not battery depended - reliable.
Then I moved to DG505MB – certainly not starching!
Extension is battery depended. The glider is VERY heavy to take apart in a field and I do not what to experience that.

When in competeve environment (like Namibia) we fly like pure glider and the engine will play on the final to GOOD and SAFE landing place.
You can see in the OLC link flight we made on Arcus M.
Very close to sunset, insisting on closing the triangle
Starching towards a land-out in Tivoly farm and luckily finding thermal on base leg.

https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8679006
See the last themal.

Avron

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/25/2022 1:30 AM, Avron wrote:

Eric,

When I was flying Pik20E, I was certainly starching my flight more than on pure glider.
The engine extension is manually and not battery depended - reliable.
Then I moved to DG505MB – certainly not starching!
Extension is battery depended. The glider is VERY heavy to take apart in a field and I do not what to experience that.

When in competeve environment (like Namibia) we fly like pure glider and the engine will play on the final to GOOD and SAFE landing place.
You can see in the OLC link flight we made on Arcus M.
Very close to sunset, insisting on closing the triangle
Starching towards a land-out in Tivoly farm and luckily finding thermal on base leg.

https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8679006 See the last themal.

Avron

It's true, how you fly a glider is affected by many factors, not just a motor. My ASH26E
weighs 850lbs, ready to fly, with a 500lb fuselage. Retrieving it from a dirt field would
be so difficult, I almost always do in-flight restarts over an airport to avoid the chance
of a field landing; ironically, I took more risk of a field retrieve in my ASW20C, and
even more in my Libelle, which was noticeably lighter than the 20C, because just me and
one other person could retrieve them.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:37:59 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:

On 5/25/2022 1:30 AM, Avron wrote:

Eric,

When I was flying Pik20E, I was certainly starching my flight more than on pure glider.
The engine extension is manually and not battery depended - reliable.
Then I moved to DG505MB – certainly not starching!
Extension is battery depended. The glider is VERY heavy to take apart in a field and I do not what to experience that.

When in competeve environment (like Namibia) we fly like pure glider and the engine will play on the final to GOOD and SAFE landing place.
You can see in the OLC link flight we made on Arcus M.
Very close to sunset, insisting on closing the triangle
Starching towards a land-out in Tivoly farm and luckily finding thermal on base leg.

https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8679006 See the last themal.

Avron

It's true, how you fly a glider is affected by many factors, not just a motor. My ASH26E
weighs 850lbs, ready to fly, with a 500lb fuselage. Retrieving it from a dirt field would
be so difficult, I almost always do in-flight restarts over an airport to avoid the chance
of a field landing; ironically, I took more risk of a field retrieve in my ASW20C, and
even more in my Libelle, which was noticeably lighter than the 20C, because just me and
one other person could retrieve them.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Not mentioned yet , but a true fact about how we with MG need to give up on a flight before a conventional glider if we are planning on doing an inflight restart. Maybe I am just overly conservative, but I begin a restart around 2000AGL. As you extend
the engine your sink rate increases dramatically and time accelerates. 13 seconds to extend, if it won't start ( which I know it can from experience), it takes much longer to put away as you first wait for the prop to align before retracting another 13
seconds. Managing all this while you are managing the pattern and accessing the field from now a much closer look. Manual states for a DG 800, you should not land with the engine extended, for a couple of reasons 1) the aerodynamic drag increasing
increasing your sink rate, 2) the hardware is not design to handle rough landing extended.

So, yes flying a MG you fly differently, but it doesn't always help you achieve longer flights. For me the flexibility and self retrieve are its biggest assets, but at a cost.. Saving money on tows, I don't think so, everything is more expensive from
the insurance, annuals, replacing expensive hardware, etc....

I have own my DG 800 now for over 16 years, in the early days I considered motoring from Hollister to over the Sierras. Time and experience reveal the poor reliability of these machines making it a very high risk adventure. I am never more comfortable
than having the engine stowed ever!!!

