FES in Contests

[MNLou]

I enjoyed reading the article by Francois Pin over on the Soaring Cafe about his experience racing the Alisport Silent 2 Electro at Moriarty last year..

I would think that having a "bullet proof" propulsion system would give a significant competitive advantage over a "pure glider" by allowing one to significantly stretch the "safety envelope". Think low saves, flying over unlandable terrain, crossing large blue holes, etc.

I doubt that this advantage is reflected in sailplane handicaps. (Note that Francois believes that the FES drag is near nil.)

I know this has been discussed in this forum re:OLC. However, sanctioned contests are another kettle of fish.

Comments?

Lou

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 12:34:33 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
> I enjoyed reading the article by Francois Pin over on the Soaring Cafe about his experience racing the Alisport Silent 2 Electro at Moriarty last year.
>
>
>
> I would think that having a "bullet proof" propulsion system would give a significant competitive advantage over a "pure glider" by allowing one to significantly stretch the "safety envelope". Think low saves, flying over unlandable terrain, crossing large blue holes, etc.
>
>
>
> I doubt that this advantage is reflected in sailplane handicaps. (Note that Francois believes that the FES drag is near nil.)
>
>
>
> I know this has been discussed in this forum re:OLC. However, sanctioned contests are another kettle of fish.
>
>
>
> Comments?
>
>
>
> Lou

Nothing is "bullet proof". It is just an illusion.

[Sean F (F2)]

Actually a recent study has found hat the FES propeller has a significant, measured impact on performance (2-4% depending on average flying speed). The FES should have a considerable handicap over pure in, for example, the Lak17a or b with FES vs non FES. The US handicap committee has done nothing to address this. Smells funny to me. Clearly a big propeller in the nose airflow is not equal to not having a massive propeller? Only thing for sure is THAT IT IS NOT THE SAME PERFORMANCE. Yet the handicaps are the same?

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:20:41 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Actually a recent study has found hat the FES propeller has a significant,
> measured impact on performance...

Provide the data, Sean.

[Sean F (F2)]

Not my job. Isn't that what the handicap committee does?

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:00:38 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Not my job. Isn't that what the handicap committee does?

Handicap committee evaluates data but does not generate it. As well designed as the propeller appears to be, I would think the 4% described is really high. Maybe Sean can provide a link to this data that he apparently has seen. I would agree that it certainly does not help performance.
It is also possible that the HC committee took no action for the simple reason that no one asked them to.
UH

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:00:38 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Not my job. Isn't that what the handicap committee does?

They evaluate. If you have a link to the actual data, it would be much appreciated. I have seen the video of a couple of the flights (one with and one without the prop installation), but have not been able to find the polars. The committee cannot work with a statement of "2 to 4%". They need hard data to review.

So, please forgive my first response. If you can provide data in the form of polars, sink rate tables, or some such, or even a link to actual data, it would be appreciated. You seem to have a better knowledge of where this can be found than I, as I have looked and could not find actual data. If I have actual data, I can help in getting it to the right people for review.

Help appreciated,
Steve

[Sean F (F2)]

CHECK OUT THE VIDOES ON THIS THREAD: https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/rec.aviation.soaring/QIeXikPEkaY

I agree 4% is pretty high...but clearly it is not exactly equal performance from an aerodynamic perspective. Seems like an easy thing for the handicap committee to act on. The FES owners are trading some performance for convenience and safety (avoiding land outs, etc). Nobody likes to start with a significant disadvantage in any form of competition.

As a pseudo engineer, there is significant square edged frontal area exposed to the airflow right at the nose. In addition a gap between the spinner and the fuselage in a high pressure area of the nose. Then you have 2 complex curved 18 inch propellers laying against the nose aft. At 80-100mph+, that must be killing the gliders performance. At 70 it surely cannot be helping. It also probably damages the flow over the wing root area, especially at low speed and higher AoA.

I will start some research into getting the study results in detail. I have have already sent a few emails. In the meantime look at the videos I posted last summer in the link above.

I think at least a 1% handicap is warranted. Something! Not a huge amount of these gliders in the market, but there are 20 or so and several new Lak17b FES in the US and Canada. The handicap is affecting the decision to convert gliders in some cases. Not just Laks but the usual suspects.

That said, maybe the aero impact is balanced out by the 60-80 lbs of added weight in batteries, etc? Is that the case? I'm not really sure how handicaps are formulated in terms of modifications, wing loading, etc.

Yes, I am thinking about converting my Lak17a to FES someday....

