Why Did I Buy a V3M? Plus: Was It the Right Choice?

Now that my Ventus 2cxT has found a new home, I’m ready to share the reasons that led me to buy a new Ventus 3M directly from the factory.  It’s not often in life that we get to splurge on a hobby like that so this was a carefully considered decision.  In this article I share what led me to this decision. Plus, now that my first season in the new ship is behind me, I have a better perspective on whether it was the right choice for me.

High speed low pass of my new V3M “CC” during its inaugural flight at Warner Springs, CA. Pilot on this flight was U.S. Schempp-Hirth dealer Garret Willat.

My Decision Criteria

    • XC Performance. I was very happy with my Ventus 2cxt.  However, at high speeds the V2 could not fully keep up with the latest generation of 18m and 21m gliders (JS3, JS1, AS33, V3) and I was hoping to be competitive should I decide fly in contests. Although it’s natural to focus on performance, it’s necessary to consider other criteria as well, some of which may actually be more critical, depending on the circumstances.
    • Self-launch from high-altitude airports, not just from Boulder but also after a possible landout at another airport. Boulder is at 5,300 ft, Salida at 7,500, Leadville at 10,000. The density altitude can be several thousand feet higher.  Boulder conditions often require long tows or motor runs with climbs to >11,000 ft under power to get out of the inverted airmass over the eastern plains and into the buoyant mountain air.  Plus, I wanted sufficient energy for self-retrieve when necessary, including the ability to climb to >13,000ft to cross high mountain passes.
    • Access to quality service and maintenance. I am neither a mechanic nor a “tinkerer” and rely on professionals.  For motorized gliders where your life depends on the engine running reliably, this is a major consideration.
    • Quality workmanship. New glider models and/or new engines often suffer from teething issues and its not until a substantial number of a particular model have been built, that these issues are worked out.
    • Easy rigging and ground handling. There are no hangars for gliders in Boulder and tie down space is limited.  Easy rigging is therefore a necessity, not just something that’s nice to have.  Heavy motor-gliders also need a steerable tailwheel to operate without assistance, e.g. after a landout at another airport. It took me a while to realize just how important this is.
    • Value retention. Quality gliders tend to retain their value remarkably well, especially if they meet the other criteria above.

Options

The considerations above narrowed my list to the following four options:

    • JS3 RES: 15/18m with electric self-launch engine

    • AS 33Me: 15/18m with electric self-launch engine

    • AS 35Mi: 18/20m with IAE 50R-AA Wankel 41 kW self-launch engine

    • V3M: 18m with Solo 2625 01i 45 kW two-stroke self-launch engine

Note: Neither the V3E nor the JS2 were announced at the time I made my decision (see below).

Decision Process

In my heart I was heavily drawn to electric self-launchers, which would have meant a choice between the JS3 RES (which was already available), or the AS 33ME (which had been announced but none had been built at the time).  The V3E had not yet been announced.  It would definitely have made it into my consideration set.

Electric engines are much simpler and require less maintenance, they produce lower noise than combustion engines, and are much more eco-friendly.  All of these greatly appealed to me.  The climb performance is also quite strong, at least for take off when the battery is fully charged and not too hot.  However, the more I researched, the more my heart had to yield to my brain: I came to the conclusion that electric gliders were not (yet) ready for my critical use cases. While they had sufficient energy for a self-launch, even to 11,000 ft,  they would then not have enough energy left for a second self-launch at another airport (following a possible landout). In addition, the chargers were too bulky to bring along in the cockpit.  Even taxiing needed to remain limited in order to conserve power and prevent the battery from overheating. (This may have been a reason why Schleicher does not even offer a steerable tailwheel for its electric self-launchers, the AS33Me and the AS34Me.)  Similarly, I was concerned that the energy remaining after a typical self-launch from Boulder would not suffice to cross one of the tall Colorado mountain passes in order to self-retrieve.  These had been real practical constraints that I experienced with my Ventus 2cxT with its sustainer engine that I was determined to get away from.

Once I had come to the important conclusion that electric gliders simply did not sufficiently address my use cases yet, my choice narrowed down to V3M and AS35Mi.

The AS35Mi will be the successor of the very successful AS31Mi.  The emphasis here is on will be because at the time I made my decision none had yet been built.  Two years on, I believe this is still the case.  In addition to timing I was also concerned about takeoff performance.  The AS35Mi will have the same Wankel engine as the AS31Mi and the AS32Mi (a two seat self-launcher).  While the engine is certainly adequate for the AS31Mi, in the heavier AS 32Mi it is at best marginal at Boulder’s field elevation.  (I had first hand experience from flying one with a friend.)  Given that the AS35Mi will be considerably heavier than the AS31Mi (at least at maximum takeoff weight), I became concerned about its takeoff and climb performance at high-altitude airfields such as Boulder. All that plus my aversion to buying a glider with a low serial number (because initial kinks are likely inevitable) made it easy to focus my attention on the V3M.

Evaluation

Now that I have flown the V3M for more than 200 hours, I have a good sense how it holds up to my criteria.

