I would like to thank the people who spend the time
and decide what questions to include in the SRA poll.
Lots of hard work goes into the poll. I appreciate
your efforts and dedication to soaring.
I am concerned with the questions on the poll addressing
the sports class. 7.0-7.3. All of the questions deal
with handicaps. We have three very clear methods of
measuring performance gains for gliders. Weight, wingspan
and winglets. Changes of any one of these three factors
has been proven to change the performance of a glider.
The questions on the poll now ask if we should add
'other modifications' such as turbulators, wing root
fillets etc. to this list. I ask the question how can
these 'other modifications' be measured? Who is qualified
to do the measuring? Should we leave it to the CD to
determine what 'other modifications' qualify and to
asses a different handicap? This opens the door for
handicaps to be different at each contest depending
on the CD. Unless there is a clear method of measuring
'other modifications' leave it alone. Arbitrary decisions
have no place in determining handicaps.
7.3 even goes so far as to ask if a glider with smoothed
and sealed wings should have a different handicap from
one that doesn't have smooth and sealed wings. Is that
the same as asking if a 10 year old ASW-27 should have
a different handicap than a new ASW-27 with smoother
wings?
The question that I really feel should have been on
the SRA Poll is whether we should follow the rest of
the world and create a CLUB CLASS. Both Nationals and
Regionals.
All of the handicap questions could be answered if
we would follow the majority of the world and create
a Club Class. The US International Team Committee now
requires that qualification for the Sports Class Team
must be done in a Club Class Glider. Let us take it
a step further. The US follows all of the IGC class
rules except the Club Class. Why? The US could continue
the Sports Class and have a Club Class within. Much
like we do with regionals and national contest. Separate
scoring for separate classes. It's done in every contest
in the US except for the Club Class.
I encourage you to look at 12.1 of the SRA poll 'other
issues' and call for a Club Class in the US.

I agree with Sam's sentiment totally.
My comment below is not exactly related but addresses similar
concerns. In the past, I have tried privately to convince the Handicap
committee to handicap gliders to there inherent potential, case in
point would be the HP18. Now we have a hodge podge of designations.
Hp 18, HP18 with winglets, HP18 mod, HP 18 mod. Rumpf .

OLC has, after some explaining, made changes and added only one
extra category for the HP18 and that of modified. As soon there is a
winglet involved it is considered modified and the Handicap becomes .
95 . This also, in my opinion, is the true potential for that glider.
Even some of the worse HP18 are no worse then a handicap of 1.00
Over a period of six years, when I was still flying my HP18 mod., my
Handicap changed just about every year at the discretion of the CD,
usually down ward, finally it ended with a handicap of .93

Udo


On Nov 1, 11:28 am, Sam Giltner
> wrote:
> I would like to thank the people who spend the time
> and decide what questions to include in the SRA poll.
> Lots of hard work goes into the poll. I appreciate
> your efforts and dedication to soaring.
> I am concerned with the questions on the poll addressing
> the sports class. 7.0-7.3. All of the questions deal
> with handicaps. We have three very clear methods of
> measuring performance gains for gliders. Weight, wingspan
> and winglets. Changes of any one of these three factors
> has been proven to change the performance of a glider.
> The questions on the poll now ask if we should add
> 'other modifications' such as turbulators, wing root
> fillets etc. to this list. I ask the question how can
> these 'other modifications' be measured? Who is qualified
> to do the measuring? Should we leave it to the CD to
> determine what 'other modifications' qualify and to
> asses a different handicap? This opens the door for
> handicaps to be different at each contest depending
> on the CD. Unless there is a clear method of measuring
> 'other modifications' leave it alone. Arbitrary decisions
> have no place in determining handicaps.
> 7.3 even goes so far as to ask if a glider with smoothed
> and sealed wings should have a different handicap from
> one that doesn't have smooth and sealed wings. Is that
> the same as asking if a 10 year old ASW-27 should have
> a different handicap than a new ASW-27 with smoother
> wings?
> The question that I really feel should have been on
> the SRA Poll is whether we should follow the rest of
> the world and create a CLUB CLASS. Both Nationals and
> Regionals.
> All of the handicap questions could be answered if
> we would follow the majority of the world and create
> a Club Class. The US International Team Committee now
> requires that qualification for the Sports Class Team
> must be done in a Club Class Glider. Let us take it
> a step further. The US follows all of the IGC class
> rules except the Club Class. Why? The US could continue
> the Sports Class and have a Club Class within. Much
> like we do with regionals and national contest. Separate
> scoring for separate classes. It's done in every contest
> in the US except for the Club Class.
> I encourage you to look at 12.1 of the SRA poll 'other
> issues' and call for a Club Class in the US.