Flying to Florida as I type.... :-)

Sean

[SF]

I train a lot of engineers within our company. I find more important for them to know what they don't know rather than what they do know. This keeps us out of a lot of trouble. Although some can't wrap their mind around the simplicity of this lesson. Pseudo Engineer is a new one. Sounds like something needed in the Thailand tourist industry. I bet the curriculum was interesting.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

Rather than checking out the videos (link didn't work for me, but I have seen the videos of the tests being conducted), you can check out the SSA Website. If you do, you will see the LAK-17B-18 FES does have its own handicap number, and it is different than the LAK-17B-18. The difference is in line, in both weight delta and handicap delta, to the LAK-17A-18 to the LAK-17AT-18. The delta for either is .01.

That said, you may want to look and see which way, and then look harder for that data from the Akaflieg.

Have fun at the GP this weekend, Sean. Wish I could be there to fly with you guys.

Steve

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:42:22 PM UTC-5, Steve Leonard wrote:
> Rather than checking out the videos (link didn't work for me, but I have seen the videos of the tests being conducted), you can check out the SSA Website. If you do, you will see the LAK-17B-18 FES does have its own handicap number, and it is different than the LAK-17B-18. The difference is in line, in both weight delta and handicap delta, to the LAK-17A-18 to the LAK-17AT-18. The delta for either is .01.
>
>
>
> That said, you may want to look and see which way, and then look harder for that data from the Akaflieg.
>
>
>
> Have fun at the GP this weekend, Sean. Wish I could be there to fly with you guys.
>
>
>
> Steve

I saw a German test somewhere a few months ago which showed handicap in the range of 2% if I could only remember where the document was located. It was a good technical paper. Maybe someone has a link.

[Bob Gibbons[_2_]]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:30:23 -0800 (PST), "Sean F (F2)"
> wrote:

>CHECK OUT THE VIDOES ON THIS THREAD: https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/rec.aviation.soaring/QIeXikPEkaY
>
.... text deleted.
>Yes, I am thinking about converting my Lak17a to FES someday....
>
>Flying to Florida as I type.... :-)
>
>Sean

The referenced video indicates that Idaflieg has the data you need to
resolve this issue.

Suggest an interested party contact Luka Znidarsic at LZ Design
(www.front-electric-sustainer.com)

The video seems to indicate the manufacturer participated in these
tests, he would be a likely first contact for release of the Idaflieg
data.

Bob

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > "Sean F (F2)" > writes:

>I think at least a 1% handicap is warranted. Something! Not a huge amount=
> of these gliders in the market, but there are 20 or so and several new Lak=
>17b FES in the US and Canada. The handicap is affecting the decision to co=
>nvert gliders in some cases. Not just Laks but the usual suspects.

Perhaps it shold be a inverse handicap, as the motorglider pilots are often
more willing to head off in directions where a landout would be a problem.

Since they have less risk involved in their choices, they should receive less
benefit. Sure, they don't win the day if they start the engine, but they don't
landout in the rocks, either.

( For the common argument that one should not depend on the engine - if folks
never depended on a sustainer, then they would not be buying them. )

Alan

[[email protected]]

On Friday, February 14, 2014 4:06:02 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> In article > "Sean F (F2)" > writes:
>
>
>
> >I think at least a 1% handicap is warranted. Something! Not a huge amount=
>
> > of these gliders in the market, but there are 20 or so and several new Lak=
>
> >17b FES in the US and Canada. The handicap is affecting the decision to co=
>
> >nvert gliders in some cases. Not just Laks but the usual suspects.
>
>
>
> Perhaps it shold be a inverse handicap, as the motorglider pilots are often
>
> more willing to head off in directions where a landout would be a problem.
>
>
>
> Since they have less risk involved in their choices, they should receive less
>
> benefit. Sure, they don't win the day if they start the engine, but they don't
>
> landout in the rocks, either.
>
>
>
> ( For the common argument that one should not depend on the engine - if folks
>
> never depended on a sustainer, then they would not be buying them. )
>
>
>
> Alan

Would you really put your life at risk going into unlandable terrain hoping your engine is going to work (regardless if it electric or internal combustion)? If you think this way I suggest you stay away from engines or your life might be cut short.

[Vaughn]

On 2/14/2014 9:15 AM, wrote:
> Would you really put your life at risk going into unlandable terrain hoping your engine is going to work (regardless if it electric or internal combustion)?

I don't think that you would need to hunt very hard to find stories of
pilots doing exactly that WITHOUT engines.

Vaughn

[son_of_flubber]

Is there a form of sailplane race that rewards pilots for skillfully maintaining a quantifiable margin of error without gross lapses above or below that margin of error?

A calculation over the recorded flight path that factors altitude, distance to known_to_be_safe landing fields, and wind and weather might produce an objective score.

That is the kind of XC flying that I want to do and a flying competition that in principle rewards risk taking is something that I want to steer clear of.