XC Performance.  Because the V3 has a slightly greater wing area than the JS3 or the AS 33, fully ballasted it may not run quite as fast.  (Although Simon Schröder’s 2nd place finish at the World Championships in Uvalde shows that the V3 can certainly keep up with the JS3 and AS33.)  However, even if there may be a small difference in booming conditions, days when full ballast is beneficial from morning to late are few and far between. I concluded that in practical terms this simply isn’t a significant issue.  I routinely fly the V3M about 5-10 kt faster that the V2 without noticing any degradation in glide performance.  This is a substantial improvement and is confirmed by the statistics:  my average XC speed in 2023 (flying the Ventus 2cxt) was 109 kph, whereas in 2024 (with the V3M) it was 118 kph.  While some of this may be due to continued pilot improvements, a more than 8% improvement is remarkable!  In thermals the V3M is even easier and more stable than the V2 (which requires more rudder to remain coordinated).

Self-launch from high altitude airports.  There’s nothing that can beat the V3M in climb performance except for highly powered airplanes without glider in tow.  The water-cooled and fuel-injected Solo engine runs great at our altitude.  I out-climb not just all other self-launchers at the field – especially the Wankel powered AS gliders – but even the 265hp Pawnees when they have a glider in tow.  My climb rate is typically in the range of 400-500 fpm and only drops to 300 fpm above 10,000 ft.  Even at 13,000 ft it still runs smoothly and continues to climb at rates around 200 fpm.

Access to quality maintenance.  While I wish that U.S. Schempp-Hirth dealer Garrett Willat wasn’t as far away as Southern California (a two-day drive from Boulder) I have to give him very high praise for responsiveness and quality of service.  There are now at least four Ventus 3Ms in Colorado and this may make it easier to coordinate maintenance in order to get work done in Colorado rather than having all of us trailer our gliders to California.

Quality workmanship.  I’m really happy to have a glider with a serial number >200 and Schempp-Hirth has been living up to its great reputation for finish quality.  So far, everything has been working as expected.  Talk to other motor glider owners to find out how unusual this can be.

Easy rigging and ground handling. All motor gliders are heavy and the V3M is no exception.  However, thanks to a high quality Cobra trailer, rigging is just as easy as for the Ventus 2.  A lifting aid is required to mount and remove the tail dolly which is a bit of a nuisance.  The steerable tailwheel turns out to be even more essential than I had imagined:  it allows me to get into the cockpit at my parking position and conduct all pre-flight checks before taxiing onto the runway for immediate takeoff.  Upon landing I can clear the runway and steer the glider right into its parking position before getting out of the cockpit, usually without having to start the engine at all.  At our busy airport these are real safety benefits and not mere conveniences.

Value Retention.  15/18 m gliders from Schempp-Hirth and Schleicher have both done very well at retaining their value and I am confident that this won’t be any different with the V3M.

What If I Were Deciding Today

There’s no question in my mind that I made the right decision when I sent off my order 2+ years ago.

Since then, two new options have become available:

    • V3E: 18m electric self-launch

    • JS2 18/21m with Solo 2625 02i 47 kW self-launch engine

I still think that electric self-launchers are premature for Boulder and my specific use cases.  However, if I were to consider an electric glider I would want to have the batteries in the fuselage (for easy charging and also to remove them during the very cold Colorado winter) and I would insist on a steerable tail wheel for taxiing.  These attributes would give the Ventus 3E an edge over the AS 33Me and the JS3 RES for my personal use cases. However, since electric gliders remain out for me, my choice would be between the V3M and the new JS2.

The JS2 18/21m is a brand new option that I would consider carefully against my criteria.  It is likely that it would score highly on performance (likely beating the V3M in 21m configuration) and I would enjoy that it provides the option of flying with 18 and 21 m wings as this would give me the option to realistically compete in Open Class as well as in 18m class.

With essentially the same Solo engine as the V3M it is likely just as powerful as the V3M on self-launch capability (Jonkers claims to get 2 additional kW out of it) .  Likewise, rigging and ground handling are likely similar in complexity.  I don’t have enough experience to speak to maintenance and local service capability and I would want to do my due diligence by talking to other JS owners to satisfy myself before taking the plunge.  There’s also less history to assess value retention over time but I suspect Jonkers gliders will do just as well as long as the company continues to prosper.

My main concern would be about buying a glider with a low serial number.  While the wings are proven from the JS1, the fuselage is new and my understanding is that Jonkers made additional modifications to the engine.  I’d definitely feel better if there were at least a few dozen gliders already in use with the same engine and the owners reported being satisfied with it.  Nevertheless, the glider is in my view the most viable alternative to a V3M and I would give it careful consideration.

My Advice

High performance gliders have never offered more performance and more convenience and safety features.

For anyone lucky enough to afford one of these beauties, my main advice is to be honest with yourself and carefully consider your specific use cases and their relative importance to you before you make a decision.  If winning the world championships is your ultimate objective and you’re willing to do what it takes to get there you may make a different decision than if your primary objective is to achieve great flights from wherever and whenever you want.