On Nov 1, 11:28 am, Sam Giltner
> wrote:
> I am concerned with the questions on the poll addressing
> the sports class. 7.0-7.3. All of the questions deal
> with handicaps. We have three very clear methods of
> measuring performance gains for gliders. Weight, wingspan
> and winglets. Changes of any one of these three factors
> has been proven to change the performance of a glider.
> The questions on the poll now ask if we should add
> 'other modifications' such as turbulators, wing root
> fillets etc. to this list. I ask the question how can
> these 'other modifications' be measured? Who is qualified
> to do the measuring? Should we leave it to the CD to
> determine what 'other modifications' qualify and to
> asses a different handicap? This opens the door for
> handicaps to be different at each contest depending
> on the CD. Unless there is a clear method of measuring
> 'other modifications' leave it alone. Arbitrary decisions
> have no place in determining handicaps.
> 7.3 even goes so far as to ask if a glider with smoothed
> and sealed wings should have a different handicap from
> one that doesn't have smooth and sealed wings. Is that
> the same as asking if a 10 year old ASW-27 should have
> a different handicap than a new ASW-27 with smoother
> wings?

This is a classic slippery slope question, how far is too far?
What about someone that take a libelle 301 and reprofiles the wings to
give them them an ASW-27 airfoil?
At what point does a certain model glider get modified so far it no
longer is fair to call it by its original name [and handicap?]
Or what about replacing the entire wing with a new design?
I bet I could fit a 304 wing with its more modern airfoil onto my 303
mosquito. Would a Discus 2x wing fit a Discus etc?

This is a tough question, if you add winglets for better performance
you should be willing to accept a harder handicap. I sealed my
control rods, have no way to measure what seems like better
performance, should my handicap change?

I suppose we need to figure out what are the limits of what we
accept. Right now the rules seem to be wide open.

Adding modern aerodynamic designs/devices to older designs might be a
way to differientate the changes. If you have a glider from a certain
era and you apply technology/changes that were not common when that
design was current/new then maybe we could agree it needs to be
handicapped. [turbulators, blowholes, winglets, Dr Sinha's
deturbulator strips].

Dr Sinha's deturbulator strips do present a challenge: if claims of
20% better performance proved to be true for this technology or any
future aerodymanic innovation, would you be fine to compete against me
without changing my handicap?

I agree that it would be a massive challenge to determine what is the
"standard geometry" of a design - especially for a CD at a
gliderport. Heck what about the PIK-20 - I understand that the
production got less precise and the later ones had thicker airfoils,
which one is correct, should they have different handicapps?
What would we do, have templates for every airfoil and intersection?
[For the PW-5 they have a system right?]

Could be an interesting discussion.

Chris

My answer to this survey question was that we didn't need further
handicap complication for sailplanes. There is already little enough
difference between the top ships for this to be significant.

What we really need is to handicap the pilots. The top guys
consistently finish a task at speeds 10% to 15% faster than I do.
Just like we do with racehorses (who carry extra weight), we should
add drag to the fast guys so we slower guys have a chance.

Mike

On Nov 1, 6:42 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> My answer to this survey question was that we didn't need further
> handicap complication for sailplanes. There is already little enough
> difference between the top ships for this to be significant.
>
> What we really need is to handicap the pilots. The top guys
> consistently finish a task at speeds 10% to 15% faster than I do.
> Just like we do with racehorses (who carry extra weight), we should
> add drag to the fast guys so we slower guys have a chance.
>
> Mike

Yeah! ... and I think they should carry electronic beacons (electronic
leech leash) so we can follow them easier ... my eyes just aren't as
good as they once were ... (or maybe it's my cheap sunglasses).

KK

On Nov 2, 6:56 am, "Ken Kochanski (KK)" >
wrote:
> On Nov 1, 6:42 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > My answer to this survey question was that we didn't need further
> > handicap complication for sailplanes. There is already little enough
> > difference between the top ships for this to be significant.
>
> > What we really need is to handicap the pilots. The top guys
> > consistently finish a task at speeds 10% to 15% faster than I do.
> > Just like we do with racehorses (who carry extra weight), we should
> > add drag to the fast guys so we slower guys have a chance.
>
> > Mike
>
> Yeah! ... and I think they should carry electronic beacons (electronic
> leech leash) so we can follow them easier ... my eyes just aren't as
> good as they once were ... (or maybe it's my cheap sunglasses).
>
> KK

nah, all the good pilots should have to fly 1-26s or my cherokee, and
then i can fly their ASWG-37.5 monster super duper gliders. that'd be
perfect! :D