I'm truly ignorant of how risk taking is rewarded in sailplane racing, but the 11% flying mortality rate for world champion glider pilots made an impression. I realize that lower levels of racing involve on average less risk taking.

I realize that calculated risk taking with thin margins is a valuable skill in contexts like warfare and investment banking. I realize that all flying involves calculated risk taking, but doing that with high achievable margins of safety seems to me to be very sporting and fun. I'm much more interested in executing a relatively safe flight than in flying a big triangle.

Can someone point me to existing resources/programs that score flight paths from the risk taking perspective?

[Dan Marotta]

I don't know of any such thing.

Risk taking is a very personal thing. Some people enjoy taking big risks
while others refuse to take any. There are many levels of endeavor in
between. What you describe sounds to me like an auto ralley where the
winners are not the fastest but those who come closest to the prescribed
time. You can certainly set up tasks like that for yourself but I'll bet
you won't be able to populate a contest with those conditions.

Do what you are comfortable with but please don't try to enforce your risk
tolerance on others.

I realize that arguing against "safety" is like arguing against "the
children", but there are a lot of people who would quit flying if it was as
"safe" as some folks seem to want.

"son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
...
Is there a form of sailplane race that rewards pilots for skillfully
maintaining a quantifiable margin of error without gross lapses above or
below that margin of error?

A calculation over the recorded flight path that factors altitude, distance
to known_to_be_safe landing fields, and wind and weather might produce an
objective score.

That is the kind of XC flying that I want to do and a flying competition
that in principle rewards risk taking is something that I want to steer
clear of.

I'm truly ignorant of how risk taking is rewarded in sailplane racing, but
the 11% flying mortality rate for world champion glider pilots made an
impression. I realize that lower levels of racing involve on average less
risk taking.

I realize that calculated risk taking with thin margins is a valuable skill
in contexts like warfare and investment banking. I realize that all flying
involves calculated risk taking, but doing that with high achievable margins
of safety seems to me to be very sporting and fun. I'm much more interested
in executing a relatively safe flight than in flying a big triangle.

Can someone point me to existing resources/programs that score flight paths
from the risk taking perspective?

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, February 14, 2014 10:43:02 AM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Is there a form of sailplane race that rewards pilots for skillfully maintaining a quantifiable margin of error without gross lapses above or below that margin of error?
>

No, thank goodness. However, OLC lets you pick the weather and terrain you fly over, so if you think OLC is racing, then it's probably the closest.


> A calculation over the recorded flight path that factors altitude, distance to known_to_be_safe landing fields, and wind and weather might produce an objective score.
>

An objective score of what? How do you quantify ALL the terrain you are flying over? How do you record the micro weather across all the contest area, all the time? What are you measuring, how safe a pilot flys, measured against someones (yours?) definition of safety? How would that be a RACE?


> That is the kind of XC flying that I want to do and a flying competition that in principle rewards risk taking is something that I want to steer clear of.
>

And the beauty of XC flying is that you (as PIC) can do exactly that - fly to your level of risk and comfort. No-one is making you go anywhere. But if you want to race and measure yourself against others, you will have to stretch you comfort level to go faster. But again, you can't win with a broken glider, so risk management is still essential!

But you say you don't want to participate in a competition that rewards risk taking? So, please name one type of competition that doesn't reward some kind of risk taking? Once everyone has similar equipment and training, then it comes down to decision-making, which is the essence of risk taking!

>
> I'm truly ignorant of how risk taking is rewarded in sailplane racing, but the 11% flying mortality rate for world champion glider pilots made an impression. I realize that lower levels of racing involve on average less risk taking.
>

That 11% mortality isn't during contest flying, I believe. It's top pilots pushing their luck while training or just out flying, trying to get the same rush they get during racing!

> I realize that calculated risk taking with thin margins is a valuable skill in contexts like warfare and investment banking. I realize that all flying involves calculated risk taking, but doing that with high achievable margins of safety seems to me to be very sporting and fun. I'm much more interested in executing a relatively safe flight than in flying a big triangle..
>

Then do that! And have fun. But (and this, to me, is like the claims that OLC is racing) realize that some pilots really like the challenge of going fast and managing risk and winning a RACE, and if you want to play in that playground you will have to learn the rules. If you are watching the Olympics, you can see people taking risks everywhere. It's what people like doing! But they are taking calculated risks in activities that they are skilled at and are comfortable managing those risks. Glider racers feel that way about glider racing (I know I do, in my amateurish fashion), but I sure wouldn't want to try Skeleton - just as I'm sure a Skeleton racer wouldn't want to jump into a glider with not training and go racing.

> Can someone point me to existing resources/programs that score flight paths from the risk taking perspective?