In any case, there are great choices to make.  Enjoy the process.  Be inspired and dream.  But also, be realistic. You’re not buying a car with an 8 or 9 digit serial number and a nearby dealership that can fix any potential issue within a few hours. Gliders are still hand made, and when you buy a low serial number machine you are essentially buying a prototype. Maybe that is exactly what you want. But maybe you’re like me and value the incremental reliability of a serial number greater than hundred more than the 0.1% performance improvement a retractable (but not steerable) tailwheel may afford.  If you rarely need more than a 2000 ft tow and have easy access to a hanger with electricity than an electric self-launcher may be perfect for you.  But maybe not.  Although all these gliders are amazing machines with similar performance, try to fully understand what you’re committing to when you put your name on that dotted line…

Whether you’re contemplating getting a new glider or have a different perspective or diverging decision criteria, please feel free to share your perspective in the comments.

9 Replies to “Why Did I Buy a V3M? Plus: Was It the Right Choice?”

  1. As someone who owns a Ventus cT with a friend, this makes me at least two shades of green with envy. At the same time, enjoy yourself!

  2. Excellent article. I only have one question. Are you really staking your.life on the ability of a single ignition, deployable engine to start when needed? Or was that just to emphasise the required dependability? I fly a motor glider, over the mountains, in wave, in Scotland. Ok the mountains are nowhere near so high, but we have far lower margin from mountain peak to valley floor, so less time to escape in major downdrafts. I therefore fly with a safe landing area within essy reach, with margin for downdrafts. Ive had to start the engine exactly once in 12 years when caught out, and even then, i knew which field i was going for. In that event, all i needed was a gain.of 1000 feet to re-contact wave. Poor judgement on my part, pressing on.

    1. Hi David, when I say your life depends on the engine running reliably let me clarify that I was referring to the initial takeoff. At least in Boulder we have very poor landing options if the motor were to quit below the height necessary to return to the airport (much higher than in case of a rope brake during aerotow). I did not mean to imply that one should ever trust that the engine will start in flight. The prudent approach is to only attempt an inflight start with a safe landing area within easy reach, considering the dramatically degraded glide ratio should the engine come out but not start.

  3. Thanks Clements for a great article. Exactly why I also bought a Ventus 3M, which has been much more reliable than my previous contraptions (so far at least!). The new electrics are getting much better, but still suffer from battery capacity limiting self-retrieve capability. Hope no-one is depending on these things to start, and only trying an air-start when a safe landing is assured in max-drag configuration (engine out and not running, or prop wind-milling for electrics).

    1. Thanks, Dave, for this clarification. Indeed, I completely agree that one must not rely on the engine to always start in flight and only attempt to do so with a safe landing field in easy glide in case the engine will come out but not retract and the prop wind-milling. The glide ratio in this max-drag configuration is more like that of a hang glider, something that’s hard to imagine when one is used to the 50+ to 1 that is normally attainable with the engine stowed in its bay. Reliance on the engine running is still the case on initial takeoff (until one has reached an altitude where it’s safe to return to the airport – which is MUCH higher than during aerotow), but the risk of the engine suddenly quitting is of course much lower than the risk of it not starting at all.

      1. Please do not forget the (EASA) certification basis for all motorgliders:

        A motor failure is treated just like a cable failure on aerotow or winch,
        and the pilot is expected to always fly such that the failure is followed by safe landing.
        This includes take-off.
        Any crash following an engine failure is considered pilot error.

        Given the high failure rate of these engines and propulsion systems,
        for example our mutual friend who had a connecting rod failure,
        I only self-launch where there is room to either land straight head until I’m
        high enough for a safe turn-around to land…

        Some discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-C2pAVwRK8

  4. Very good and thoughtful article!
    You have for sure selected the best available glider for your purposes.
    Just a couple of reflections from my side:
    – the difference in average cross country speed between Ventus 2cx and Ventus3 is definately not 8 %. It is rather 1 %. The rest is either due to progress which you have personally made or due to different (better) weather.
    – I fly myself a JS1 and as long as you do not need a self launch this is just the perfect machine (for me). I also love the option to fly competitively in both Open and 18m class and overall the performance of the JS1 which I consider (with 18m) to be similar to the V3.
    – The new fuselage of the JS2 should not be an issue at all wrt teething issues. I can follow your argumentation however wrt to the Solo engine, specifically the new balancer shaft. I consider this as a true game changer, solving finally the vibration issues all 2-stroke-Engines cause in gliders. But indeed: perhaps better serial number 100 than number 3…

    1. Martin, thanks for your perspective! I have previously tried to estimate the performance difference between the JS3 and the Ventus 2cx. I agree that 8% is likely too much and in part driven by factors other than the glider. However, in booming conditions warranting very high cruising speeds, I am convinced that the difference is considerably more than 1%. There is of course no good way to measure and demonstrate this reliably.
      (see my prior attempts to estimate this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj2sv6eQRTU and https://chessintheair.com/final-glide-ventus-2cxt-vs-js3-is-the-js3-really-better/).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: