The pylon raises from the back of the bay. The motor pivots on the pylon so the 
thrust axis is always horizontal.

See https://www.facebook.com/gpgliders/videos for a number of clips of the 
motor in action.

> On 20 Sep 2016, at 19:04 , Peter Champness <plchampn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Any  good links?
> I found a schematic diagram which indicates that the motor has a pusher 
> folding prop.  Not sure how it retracts and fits in the fuselage with the 
> blades sticking up?
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Mike Borgelt 
> <mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com <mailto:mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com>> 
> wrote:
> Yes, Matt. 
> 
> Mainly that the limited diameter of the prop limits prop efficiency. In the 
> chain Battery->motor->prop-> useful thrust,  prop efficiency is the single 
> largest loss. You'll get around 50% at the power/diameter/airspeeds we are 
> dealing with here. More blades aren't necessarily better.
> I'm no fan of sustainers. For a little extra trouble make the damn thing self 
> launching. 
> I am a little surprised at the willingness of glider pilots to accept ANY 
> performance loss from the FES though. BTW a TE probe typically causes about 
> 0.7% of the drag at 100 KIAS on a 400 Kg modern glider.
> 
> The Peszke GP glider designer has his views on the matter and has made it 
> clear where he stands as the GP series self launchers have retractable 
> propulsion units. Having seen video of it in action I wouldn't expect any 
> trouble. Seems to take about 4 seconds to extend and retract. Given the 
> number of manufacturers making linear actuators in all sorts of sizes I doubt 
> there is a generic problem with them. Seems to be that both Peszke and FES 
> get their motor/controller/battery tech from the same source.
> Yes there is a drag penalty for the extended engine on a pylon. With proper 
> design it can be minimised (I'd close the doors with the engine extended). 
> The FES drag penalty in powered flight is more subtle. To produce thrust the 
> air has to be accelerated through the prop. Now VERY APPROXIMATELY we are 
> talking around 1.4 times the flight velocity which gives twice the drag and 
> this air passes over the entire fuselage, wing root, fin and probably part of 
> the tailplane, though at reduced velocity for the latter. With the 
> retractable pusher of the Peszke system, only over the fin and tailplane.
> Interestingly both the Peszke designer and the FES designers come from a 
> model aircraft R/C glider background. As does the electric propulsion tech.
> 
> A few other considerations:
> 
> The system appears to weigh 40 Kg. Better have motor glider or turbo wings on 
> the glider as it is all non lifting parts. Probably not an issue with recent 
> gliders as I suspect all of them are built with the stronger wings to prevent 
> embarrassing mistakes. They do seem to have learned about Murphy's Law since 
> the Libelle aileron drives were designed.
> 
> You can bet some idle idiot will try to unfold a prop blade on the ground.  
> Will this be OK or will it cause a problem? The TOP certainly could have a 
> problem if ONE of the three blades was manually opened. Two simultaneously 
> was OK.
> 
> What happened to the Australia required nose release? Only self launch on 
> lightweight gliders so you'll need a tow.
> 
> From the website: "Cell manufacturer claims that at discharging with 1C 
> rating (horizontal flight) life expectancy of batteries is around 1500 
> cycles. After that the battery will still have 80% of the original capacity" 
> . At full power they are pulling 200 amps, around 5C., not 1C.
> 
> DO remove the batteries for charging and put them where the house/hangar etc 
> won't burn down if things go wrong. The R/C people have burned down a few 
> houses and I heard of one near new VW Transporter carrying models where 
> batteries were being charged and it had to stop, be abandoned and burned to 
> the ground.
> 
> 
> I do agree with Richard Frawley that outlanding sucks for many reasons. After 
> 62 real ones in farmers' fields I've had enough. Mr Lycoming willing, there 
> won't be any more. Besides with the consolidation of agribusinesses, 
> agricultural quarantines (remember the foot and mouth outbreak in the UK 
> where cross country gliding was banned for a season?), foreign ownership and 
> contamination issues with GM crops you may find that the "social licence" for 
> outlanding will go away(as much as I hate that term).
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> At 09:31 PM 9/19/2016, you wrote:
>> I think what Mike was referring to was not the drag of the blades in gliding 
>> flight but the efficiency of the nose-mounted propellor in climb.
>> Reliability through simplicity is definitely a factor, but the FES is not 
>> much good if you want to self-launch (prop clearance).
>> 
> 
> Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation 
> since 1978
> www.borgeltinstruments.com
>  <http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/>tel:   07 4635 5784     overseas: 
> int+61-7-4635 5784
> mob: 042835 5784                 :  int+61-42835 5784
> P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Reply via email to