Buzz Graves BG

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 01:37:59 UTC+1, Eric Greenwell wrote:

On 5/25/2022 1:30 AM, Avron wrote:

Eric,

When I was flying Pik20E, I was certainly starching my flight more than on pure glider.
The engine extension is manually and not battery depended - reliable.
Then I moved to DG505MB – certainly not starching!
Extension is battery depended. The glider is VERY heavy to take apart in a field and I do not what to experience that.

When in competeve environment (like Namibia) we fly like pure glider and the engine will play on the final to GOOD and SAFE landing place.
You can see in the OLC link flight we made on Arcus M.
Very close to sunset, insisting on closing the triangle
Starching towards a land-out in Tivoly farm and luckily finding thermal on base leg.

https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8679006 See the last themal.

Avron

It's true, how you fly a glider is affected by many factors, not just a motor. My ASH26E
weighs 850lbs, ready to fly, with a 500lb fuselage. Retrieving it from a dirt field would
be so difficult, I almost always do in-flight restarts over an airport to avoid the chance
of a field landing; ironically, I took more risk of a field retrieve in my ASW20C, and
even more in my Libelle, which was noticeably lighter than the 20C, because just me and
one other person could retrieve them.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

In 15 years of flying with an engine I am lucky to have experienced only one failure to start. It was in my Arcus M, and I had attempted to start at 1,000 feet on downwind to a decent looking field. I landed safely in what would normally have been a
decent field. However, it took 6 of us to get the glider onto the belly dolly - it is a heavy glider and the main wheel sunk into the ground. There were two on board and two friends came out - very luckily 2 policemen came to check we were OK, joined in
the derig and were enormously helpful! On that occasion I did land with the prop raised - it caused no problems, and of course it started perfectly after landing in the field! Back on topic, I've never used my motor glider to do different flights from
those which others would do without a motor, but at our club those without engines are often more cautious than those with engines - not in terms of safety, but in terms of not wanting to land-out too far from home.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I think that 2000 feet is way up.
In our glider, we practice resturt during landing paterns several times a year when we finished our day flight at home field
I found out that I like to resturt at base leg above 400.
My partner, Rafi, like to resturt on long final bellow 400.
This is an important procedure to prctice and be familuar with.

Avron

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Two-stroke engines aren't the most reliable.

My Stemme (6 years 900+ hours) is a certificated aircraft with a
certificated aircraft engine. I've made five safari trips in it
crossing several mountain ranges, but it flies easily at 17,500' MSL and
has a range of around 900 NM on the engine.

That's all good performance, considering a still air L/D of 50:1, but I wouldn't dare consider landing it at other than a paved runway. Stemme
has quoted me around $10,000 for them to come to my land out spot with
their trailer for a retrieve. It's simpler to fly more conservatively.

Dan
5J

On 5/27/22 10:16, BG wrote:

Not mentioned yet , but a true fact about how we with MG need to give up on a flight before a conventional glider if we are planning on doing an inflight restart. Maybe I am just overly conservative, but I begin a restart around 2000AGL. As you

extend the engine your sink rate increases dramatically and time accelerates. 13 seconds to extend, if it won't start ( which I know it can from experience), it takes much longer to put away as you first wait for the prop to align before retracting
another 13 seconds. Managing all this while you are managing the pattern and accessing the field from now a much closer look. Manual states for a DG 800, you should not land with the engine extended, for a couple of reasons 1) the aerodynamic drag
increasing increasing your sink rate, 2) the hardware is not design to handle rough landing extended.

So, yes flying a MG you fly differently, but it doesn't always help you achieve longer flights. For me the flexibility and self retrieve are its biggest assets, but at a cost.. Saving money on tows, I don't think so, everything is more expensive

from the insurance, annuals, replacing expensive hardware, etc....

I have own my DG 800 now for over 16 years, in the early days I considered motoring from Hollister to over the Sierras. Time and experience reveal the poor reliability of these machines making it a very high risk adventure. I am never more

comfortable than having the engine stowed ever!!!

Buzz Graves BG

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)