Chip Bearden wrote:

Wait...those aren't allowed anymore. Living in the past. How many on this group recall those "exciting" dashes back to the contest, throwing the glider together as fast as possible, and relaunching, hoping to do better the second time? The rapid assembly was sometimes made easier by taking some shortcuts in the derigging process at the landout site. We once hauled our 1-26 back without installing the spar hold down bolts on the trailer by parking someone in the back of the station wagon to to make sure the wings didn't slide off the trailer during the 10 mile drive back to the contest site. A long time ago.

Chip Bearden

Heck, I heard someone didn't even bother to de-rig their 1-26, but just auto towed it back to the contest site. Power lines added excitement. Had to release and fly around corners, then land, hook back up and go again. Long rope? Long enough to let you go high enough to clear the on-coming trucks!

Gone are the days. Thank goodness!

Steve Leonard

Oh geez Steve, they've taken away all our fun!

I wonder how much of the adventure has been taken out of soaring by the rise of sustainer systems. The andrenalin of a low save and making it home is lost knowing that you can always just pop out the engine. It's opened up new areas to fly safely - but is it really the same? How many of the +1000km flights we are seeing now everyday on OLC would be taking place with out sustainer equipped sailplanes?

Clint, I feel the advent of sustainers, while great for recreational flying, has changed the complexion of setting records and racing. Sustainers provide a safety net which results in guys being able to take chances they normally would not take when flying a conventional glider. No one can tell me that guys fly a course in a sustainer the same as a non motor equiped machine.

They are given a built in advantage in searching for lift and traversing areas of having "iffy" conditions. They should be placed in their own catagory in records and in racing.

This very issue was discussed in the 1950's by the SSA rules committee, you can find their discussions in the archived records. I believe the first big discussion was in 1955. At that time they ruled against allowing motorized gliders to race with conventionals for these very reasons.

Dan

At 17:49 10 January 2018, wrote:
>I wonder how much of the adventure has been taken out of soaring by the
>ris=
>e of sustainer systems. The andrenalin of a low save and making it home
is
>=
>lost knowing that you can always just pop out the engine. It's opened up
>ne=
>w areas to fly safely - but is it really the same? How many of the
+1000km
>=
>flights we are seeing now everyday on OLC would be taking place with out
>su=
>stainer equipped sailplanes?
>
And the andrenalin level if it doesn't start?

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 12:10:09 PM UTC-6, wrote:
"Sustainers provide a safety net which results in guys being able to take chances they normally would not take when flying a conventional glider. No one can tell me that guys fly a course in a sustainer the same as a non motor equiped machine."


Yikes! That seems like a foolish dice-rolling approach to using a device that does't work 100% of the time.

I decrease my probability of having a field landing and ground retrieve, but trade that in for an increased probability of killing myself. What on earth are people thinking?

I generally associate an adrenaline rush while flying with an inescapable sense that I've done something very, very stupid. Not at all enjoyable.

If you enjoy flying gliders for the sensation of risking your life, my advice is you should stop before you have a little bit too much fun.

Andy

Yes I agree with you Andy, but racing is racing for a good number of guys and I know they choose to take those chances. If they choose to, well thats their business, but for the sake of the competition it does change the dynamic. Thats what the SSA was worried about back in the day.

Yep, heard the same. IIRC it was in Texas, 1-26 (green pickle?), had to release now and then due to wires across the road.....right on up there with the "Fonz" doing a ground loop over a field of 2' stumps to land on a road next to the stump field and next to tall trees......when asked how he got there, he just smiled....typical of the Fonz if you knew him. I miss the Fonz.

The making of MAJOR war stories......sorta glad some of mine are no where near as exciting, other than Mom ripping the exhaust off a company car going into the BOTTOM of a gravel pit to help retrieve a 1-26 I had landed there.......sigh.....

Few skiers pine for the days before ski lifts, when they'd snowshoe up the hill for a run.

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:10:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Clint, I feel the advent of sustainers, while great for recreational flying, has changed the complexion of setting records and racing. Sustainers provide a safety net which results in guys being able to take chances they normally would not take when flying a conventional glider. No one can tell me that guys fly a course in a sustainer the same as a non motor equiped machine.
>
> They are given a built in advantage in searching for lift and traversing areas of having "iffy" conditions. They should be placed in their own catagory in records and in racing.
>
> This very issue was discussed in the 1950's by the SSA rules committee, you can find their discussions in the archived records. I believe the first big discussion was in 1955. At that time they ruled against allowing motorized gliders to race with conventionals for these very reasons.
>
> Dan

Excluding the motor guys because "they're not like us" may make some people feel better but it forces them to either go away or form their own group. Neither option does participation much good.
We need all the participants we can get.
UH

Oh Charles I'm surely not into any more fragmentation of our ranks. We are few enough already, I'm just bringing up the point that having a sustainer does change the dynamic. At the most I'd put an asterisk next to any records they set. As for racing I think within the next decade or so all of the competition ships will probably be sustainers so the discrepancy will actually solve itself.

