FES - Take 2

[MNLou]

Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider.

For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable.

Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope?

Lou

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:27:03 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:

> Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope?

Sure it does. But who cares? Pure glider racers get all the chicks.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:27:03 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
> Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider. For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable. Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope? Lou

Of course it does for the simple reason that there are always opportunities to improve the score by adding risk to the flight. For the purpose of my comment let's assume that we are talking about risk of not completing the task and not of extending the risk to potential accident. Many times we might consider risking the flight, but don't because of the added issue of landing out and needing a retrieve, on top of getting a poor score. For crewless pilots this can be an even bigger consideration.
If I have a way to retrieve myself, and I think it will probably will work, of course I might cross that dead area. Without the retreive capability, it is a much harder decision.
Throw in high risk weather, or bad terrain, and the potential advantage is obviously increased.
Is there a way to quantify it? Not that we've found yet.
Why let them play in our races? Easy, we're too small a sport to send people home.
The guys with engines will also argue that they have to quit higher in order to safely use the engine. Obviously not so with FES.
And we even like some of them. LOL

UH

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:27:03 PM UTC-6, MNLou wrote:
> Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider. For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable. Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope? Lou

As the others have said, "OF Course it does!". Especially since you made the assumption of 100% reliability and no drag penalty. It probably does even with some drag penalty, and the existing weight penalty. But, as Hank says, you really can't put a number on confidence, and we want all the participation we can get. So, get your FES and come play!

Steve

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:04:32 PM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:27:03 PM UTC-6, MNLou wrote:
>
> > Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider. For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable. Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope? Lou
>
>
>
> As the others have said, "OF Course it does!". Especially since you made the assumption of 100% reliability and no drag penalty. It probably does even with some drag penalty, and the existing weight penalty. But, as Hank says, you really can't put a number on confidence, and we want all the participation we can get. So, get your FES and come play!
>
>
>
> Steve

Yup - what Steve and Hank said.

My personal view is that risk mitigation from a reliable power source offers more advantage than any difference in performance and improved tactical decision making from having two capable pilots in the glider can trump a fair amount of both of the two above factors. It's very hard, if not impossible to quantify the benefits of carrying a motor or an additional soaring tactician/spotter/relief pilot - so we don't try to adjust for these things for now.

9B

[noel.wade]

I will also point out that there are practical limits to how much of a benefit the sustainer can be for "stretching your glide":

Below a certain altitude, you are unlikely to catch an organized thermal AT ALL. Those super-low-altitude saves happen, but are rare and hard to pull off (and thermalling within a few hundred feet of the ground isn't just about risking a landout; you're also risking a stall/spin death - FES or not).

Above that altitude, you may find lift but you're going to be below the optimum working band so again most of the time when you stretch a glide down into this range the gamble is not going to pay off. Consistently gambling down in this range may help you win one day in a contest; but at the cost of a lower _average_ finish (for all the days that you wind up having to slowly grind your way up from this below-nominal altitude).

--Noel

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 02/13/2014 8:04 PM, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:27:03 PM UTC-6, MNLou wrote:
>> Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider. For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable. Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope? Lou
>
> As the others have said, "OF Course it does!". Especially since you made the assumption of 100% reliability and no drag penalty. It probably does even with some drag penalty, and the existing weight penalty. But, as Hank says, you really can't put a number on confidence, and we want all the participation we can get. So, get your FES and come play!
>
> Steve
>
All of the above plus the big advantage that hasn't been mentioned yet;
the mass landout scenario. Guys without motors are stuck in a field and
get home late, pilots with motors get home have a nice dinner and are
well rested for flying the next day...

Luke

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

I should stay out of this, but you know what they say,"too soon old, too late smart". Anyway, let's play one of One Tango's scenarios. Your at a nationals and flying a one turn MAT. About the time you log the mandatory turn-point, you see a Cu pop about 50 miles out in the boonies. You could probably milk enough altitude to give it a try, but if you try and don't connect...............you will be down in a rough area that doesn't even have roads. Should you go for it? Nope, the risk/reward ratio is too lopsided toward the risk side.

OK, lets put ourselves in a motor glider. How does the risk/reward ratio look now? If I connect with that tempting Cu, you could win the day. If you miss the Cu, you will crank up your trusty put-put and get distance to where I started up and still be home for a cool shower and a hot meal..........I believe you will give it a go!

I didn't dream up this scenario , it is exactly what happened at a Sports Nationals at Parowan a few years back and yes, the motor glider did win the day!

The RC thinking on this is: We know is isn't fair, but we don't have enough gliders showing up at our contests to restrict the motor glider in any way..

Question: How many don't attend a contest because they know a certain good pilot (who flies a motor glider) will be there?

I there a way to allow motor gliders to fly with pure gliders and make things a little more equal? Yes, change the rules to state: If a motor glider starts his motor, he will be landed at his last recorded turn-point before the point where he cranked up.

OK, flash back to the decision point in our little scenario. If the motor glider
tries for the Cu, he could win the day, but if it doesn't work he will loose the 50 miles he flew trying to get to the Cu. I submit the risk/reward ratio is pretty much the same for both pilots and I'd bet the motor glider pilot would have not pressed his advantage that day.
Cheers,
JJ

[Steve Koerner]

Excellent suggestion JJ! I hope that idea finds its way into the rules soon.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 2:51:32 PM UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Excellent suggestion JJ! I hope that idea finds its way into the rules soon.

JJ, your proposal might be a little over the top. Imagine a speed task with two turnpoints and a long final leg. The motorized sailplane is now doubly incentivized to finish. If he lands 5 mi short (or starts his engine) he only gets distance points to the second turnpoint, a significant reduction from the distance he has accomplished. On top of that comes the discussed-at-length final glide pressure.
I would prefer a handicap-driven correction factor for motorized sailplanes.. OLC flights worldwide are now dominated by motorized gliders for the very reasons we discussed. Earlier starts and longer flights at the day's end as well as other tactical considerations greatly advantage the motorized guy.
Herb

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 7:17:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Saturday, February 15, 2014 2:51:32 PM UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:
>
> > Excellent suggestion JJ! I hope that idea finds its way into the rules soon.
>
>
>
> JJ, your proposal might be a little over the top. Imagine a speed task with two turnpoints and a long final leg. The motorized sailplane is now doubly incentivized to finish. If he lands 5 mi short (or starts his engine) he only gets distance points to the second turnpoint, a significant reduction from the distance he has accomplished. On top of that comes the discussed-at-length final glide pressure.
>
> I would prefer a handicap-driven correction factor for motorized sailplanes. OLC flights worldwide are now dominated by motorized gliders for the very reasons we discussed. Earlier starts and longer flights at the day's end as well as other tactical considerations greatly advantage the motorized guy.
>
> Herb

If a motor glider actually lands, he gets distance to his landing spot like everyone else. Its getting distance to the point he cranks up the put-put that I find unfair. Also, am I reading the proposed rule changes correctly? Motor gliders get the 25 point bonus for NOT landing at an approved airport? Why don't we just give them the trophy and the rest of us can race to see who gets second place!

Time for the silent majority to speak up!
Cheers, JJ

[[email protected]]

On Friday, February 14, 2014 11:12:50 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> I should stay out of this, but you know what they say,"too soon old, too late smart". Anyway, let's play one of One Tango's scenarios. Your at a nationals and flying a one turn MAT. About the time you log the mandatory turn-point, you see a Cu pop about 50 miles out in the boonies. You could probably milk enough altitude to give it a try, but if you try and don't connect...............you will be down in a rough area that doesn't even have roads.. Should you go for it? Nope, the risk/reward ratio is too lopsided toward the risk side.
>
>
>
> OK, lets put ourselves in a motor glider. How does the risk/reward ratio look now? If I connect with that tempting Cu, you could win the day. If you miss the Cu, you will crank up your trusty put-put and get distance to where I started up and still be home for a cool shower and a hot meal...........I believe you will give it a go!
>
>
>
> I didn't dream up this scenario , it is exactly what happened at a Sports Nationals at Parowan a few years back and yes, the motor glider did win the day!
>
>
>
> The RC thinking on this is: We know is isn't fair, but we don't have enough gliders showing up at our contests to restrict the motor glider in any way.
>
>
>
> Question: How many don't attend a contest because they know a certain good pilot (who flies a motor glider) will be there?
>
>
>
> I there a way to allow motor gliders to fly with pure gliders and make things a little more equal? Yes, change the rules to state: If a motor glider starts his motor, he will be landed at his last recorded turn-point before the point where he cranked up.
>
>
>
> OK, flash back to the decision point in our little scenario. If the motor glider
>
> tries for the Cu, he could win the day, but if it doesn't work he will loose the 50 miles he flew trying to get to the Cu. I submit the risk/reward ratio is pretty much the same for both pilots and I'd bet the motor glider pilot would have not pressed his advantage that day.
>
> Cheers,
>
> JJ

JJ, what about this? You both go of course to a nice looking cloud. You both make it there except the lift is only half a knot. You climb away but the motor glider lands there (starts the motor) as he was to heavy to use the lift. Then you go to the next cloud and get 5 kts. You are screaming home while the motor glider's day is over. What about hauling all that extra weight on marginal days.

There are cons and pros to motor glider. Please don't make it one side of the story only. Sometimes a motor glider has an edge sometimes a pure glider has an edge.

