Motor Glider Flying
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
From: Manchester
Motor Glider Flying
Some advice please!!!!!!
I'm interested in getting an SLMG licence as I gained approx 20hrs whilst in the Air Cadets.
Does anyone out there know where I can get some decent training for not alot of cash as I am on a budget (Aren't we all)
Also do you think I would be able to put the hours I gained in the Air Cadets towards the licence. I am told that because the Grob109b (RAF Version) was heavier because of larger fuel tanks it could be classed as a class A aeroplane!!??!!
hhhhhhmmmmmmmmm Any thoughts?
I'm interested in getting an SLMG licence as I gained approx 20hrs whilst in the Air Cadets.
Does anyone out there know where I can get some decent training for not alot of cash as I am on a budget (Aren't we all)
Also do you think I would be able to put the hours I gained in the Air Cadets towards the licence. I am told that because the Grob109b (RAF Version) was heavier because of larger fuel tanks it could be classed as a class A aeroplane!!??!!
hhhhhhmmmmmmmmm Any thoughts?
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
I did much of the certification of the Vigilant T1 for the Air Cadets. It has an MTOW of 908kg, whilst the JAR-22 (and UK) definition of a motorglider states an MTOW of no more than 850 kg. For that reason, personally, I've always regarded those hours as light aircraft hours, not SLMG hours. The CAA have accepted that when they've seen my logbook, although I didn't specifically draw it to their attention.
However, I know that other people have logged hours in a Vigilant T1 as SLMG (G109b) hours and had that accepted by the CAA. So, I think that you'll probably get away with it. It's worth looking on the CAA's website at www.srg.caa.co.uk for the leaflet on gaining an SLMG license to check.
As to cheap schools, or schools at-all, I'd suggest giving the British Gliding Association a call (sorry I don't have their number to hand, they're in Leicester if that helps), I imagine that they'd be glad to send you a schools and clubs list.
G
However, I know that other people have logged hours in a Vigilant T1 as SLMG (G109b) hours and had that accepted by the CAA. So, I think that you'll probably get away with it. It's worth looking on the CAA's website at www.srg.caa.co.uk for the leaflet on gaining an SLMG license to check.
As to cheap schools, or schools at-all, I'd suggest giving the British Gliding Association a call (sorry I don't have their number to hand, they're in Leicester if that helps), I imagine that they'd be glad to send you a schools and clubs list.
G
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
The powerplant is a VW derivative 4 cylinder 4-stroke air cooled engine, basically one stage removed from a Beetle. The basic problems were
(1) The build quality was appauling
(2) The engine over-cooled.
The consequence of this was that the regular thermal shock whenever the throttle was closed, tended to ****** up the engine. The rate of engine failure (and the RAF didn't do anything to the engine) was the reason for the solo student ban.
Why do the RAF get this when nobody else does? Quite simply, because the ATC do virtually nothing but circuits in it, whilst the aircraft was really designed (and is almost exclusively used in civil life) as a tourer / Self launching glider. So the regular thermal shock of flying 10 minute air cadet sorties all the time doesn't happen in civil use.
My opinion, privately but not publically expressed at the time, was that the lump of metal under the bonnet should be carefully removed, dropped down a hole, and replaced by a more sensible modern engine that can take that sort of cyclic use - such as a Rotax 503 or an HKS 700E.
So, it wasn't the RAF's fault insofar as they (we !) didn't do anything to mess up the aeroplane. It was the RAF's fault, in that they picked a totally unsuitable aircraft for the job of spending all day flying very short sorties.
G
(1) The build quality was appauling
(2) The engine over-cooled.
The consequence of this was that the regular thermal shock whenever the throttle was closed, tended to ****** up the engine. The rate of engine failure (and the RAF didn't do anything to the engine) was the reason for the solo student ban.
Why do the RAF get this when nobody else does? Quite simply, because the ATC do virtually nothing but circuits in it, whilst the aircraft was really designed (and is almost exclusively used in civil life) as a tourer / Self launching glider. So the regular thermal shock of flying 10 minute air cadet sorties all the time doesn't happen in civil use.
My opinion, privately but not publically expressed at the time, was that the lump of metal under the bonnet should be carefully removed, dropped down a hole, and replaced by a more sensible modern engine that can take that sort of cyclic use - such as a Rotax 503 or an HKS 700E.
So, it wasn't the RAF's fault insofar as they (we !) didn't do anything to mess up the aeroplane. It was the RAF's fault, in that they picked a totally unsuitable aircraft for the job of spending all day flying very short sorties.
G
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
From: Notts
Air Cadets are allowed to 'proper' solo the Vigilants again now - I took one up in the summer as my first solo, just one cirsuit but fantastic never the less.
Out of interest - how dificult are they to fly in comparson to a Cessna 152 or other basic trainer?
Out of interest - how dificult are they to fly in comparson to a Cessna 152 or other basic trainer?
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
From: North England
G the E, interesting comments about the reliability. Yes, the build standard did seem a bit shabby of the Grob 2500 but personally having done at lease 500 hours instructing on these (almost exclusively simulated field landings for glider pilots) I had total confidence in the engine. Most of the problems we had (I fixed them for 5 years as well) was cylinder head leaks but even with large leaks the engine never failed to perform in the air. As with all these engines correct airborne handling procedures are vital, if you abuse them, they will let you down. My experience of the Limbach/Rollason/VW family is that they may not be cutting edge technology, but are very reliable indeed, I'm very happy with mine.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
From: Manchester
Thanks for the info guys. I will call the BGA soon.
Firkin L I notice you are from North England. Would that be anywhere near 635VGS at Bae Salmersbury, Nr Preston????
I haven't flown the Vigilant since October 1997 but i remember what to do as clear as day. I hope thats not to long for the caa to take my hours in to consideration.
Cheers
Firkin L I notice you are from North England. Would that be anywhere near 635VGS at Bae Salmersbury, Nr Preston????
I haven't flown the Vigilant since October 1997 but i remember what to do as clear as day. I hope thats not to long for the caa to take my hours in to consideration.
Cheers
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: England
Teh 152 and the vigilent are 2 very different a/c, wingspan a/c type and handelling are a few factors that will contribute to high difference but a good pilot will find no probs. Anyone can do it if they put their mind to it!
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Intersection ]
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Intersection ]