I suggest using SeeYou to see how efficiently you are flying - and where you are breaking your own risk levels, during your own flights. That's what I (and a lot of pilots a lot faster than me) do. But without being in the pilots mind during a flight, it's hard to judge what he is doing by watching his flight, other than at the technical level.

Get a glider and go XC. Then try a local race. You may find it enjoyable.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, February 14, 2014 12:39:36 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> What you describe sounds to me like an auto ralley where the
> winners are not the fastest but those who come closest to the prescribed
> time.

Spot on. There is a parallel there. Road rally is a competition but not a race.
http://www.ner.org/rally/rdral/about-road-rally

Road rallys are for people who love to drive, and who like to compete, but don't want to race. They emphasize safety by requiring an average speed under the posted speed limit.


> Do what you are comfortable with but please don't try to enforce your risk
> tolerance on others.

I simply stated why sailplane racing does not appeal to me and what sort of competition (rally style) would appeal to me. The discussion of how FES lets a racer mitigate risk is very specific and it got me thinking in a more general way about how risk factors into competition.

> I realize that arguing against "safety" is like arguing against "the
> children", but there are a lot of people who would quit flying if it was as
> "safe" as some folks seem to want.

I agree 100%. Soaring would be a lot less interesting if it were not potentially mortal.

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, February 14, 2014 1:13:46 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:

> But you say you don't want to participate in a competition that rewards risk taking? So, please name one type of competition that doesn't reward some kind of risk taking?
>

I'm just saying that some risks like circling at low AGL and being low and far from a landable field could be quantified and incorporated into scoring. I don't expect sailplane competition to do much if any of that in a general way ever.

Maybe the idea would get traction on something (like OLC) that incorporated safety margins in scoring. GPS logs make that possible.

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, February 14, 2014 3:30:47 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:

> I'm just saying that some risks like circling at low AGL and being low and far from a landable field could be quantified and incorporated into scoring. I don't expect sailplane competition to do much if any of that in a general way ever.

It is. Low is slow. If you land out you lose the day. If you break your glider you are out of the contest. If you die your wife gets rich and somebody else gets your stereo!

> Maybe the idea would get traction on something (like OLC) that incorporated safety margins in scoring. GPS logs make that possible.

What problem are you trying to solve? Or, setup a contest the way you like it and see if others agree and come and play.

As far as road rallying - you ever watch rallying on TV? No risk taking? YGBSM!
What you are talking about is a poker run. Which is fun too...

Kirk
66

[Sean F (F2)]

Degreed mechanical engineer. My wife is a PhD in ME from UofM. Pseudo means that I am not practicing and have long since moved on to higher income activities. Got it now?

[[email protected]]

A few thoughts.

For now, the Handicap Committee and Rules Committee have taken the view that handicapping should be based on the aerodynamic character of the glider, with no regard to engine presence.

Engines do confer an overall competitive advantage. Even if the motor pilot does not fly over unlandable terrain counting on the iron thermal, powering home from a landout rather than an exhausting all night retrieve makes a difference the next day -- and knowing that the big retrieve is not an issue may let MG pilots press on even over very safe terrain.

There is some sentiment that they should bear some points handicap for those advantages. Some of the reason they didn't have an airport bonus without landing was sort of a way to handicap their exhaustion advantage in retrieves. The RC changed that for this year, restoring the airport bonus to a pure safety issue. But the feeling was there.

So, this is a big philosophical question really -- do you want motorgliders to pay some extra handicap based on the competitive benefit they get from being able to motor home? A worthy discussion for polls, SRA meetings, and long RAS threads!

On "points penalty for thermaling low", that idea exists, hard deck. A system of SUA files with minimum altitudes, below which you are scored as landing out. Now land, thermal, motor home, whatever, it's up to you not points. "hard deck" can and should be higher over unlandable terrain.

At SRA meetings, pilots hoot, holler and get out the tar and feathers any time this idea is mentioned.

John Cochrane

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, February 14, 2014 6:40:48 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:

> As far as road rallying - you ever watch rallying on TV? No risk taking? YGBSM!

We're talking about two different kinds of "road rally". Follow my original link if you want to understand what I'm talking about

http://www.ner.org/rally/rdral/about-road-rally

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, February 14, 2014 11:43:02 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

> I'm truly ignorant of how risk taking is rewarded in sailplane racing, but the 11% flying mortality rate for world champion glider pilots made an impression. I realize that lower levels of racing involve on average less risk taking.
>

Someone pointed out to me off-line that my cited percentage is wrong. I apologize for my mistake.

My original source is
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html

On rereading the article I see that it notes 3 out of 30 GERMAN world champions died in glider accidents, which would be 10%. Someone later corrected me on RAS that the number of German world champions was 32, and mental error rounded 3/32 to 11% (should be 9%).