On Nov 1, 11:28 am, Sam Giltner
> wrote:
> I would like to thank the people who spend the time
> and decide what questions to include in the SRA poll.
> Lots of hard work goes into the poll. I appreciate
> your efforts and dedication to soaring.
> I am concerned with the questions on the poll addressing
> the sports class. 7.0-7.3. All of the questions deal
> with handicaps. We have three very clear methods of
> measuring performance gains for gliders. Weight, wingspan
> and winglets. Changes of any one of these three factors
> has been proven to change the performance of a glider.
> The questions on the poll now ask if we should add
> 'other modifications' such as turbulators, wing root
> fillets etc. to this list. I ask the question how can
> these 'other modifications' be measured? Who is qualified
> to do the measuring? Should we leave it to the CD to
> determine what 'other modifications' qualify and to
> asses a different handicap? This opens the door for
> handicaps to be different at each contest depending
> on the CD. Unless there is a clear method of measuring
> 'other modifications' leave it alone. Arbitrary decisions
> have no place in determining handicaps.
> 7.3 even goes so far as to ask if a glider with smoothed
> and sealed wings should have a different handicap from
> one that doesn't have smooth and sealed wings. Is that
> the same as asking if a 10 year old ASW-27 should have
> a different handicap than a new ASW-27 with smoother
> wings?
> The question that I really feel should have been on
> the SRA Poll is whether we should follow the rest of
> the world and create a CLUB CLASS. Both Nationals and
> Regionals.
> All of the handicap questions could be answered if
> we would follow the majority of the world and create
> a Club Class. The US International Team Committee now
> requires that qualification for the Sports Class Team
> must be done in a Club Class Glider. Let us take it
> a step further. The US follows all of the IGC class
> rules except the Club Class. Why? The US could continue
> the Sports Class and have a Club Class within. Much
> like we do with regionals and national contest. Separate
> scoring for separate classes. It's done in every contest
> in the US except for the Club Class.
> I encourage you to look at 12.1 of the SRA poll 'other
> issues' and call for a Club Class in the US.

A few years ago, we tried the Club Class within the Sports Class as
an available
sub class which would be recognized. Organizers could choose to do
this or not.
It went nowhere.
Perhaps it is time to bring this back to life.

As to handicaps related to mods, it will never be absolutely perfect
for all ships, but
the principle is the issue being brought to the table for discussion.
The questions written
were intended to get as sense of the sensitivity of pilots to
differing levels of changes to ships.
The Brits have gone a bit further on this than we have.
They use a table to adjust for:
Span- 1%/meter or portion thereof
Winglets- 1% unless listed as (w) or original design. No adjustment
above 21M span
Wing Root Fairings - 1%
Boundary Layer Trip Tape- 1% unless part of original design a shown in
mfr's manual.

>From my experience, one can still benefit from the above mods, but a
substantial portion
of the gain is adjusted back in the handicap.
Seems pretty fair to me.

Thanks for sharing your views. There needs to be more discussion on
some of these things
so folks can have informed opinions.
UH

5U,

First of all, let me say that I greatly admire what you've
acomplished. Your ingeniously prepared LS1 was more or less equal
than my essentially stock Mosquito at Caesar Creek this year - who
knew that credit card VG's could easily ad ~1% to the performance of a
glider. I think that what you've done is great and others will likely
try similar things - rumor is UH has a glider in the barn undergoing
surgical procedures. I also of a Club class would be a great addition
to US Soaring - especially for juniors.

That being said, I'm not sure I follow your logic on how creating a
club class will solve the handicapping issues. Your LS1 would still
have a better handicap than my glider. I'm simply not smart enough to
make the sort of mods that you understand from ~30yrs of glider
tweaking. Is what you are suggesting that mods simply won't be
handicapped? This seems to be the general direction the Europeans
have gone in.

The far bigger issue anyways is that a number of gliders still have an
inappropriate handicap. I'm highly surprised no one has showed up in
a 1.14 Club Libelle (more or less the same as a .98 Hornet) yet. Lets
worry about the big issues first - or adopt the German list where
people have payed alot more attention.