Well Bob I hear ya there, however with the price tag of sustainer equiped ships, I know there will always be a bunch of us conventional sailplane fliers doing our thing and needing a tow "up the hill".

1-26 rules actually still allow multiple attempts after landout, if the glider is returned by trailer. The auto tow incident prompted a rule that ends a pilots flying day if he returns from a landing by air.

On 1/10/2018 12:35 PM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:10:09 PM UTC-5,
> wrote:
<Snip...>

>> This very issue [motorgliders] was discussed in the 1950's by the SSA
>> rules committee, you can find their discussions in the archived records.
>> I believe the first big discussion was in 1955. At that time they ruled
>> against allowing motorized gliders to race with conventionals for these
>> very reasons.

>
> Excluding the motor guys because "they're not like us" may make some
> people feel better but it forces them to either go away or form their own
> group. Neither option does participation much good. We need all the
> participants we can get.
Jeez, it must be winter...here I go trying to convey nuance on RAS.

A part of me struggles to (understand? buy into?) the logic noted by UH. I
understand the general concern involving 'going somewhere else in order to
participate' and the 'need [for] all the participants we can get.' I also
understand the community of 'racing sailplane pilots' is a subset of
'sailplane pilots,' and in that sense a (not entirely informal) subset of SSA.
I'm unconvinced 'racing balkanization' as a concern adequately applies here,
since it's arguably been happening ever since 'the movement' morphed into (for
example) open/15-meter-span classes...continuing until today.

Grouping (associating) seems inherently human, and as far back as the 1830s,
de Tocqueville noted Americans seemed particularly prone to doing so; I
suspect were he capable of observing and commenting today, he wouldn't change
this particular observation. My point: IMO there's nothing inherently 'bad'
with (sub-)associations. As a general approach, it continues to serve EAA
well, f'r'example. FWIW, SSA has historically been reluctant to 'universally
embrace' all aspects of soaring flight, case in point being hang-gliding in
the 1970s.

'U.S. motorglider guys' formed their own association beneath SSA's umbrella
pretty early on. They must not have felt 'forced away' Perhaps it happened
simply because sufficient groundswell within their ranks existed? Something
else...?

I understand the 'infrastructure-based' arguments *for* 'racing
consolidation', e.g. attracting contest organizers in the face of declining
overall participation makes proliferating contest classes problematic. The
'marketplace of ideas' seems to be responding to that these days with various
combined-class contests, and to-date I've not come across any obvious
groundswell that's a bad thing, or that it's an approach driving potential
participants away. If anything, the opposite is true.

Me not/never being a contest pilot, I completely understand and agree with
UH's ending assertion. I'm not so sure I agree with some of the intervening
logic leading to where 'the contest scene' is today. Example? I'm unconvinced
it's an 'either/or situation' as is so often posited in discussions of this sort.

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 11:35:01 AM UTC-8, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> Few skiers pine for the days before ski lifts, when they'd snowshoe up the hill for a run.

Yep Bob, and those are the ones you'll fine on AT gear now. Earn your turns ;-)

At 20:06 10 January 2018, Tony wrote:
>1-26 rules actually still allow multiple attempts after landout, if the
>glider is returned by trailer. The auto tow incident prompted a rule
that
>ends a pilots flying day if he returns from a landing by air.
>
are you saying that trailer racing is still permitted? I remember those
days over here, great fun except during the haste when someone
missed connecting up some control.

yes the 1-26 rules still allow a pilot to re attempt the task after a trailer retrieve. I know that Team Vihlen did this at the rained out championships in Caesar Creek that I attended. I highly doubt it is very commonly practiced.

<<On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 8:05:22 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> yes the 1-26 rules still allow a pilot to re attempt the task after a trailer retrieve. I know that Team Vihlen did this at the rained out championships in Caesar Creek that I attended. I highly doubt it is very commonly practiced.>>

Aside from the rule, another reason that practice isn't viable here in the U.S. is the prevalence of crewless pilots at contests. It's one thing to get your family or a really good friend out on the road on iffy days just in case you need a quick retrieve. That's a non-starter without a crew.

And, yeah, I've heard the 1-26 "retrieve by autotow" story--no doubt enhanced in the retelling--a few times myself.

Chip Bearden