And of course there are additional world champions who did not fly for Germany and who did not die in glider accidents. To avoid propagation of additional wrong information, I will not attempt to calculate the correct mortality rate for all world champions.

[[email protected]]

> Engines do confer an overall competitive advantage. Even if the motor pilot does not fly over unlandable terrain counting on the iron thermal, powering home from a landout rather than an exhausting all night retrieve makes a difference the next day -- and knowing that the big retrieve is not an issue may let MG pilots press on even over very safe terrain.


After flying My Silent Club, I can agree with you on SOME DAYS.

Other days when lift is weak and I struggle to climb I would be much better off with a lighter wing loading, but I cannot dump my motor or gas.

Kevin
92

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 9:29:52 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Friday, February 14, 2014 11:43:02 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote: > I'm truly ignorant of how risk taking is rewarded in sailplane racing, but the 11% flying mortality rate for world champion glider pilots made an impression. I realize that lower levels of racing involve on average less risk taking. > Someone pointed out to me off-line that my cited percentage is wrong. I apologize for my mistake. My original source is http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html On rereading the article I see that it notes 3 out of 30 GERMAN world champions died in glider accidents, which would be 10%. Someone later corrected me on RAS that the number of German world champions was 32, and mental error rounded 3/32 to 11% (should be 9%). And of course there are additional world champions who did not fly for Germany and who did not die in glider accidents. To avoid propagation of additional wrong information, I will not attempt to calculate the correct mortality rate for all world champions.

I'm failing to understand what point you are trying to make.
You seem to have drawn some conclusions about competition soaring that do not agree with my experience over the last 37 years.
Some of this may be a result of dramatic comments on this site related to low circling. This ocasionally does happen and we try to discouarge it, in part so that more militant "safety advocates" can't get a foot hold on this topic.
It is true that in contests we fly on days that we might not assemble at home, and sometimes over terrain that is far less that hospitable, and in difficult weather. That is simply part of the sport. Those of us that write rules, run contests, and call tasks work hard to make the sport as safe as practical without destroying the challange that brought us to it in the first place.
If you have not been to a contest and watched how it is done, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
There are many opportunities in the sport and likely competition is not for you, but maybe you should go look before drawing your conclusions.
Hopefully this thread can become unhijacked.
UH

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, February 14, 2014 6:00:21 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:

> We're talking about two different kinds of "road rally". Follow my original link if you want to understand what I'm talking about

Yes and no. I've participated in your kind of road rally (no way I could do the other kind!) and it isn't always as docile as you imagine - make one navigation mistake and you have to go balls to the wall to make up time. It was pretty exciting.

Perhaps your rallying experience is different. Probably a better navigator ;^)

Kirk
66

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:29:52 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:

> On rereading the article I see that it notes 3 out of 30 GERMAN world champions died in glider accidents, which would be 10%. Someone later corrected me on RAS that the number of German world champions was 32, and mental error rounded 3/32 to 11% (should be 9%).

The article (a great one that everyone should read, by the way) isn't about world champions dying while racing, it's about highly experienced pilots dying while flying - and not during contests, by the way! So while it is relevant to gliding safety (or lack thereof) on the whole, it is not relevant to the topic of racing dangers.

Does anyone know of any world champions that have died WHILE RACING? I don't. Probably because they are smart enough to know that you can't win if you are dead...

Kirk
66

[Dan Marotta]

Let me put my flame suit on first...

I find it ludicrous that "racing pilots" want "safety rules" to prevent
"better racers" from doing things that they are uncomfortable with.
Example: I'm afraid (or not dumb enough) to circle below 700' AGL and, if
it's allowed by contest rules to do so, I won't stand a chance against the
guy who's willing to do that. Therefore, I'll lobby for a rule that
penalizes those pilots who circle below that altitude (or finish the race
below a particular altitude). That way I'll have an "equal" chance to win.
And I'll claim that the rule is for our "safety". Nobody can argue with
"safety". Yeah, that's it... No more scoring. Everybody's a winner!

Alternatively, I can elect not to race in a contest which "allows" behavior
that I'm not comfortable with.

Personally, I don't like the regimentation that goes along with contest
flying so I choose not to fly in contests. I flew in three contests in the
past 25+ years, had a great time, placed all over the score sheet, and
decided it's not for me. I like to just go somewhere and have a good time
doing it. So, if you decide to fly in a contest at Moriarty, I'll tow you
or fly the sniffer and mark the first thermal, but then I'll head off in a
direction different than the task area.