2C

On Nov 1, 11:28 am, Sam Giltner
> wrote:
> I would like to thank the people who spend the time
> and decide what questions to include in the SRA poll.
> Lots of hard work goes into the poll. I appreciate
> your efforts and dedication to soaring.
> I am concerned with the questions on the poll addressing
> the sports class. 7.0-7.3. All of the questions deal
> with handicaps. We have three very clear methods of
> measuring performance gains for gliders. Weight, wingspan
> and winglets. Changes of any one of these three factors
> has been proven to change the performance of a glider.
> The questions on the poll now ask if we should add
> 'other modifications' such as turbulators, wing root
> fillets etc. to this list. I ask the question how can
> these 'other modifications' be measured? Who is qualified
> to do the measuring? Should we leave it to the CD to
> determine what 'other modifications' qualify and to
> asses a different handicap? This opens the door for
> handicaps to be different at each contest depending
> on the CD. Unless there is a clear method of measuring
> 'other modifications' leave it alone. Arbitrary decisions
> have no place in determining handicaps.
> 7.3 even goes so far as to ask if a glider with smoothed
> and sealed wings should have a different handicap from
> one that doesn't have smooth and sealed wings. Is that
> the same as asking if a 10 year old ASW-27 should have
> a different handicap than a new ASW-27 with smoother
> wings?
> The question that I really feel should have been on
> the SRA Poll is whether we should follow the rest of
> the world and create a CLUB CLASS. Both Nationals and
> Regionals.
> All of the handicap questions could be answered if
> we would follow the majority of the world and create
> a Club Class. The US International Team Committee now
> requires that qualification for the Sports Class Team
> must be done in a Club Class Glider. Let us take it
> a step further. The US follows all of the IGC class
> rules except the Club Class. Why? The US could continue
> the Sports Class and have a Club Class within. Much
> like we do with regionals and national contest. Separate
> scoring for separate classes. It's done in every contest
> in the US except for the Club Class.
> I encourage you to look at 12.1 of the SRA poll 'other
> issues' and call for a Club Class in the US.

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:19:16 -0000, "
> wrote:

>5U,
>
>First of all, let me say that I greatly admire what you've
>acomplished. Your ingeniously prepared LS1 was more or less equal
>than my essentially stock Mosquito at Caesar Creek this year - who
>knew that credit card VG's could easily ad ~1% to the performance of a
>glider.

Sounds interesting. Can you explain what's VG and what work has been
done? Thanks!

Aldo

At 14:36 03 November 2007, 2cernauta2 wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:19:16 -0000, '
> wrote:
>
>>5U,
>>
>>First of all, let me say that I greatly admire what
>>you've
>>acomplished. Your ingeniously prepared LS1 was more
>>or less equal
>>than my essentially stock Mosquito at Caesar Creek
>>this year - who
>>knew that credit card VG's could easily ad ~1% to the
>>performance of a
>>glider.
>
>Sounds interesting. Can you explain what's VG and what
>work has been
>done? Thanks!
>
>Aldo
>
VG's are votex generators. Kind of like giant turbulators.
check out the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_generator
I would imagine by the description that the made a
set of these out of bent/cut credit cards. I would
also be interested in hearing more about it, (pics
please!) as a pilot from my airfield and I have been
discussing VG's on gliders for some time now but have
had nothing to base it on other than intuition, so
the conversation was moot. Very interesting stuff.

Paul Hanson
"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

On Nov 3, 12:25 pm, Paul Hanson
> wrote:
> At 14:36 03 November 2007, 2cernauta2 wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:19:16 -0000, '
> > wrote:
>
> >>5U,
>
> >>First of all, let me say that I greatly admire what
> >>you've
> >>acomplished. Your ingeniously prepared LS1 was more
> >>or less equal
> >>than my essentially stock Mosquito at Caesar Creek
> >>this year - who
> >>knew that credit card VG's could easily ad ~1% to the
> >>performance of a
> >>glider.
>
> >Sounds interesting. Can you explain what's VG and what
> >work has been
> >done? Thanks!
>
> >Aldo
>
> VG's are votex generators. Kind of like giant turbulators.
> check out the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_generator
> I would imagine by the description that the made a
> set of these out of bent/cut credit cards. I would
> also be interested in hearing more about it, (pics
> please!) as a pilot from my airfield and I have been
> discussing VG's on gliders for some time now but have
> had nothing to base it on other than intuition, so
> the conversation was moot. Very interesting stuff.
>
> Paul Hanson
> "Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

Sam had 5 or 6 VGs spaced 3-4in apart in the last two feet of each
wing. They were cut from credit cards and were approx 1.5in high with
a 50-55 degree angle from front to a pointed top. He also designed
some highly effective wingroot fairings. The glider was extremely
effective - others flying the latest glass reported being unable to
"peel" Sam off unless they pushed up to 80kts.

2C

2C