"son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
...
> On Friday, February 14, 2014 1:13:46 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
>
>> But you say you don't want to participate in a competition that rewards
>> risk taking? So, please name one type of competition that doesn't reward
>> some kind of risk taking?
>>
>
> I'm just saying that some risks like circling at low AGL and being low and
> far from a landable field could be quantified and incorporated into
> scoring. I don't expect sailplane competition to do much if any of that in
> a general way ever.
>
> Maybe the idea would get traction on something (like OLC) that
> incorporated safety margins in scoring. GPS logs make that possible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Dan Marotta]

Sorry Kirk, I usually agree with you, but a poker run is no fun at all. Too
many "motorcycle enthusiasts" wearing the proper costumes and spending all
their time polishing their bikes. <cheezy grin> And, at the end, they
usually limit you to two beers.


"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
...
> On Friday, February 14, 2014 3:30:47 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
>> I'm just saying that some risks like circling at low AGL and being low
>> and far from a landable field could be quantified and incorporated into
>> scoring. I don't expect sailplane competition to do much if any of that
>> in a general way ever.
>
> It is. Low is slow. If you land out you lose the day. If you break your
> glider you are out of the contest. If you die your wife gets rich and
> somebody else gets your stereo!
>
>> Maybe the idea would get traction on something (like OLC) that
>> incorporated safety margins in scoring. GPS logs make that possible.
>
> What problem are you trying to solve? Or, setup a contest the way you like
> it and see if others agree and come and play.
>
> As far as road rallying - you ever watch rallying on TV? No risk taking?
> YGBSM!
> What you are talking about is a poker run. Which is fun too...
>
> Kirk
> 66
>

[son_of_flubber]

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 9:51:31 AM UTC-5, wrote:

> Hopefully this thread can become unhijacked.

Don't be ****ed off at me for highjacking this thread. It was declared highjacked and abandoned by MNLou (the original poster)and superseded by the thread "FES - Take 2" well before I added a comment. I thought that engaging a few racing pilots in an already drifted and abandoned thread was better than starting a new topic based on one of my admittedly weak and uninformed conjectures.


On Saturday, February 15, 2014 9:51:31 AM UTC-5, wrote:

>> If you have not been to a contest and watched how it is done, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Well yeah, of course. That's why I started my post with an explicit declaration of my ignorance:

> On Friday, February 14, 2014 11:43:02 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote: > I'm truly ignorant of how risk taking is rewarded in sailplane racing

Is there a better place for a self-declared new guy to put his possible misconceptions out there to be corrected by those who know better? I stay out of racer-only threads that have not drifted.

> You seem to have drawn some conclusions about competition soaring that do not agree with my experience over the last 37 years.

I'm not surprised. Please correct my misconceptions. I'm just trying to figure out what competitive soaring is all about. Would you rather I keep my misconceptions to myself?

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 9:51:31 AM UTC-5, wrote:

> There are many opportunities in the sport and likely competition is not for you, but maybe you should go look before drawing your conclusions.

It is entirely premature for anyone to say that I will never fly in a race.

Are you saying that I should not try to conceptualize and understand what goes on at a competition before I attend a competition? Are you offended by a self-declared ignorant new guy putting his misconceptions out there for correction? I understand that some topics understandably 'touch a nerve'. I'm just learning to steer clear of them, and I'm bound to stumble into something uncomfortable.

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 9:51:31 AM UTC-5, wrote:

> Some of this may be a result of dramatic comments on this site related to low circling. This ocasionally does happen and we try to discouarge it, in part so that more militant "safety advocates" can't get a foot hold on this topic.
>
> It is true that in contests we fly on days that we might not assemble at home, and sometimes over terrain that is far less that hospitable, and in difficult weather. That is simply part of the sport. Those of us that write rules, run contests, and call tasks work hard to make the sport as safe as practical without destroying the challenge that brought us to it in the first place.
>

That raises some questions and I would like to ask for clarification. I really would like to understand soaring competition. BUT you've convinced me that I should just "bug out". I respect your knowledge and experience, so I will take your advice and just sign off.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:20:07 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

> Personally, I don't like the regimentation that goes along with contest
> flying so I choose not to fly in contests. I flew in three contests in
> the past 25+ years, had a great time, placed all over the score sheet,
> and decided it's not for me. I like to just go somewhere and have a
> good time doing it. So, if you decide to fly in a contest at Moriarty,
> I'll tow you or fly the sniffer and mark the first thermal, but then
> I'll head off in a direction different than the task area.
>
I may have missed mention of this. but in the US or A for you allow 'hors
du concours' flying?

This is quite popular in the UK and is generally allowed at Regionals and
Inter-club League events. Translation follows in case you don't use that
term. It means that additional non-competing gliders can be added to the
rear of the grid and are launched after the competing pilots. Hors du
concours pilots will have attended the briefing and will fly the day's
task but are not scored and, IIRC do not affect the time when the gate
opens.

I think its a good thing for a qualified XC pilot to do, especially if
they are thinking about trying competition flying, because it lets them
get a feel for competing without committing to fly an entire competition
or feeling pressured into taking a launch on a poor day.

If you do this on your side of the pond it might be something that
son_of_flubber would like to try.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:22:48 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Sorry Kirk, I usually agree with you, but a poker run is no fun at all. Too
>
> many "motorcycle enthusiasts" wearing the proper costumes and spending all
>
> their time polishing their bikes. <cheezy grin> And, at the end, they
>
> usually limit you to two beers.

TWO BEERS? How can you kickstart that Harley after only two beers? Oh, I forgot, that's what your right (or left, I forget) thumb is for....

And that isn't near enough to take the pain away from the road rash...or the bitch slap you get from trying to get your biker babe to take off her top during the ride.

Kirk

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:17:56 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:

> That raises some questions and I would like to ask for clarification. I really would like to understand soaring competition. BUT you've convinced me that I should just "bug out". I respect your knowledge and experience, so I will take your advice and just sign off.

Please don't do that. Remember that this is the digital equivalent to talking about politics and religion in a bar - everyone gets to be an asshole about something!

If you are serious about learning about soaring competition - go to a contest and help out on the ground. Go to the task briefings, and talk to the pilots after the day's racing is done. Offer to crew (most of us come solo these days, thanks to GPS, grrrrr).

The beauty of a race is that you can make of it what you want. If you are still learning XC and want to push yourself a bit harder, then you can fly the tasks at your comfort level and watch how more experienced pilots do it.. It's probably the best way to develop your xc skills.

As you get better, you may find that you are faster than someone else. You may also find that you really enjoy being faster than someone else (especially if its a friend). Now you are hooked!

Try it!

Cheers

Kirk
66

[Dan Marotta]

My '81 Shovelhead has a kicker and I can start it...... Sometimes....
Other times I need the button.


"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
...
> On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:22:48 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Sorry Kirk, I usually agree with you, but a poker run is no fun at all.
>> Too
>>
>> many "motorcycle enthusiasts" wearing the proper costumes and spending
>> all
>>
>> their time polishing their bikes. <cheezy grin> And, at the end, they
>>
>> usually limit you to two beers.
>
> TWO BEERS? How can you kickstart that Harley after only two beers? Oh, I
> forgot, that's what your right (or left, I forget) thumb is for....
>
> And that isn't near enough to take the pain away from the road rash...or
> the bitch slap you get from trying to get your biker babe to take off her
> top during the ride.
>
> Kirk

[Dan Marotta]

I haven't heard of what you describe, Martin, but on this side of the pond,
non-contestants are allowed to takeoff before or after the grid. They're to
fly wherever they want. What you suggest sounds like a great idea for a
budding contest pilot to get his feet wet.


"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:20:07 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>> Personally, I don't like the regimentation that goes along with contest
>> flying so I choose not to fly in contests. I flew in three contests in
>> the past 25+ years, had a great time, placed all over the score sheet,
>> and decided it's not for me. I like to just go somewhere and have a
>> good time doing it. So, if you decide to fly in a contest at Moriarty,
>> I'll tow you or fly the sniffer and mark the first thermal, but then
>> I'll head off in a direction different than the task area.
>>
> I may have missed mention of this. but in the US or A for you allow 'hors
> du concours' flying?
>
> This is quite popular in the UK and is generally allowed at Regionals and
> Inter-club League events. Translation follows in case you don't use that
> term. It means that additional non-competing gliders can be added to the
> rear of the grid and are launched after the competing pilots. Hors du
> concours pilots will have attended the briefing and will fly the day's
> task but are not scored and, IIRC do not affect the time when the gate
> opens.
>
> I think its a good thing for a qualified XC pilot to do, especially if
> they are thinking about trying competition flying, because it lets them
> get a feel for competing without committing to fly an entire competition
> or feeling pressured into taking a launch on a poor day.
>
> If you do this on your side of the pond it might be something that
> son_of_flubber would like to try.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 4:52:14 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> My '81 Shovelhead has a kicker and I can start it...... Sometimes....
>
> Other times I need the button.

"Honey, hold my beer while I start this sucker..."

Never rode a Harley, had mucho dirt bikes and a Z1 for a while.

Still have the scars from a few "incidents".

May have to get back into (or onto) it again. The new Yamaha FZ-09 looks really sweet!

Kirk
66

[Dan Marotta]

This is really the wrong group, but... I've only been riding Harleys since
2001. I started on a BSA in '69. No scars or scabs whatsoever.

And, to link this back to flying - I've never broken an aircraft, either.


"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
...
> On Saturday, February 15, 2014 4:52:14 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> My '81 Shovelhead has a kicker and I can start it...... Sometimes....
>>
>> Other times I need the button.
>
> "Honey, hold my beer while I start this sucker..."
>
> Never rode a Harley, had mucho dirt bikes and a Z1 for a while.
>
> Still have the scars from a few "incidents".
>
> May have to get back into (or onto) it again. The new Yamaha FZ-09 looks
> really sweet!
>
> Kirk
> 66

[Sean F (F2)]

Some pics of the Lak17bfes propellers from Seminole Lake Gliderport today: https://plus.google.com/107761712519280835678/posts/EVpB6AmnCtF

[Sean Fidler]

Now that 2014 is over, the time has come to restart the discussion (with the handicap commitee) regarding the handicap calculation for FES equipped gliders (and/or perhaps the handicap debate for sustainers in general).

Right now, as I see the current FES handicaps, it appears that the only factor influencing the current FES handicap is the increase in gross weight. See the Lak17bFES compared to the pure version below. The Lak17b actually has .01 higher handicap handicap than the Lak17bFES. If a any drag was considered, the handicaps would be (at least) equal. I contend an equal handicap is still not enough, but you get the idea.

Manufacturer Model Notes Span Weight Handicap

AB Sportine Aviacija LAK-17B 18 868 0.845
AB Sportine Aviacija LAK-17B FES 18 998 0.835

Additionally, nothing about FES systems is in the SSA Handicap Calculator for example: http://www.ssa.org/ContestHandicaps?show=blog&id=175

I believe that the current FES handicapping is obviously inaccurate. The FES system comes along with a significant amount of drag (2-4% according to FES study) which of course increases dramatically at higher speeds. The nose, the large gap in the nose between the "spinner and the fuselage" and the 18 inch folding propellers themselves are significant objects which clearly disturb the very high pressure airflow. If you don't think so, please, Ill buy you some parts to tape onto the nose of your glider at the next contest so you can prove it to me ;-).

I know the handicap folks are planning on taking a look at the FES handicap.. And I know its a hard job managing handicaps. That said handicaps are becoming more and more important as we are facing more handicap classes in our future. I propose that the FES handicap needs to reflect the significant drag penalty that these gliders are carrying. Clearly, the current handicap ignores the drag and only takes into account an increase in gross weight.

On the other hand, if the counterargument of sustainers having a tactical advantage comes up, I think that is worthwhile winter banter as well. I have no personal concern other than I think the current handicap is clearly wrong, apples to apples.

The argument that the FES handicap is "not important" because few FES gliders are in the US (North America) today is simply not valid. Numerous gliders have been ordered this winter. They are coming! FES is excellent (superior IMO) sustainer technology which is becoming available on more and more gliders. It is only a matter of time before FES becomes popular and the fact that the handicap is not correct is likely adversely effecting its adoption. FES is clearly superior to traditional boom sustainer systems from a practicality and simplicity perspective.

Here are a couple videos.
Video #1 shows the flying portion of a recent study on performance impacts of FES (2-4%): http://youtu.be/o0twY9cWOUg

Video #2 shows the FES system in action from 200m: http://youtu.be/OV1AjRVFSoI

Sincerely,

Sean
7T

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

The procedure for requesting a corrected handicap is spelled out in the US contest rules. It does not start "post your complaint on rec.aviation.soaring." Have you contacted the handicap committee?
John Cochrane

[Don Kroesch (DK)]

On Friday, October 31, 2014 10:21:27 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> The procedure for requesting a corrected handicap is spelled out in the US contest rules. It does not start "post your complaint on rec.aviation.soaring." Have you contacted the handicap committee?
> John Cochrane

The Handicap Committee has been contacted. Tim McAllister the SSA Handicap Committee, Chair has emailed me that "I will put this issue on the committee's agenda as we head into the winter months and begin to look at outstanding handicap issues." This issue (for me)being the handicap for the LAK 17b FES with both 18 and 15 meter wingspans.
I am waiting for my Flight Manual from the LAK factory which should have polars for both wingspans in it. In the mean time a look at the Idafleig report found here http://www.front-electric-sustainer.com/Documents/IDAFLIEG%20test%20LAK17A%20FES_en.pdf
is very interesting. The report summery states "The results show a very small increase in aerodynamic drag due to the propeller blades in an
expectable order." However the comparison with and without the propeller blades shown in Figure 9 shows, what looks like to me, a noticeable decrease in the L/D ratios when tested with the propeller blades.*
I am looking forward to taking delivery of my LAK 17b FES this coming spring. I realize that the biggest competitive problem that I will have is not with the glider or the handicap number that the committee assigns, but with its pilot.

DK

[Sean Fidler]

I have. But I think a public discussion is also valuable in certain scenarios. There will be a lot of pressure in both directions.