AK

[waremark]

One factor not yet mentioned is that competition rules will drive pilots' choice of new gliders. A large proportion of new glider sales (in Europe at least) are to competition pilots who want the machine which will be most competitive - for those not bothered about competition, much better value is available from the previous generation of machines. Currently, a high proportion of new gliders are fitted with engines - if the rules change to make engines less attractive for competition pilots that will also change. Personally, I love having an engine, so I think that would be a pity.

Mark Burton, London Gliding Club, UK

On Friday, 14 February 2014 00:27:03 UTC, MNLou wrote:
> Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider.
>
>
>
> For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable.
>
>
>
> Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope?
>
>
>
> Lou

[Steve Koerner]

Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

[kirk.stant]

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

[waremark]

What makes you say motorgliders crash more?

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 09:08 17 February 2014, waremark wrote:
>What makes you say motorgliders crash more?
>
In the words of Watty "There is no crash like a turbo crash"

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

The proposed rule change allows a MG to claim an airport bonus without actually overflying the bonus airport. The new rule only requires he show that he had sufficient altitude to glide to the approved airport, at the time of engine start. The airport bonus is given as an incentive to land at a safe airport and not attempt a shaky glide towards the next turn point. Question; What if the engine doesn't start? Not an uncommon occurrence out west where high altitude cold-soaks the engine. If the engine didn't start as the MG overflew the bonus airport, it would be a non event. If the engine fails to start half way down final glide...................?

Doesn't the proposed rule change negate the reason for giving an airport bonus in the first place?
:>) JJ

[[email protected]]

On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:40:22 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> The proposed rule change allows a MG to claim an airport bonus without actually overflying the bonus airport. The new rule only requires he show that he had sufficient altitude to glide to the approved airport, at the time of engine start. The airport bonus is given as an incentive to land at a safe airport and not attempt a shaky glide towards the next turn point. Question; What if the engine doesn't start? Not an uncommon occurrence out west where high altitude cold-soaks the engine. If the engine didn't start as the MG overflew the bonus airport, it would be a non event. If the engine fails to start half way down final glide...................? Doesn't the proposed rule change negate the reason for giving an airport bonus in the first place? :>) JJ

Nope- The airport bonus is a scoring incentive to encourage pilots to land safely at an airport instead of gliding on to land in a field to get more distance points.
UH

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Monday, February 17, 2014 6:00:24 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:40:22 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
> > The proposed rule change allows a MG to claim an airport bonus without actually overflying the bonus airport. The new rule only requires he show that he had sufficient altitude to glide to the approved airport, at the time of engine start. The airport bonus is given as an incentive to land at a safe airport and not attempt a shaky glide towards the next turn point. Question; What if the engine doesn't start? Not an uncommon occurrence out west where high altitude cold-soaks the engine. If the engine didn't start as the MG overflew the bonus airport, it would be a non event. If the engine fails to start half way down final glide...................? Doesn't the proposed rule change negate the reason for giving an airport bonus in the first place? :>) JJ
>
>
>
> Nope- The airport bonus is a scoring incentive to encourage pilots to land safely at an airport instead of gliding on to land in a field to get more distance points.
>
>

OK, the MG "glides on" to get more distance points, but gets an airport bonus anyway................. What it his engine doesn't start? Just trying to understand the RC thinking.
JJ

[[email protected]]

On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:07:43 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> On Monday, February 17, 2014 6:00:24 AM UTC-8, wrote: > On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:40:22 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote: > > > The proposed rule change allows a MG to claim an airport bonus without actually overflying the bonus airport. The new rule only requires he show that he had sufficient altitude to glide to the approved airport, at the time of engine start. The airport bonus is given as an incentive to land at a safe airport and not attempt a shaky glide towards the next turn point. Question; What if the engine doesn't start? Not an uncommon occurrence out west where high altitude cold-soaks the engine. If the engine didn't start as the MG overflew the bonus airport, it would be a non event. If the engine fails to start half way down final glide...................? Doesn't the proposed rule change negate the reason for giving an airport bonus in the first place? :>) JJ > > > > Nope- The airport bonus is a scoring incentive to encourage pilots to land safely at an airport instead of gliding on to land in a field to get more distance points. > > OK, the MG "glides on" to get more distance points, but gets an airport bonus anyway................. What it his engine doesn't start? Just trying to understand the RC thinking. JJ

MG has to do engine start within prescribed distance of the airport and he is effectively landed there as if he was a glider, as I understand it.
He doesn't get more distance, but does have the benefit of the bonus and avoiding a retrieve.
I would have pushed back hard on this, buit don't serve on the RC any more.
Grumpy
UH

[[email protected]]

Is this glide angle calculated with the motor out, prop windmilling but the engine failed to start (ie a giant spoiler, coming down like a lead weight), or as a pure glider? Is there a different calculation for gliders with jet engines? Would make a hell of a difference to the implied motor glider bonus in the real world.



On Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:27:03 PM UTC-7, MNLou wrote:
> Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider.
>
>
>
> For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable.
>
>
>
> Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope?
>
>
>
> Lou

[[email protected]]

>
> He doesn't get more distance, but does have the benefit of the bonus and avoiding a retrieve.
>
> I would have pushed back hard on this, buit don't serve on the RC any more.
>
> Grumpy
>
> UH

The rule: MG can get a 25 point airport bonus if he starts his engine within 2 miles of a qualifying airport AND at 1,000 feet AGL or greater. If you want to pull out your engine on final, you won't get the bonus.

Why? The airport bonus for regular gliders is designed as a mild safety incentive. It usually works out that you are better off stopping if you're below about 1,500' rather than glide straight in to a field like the good old days.

The MG pilots made a persuasive case that the same safety incentive should be offered to them. Rather than, as JJ suggests, glide straight over unlandable terrain and pull out the iron horse at 200', 25 points suggests that you deviate towards an airport, and pull out the engine at a reasonable altitude. The latter decision especially has been the cause of many MG accidents.

Now, before everyone goes all safety-nazi and "legislate safety" on me, recall we do this for regular gliders. If you accept the principle of a small points bonus for deviating to an airport for regular gliders, it certainly makes sense to offer it to motor gliders. If you don't accept the principle, then it makes sense to abolish the airport bonus for all gliders.

Why not do it? As UH points out, MG "avoid a retrieve." Resistance to the MG bonus came mostly from pilots who see that MG have a definite competitive advantage in avoiding the exhaustion of retrieves, and denying them the bonus is a back door way to sneak in a little bit of a MG handicap penalty.

But that really doesn't make sense. Our official philosophy is we handicap based on aerodynamics. A uniform 1-2% handicap for a motor to offset this no-landout advantage might make sense, but then let's do it forthrightly and openly, not by means of the airport landing bonus. Also, MG could get the bonus by landing. Self-launchers could then take off and avoid the retrieve.. So the "penalty" only applied to turbos.

In sum: it surely makes sense to offer the same airport landing incentive to motor operation that we do to non-motor operations. And if it makes sense to add 1-2% handicap for retrieve avoidance, let's do that out in the open as a separate issue.

The one snag that our discussion brought up: Airport databases are incomplete, many "airports" are nonexistent or unsafe, and coordinates are not always accurate. For this rule, and many other reasons, paying a little bit of attention to the outlanding database before contests makes a lot of sense.


John Cochrane

[JS]

Great points! Sometimes the Winter months provide good RAS posts.
(Warning, I don't fly contests but have flown plenty of SLSP and currently own a "pure" sailplane)
Agree that the point of avoiding long retrieves with a late return is good for everyone, whether by the old fashioned chase crew on the entire task or by landing or climbing over a nice safe airport.
Another twist: How do you handicap non-MGs on weak days when a pure sailplane can dump ballast? Getting rid of the engine and fuel weight is impossible in flight.
Possibly you've already found a fair solution?
Jim

[Tony[_5_]]

While we're at it maybe pilots with crews should get a penalty in their handicap too. After all having a dedicated crew gives them an obvious but unmeasurable advantage over their crewless peers and thats just unfair!

[[email protected]]

> Another twist: How do you handicap non-MGs on weak days when a pure sailplane can dump ballast? Getting rid of the engine and fuel weight is impossible in flight.
>
> Possibly you've already found a fair solution?
>
> Jim

Actually, if you look at the handicap tables, it goes the other way. The scratch handicaps adjust for empty weight, so the turbo and motor versions of the same glider pay a handicap penalty, typically 0.01 (Discus 2: 0.91 Discus 2T 0.90). When conditions are strong, ok, but as you point out they can't dump it. If you think this is stronger than deserved, then you have the little anti-motor handicap you're looking for.

John Cochrane

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, February 17, 2014 12:48:35 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > Another twist: How do you handicap non-MGs on weak days when a pure sailplane can dump ballast? Getting rid of the engine and fuel weight is impossible in flight. > > Possibly you've already found a fair solution?

Or another answer to what John provided: Have you ever seen a day so weak that a non-motorized version of an otherwise IDENTICAL plane can stay up when the motorized one with an equaly experienced pilot can not stay up? And not just stay up, but climb and be able to move along?

Yes, I know there is a weight penalty. Which increases the sink rate and speed at which that sink rate happens. But, we are talking of 3-4 knots in thermalling speed, and probably less than 25 ft/min change in sink rate. Pilot technique can mask that pretty easily.

And to be totally honest, the only one ever happy with the handicap is the guy or gal on top of the scoresheet at the end of the contest. Handciaps are set based on a series of assumptions about the weather. Unless you want to really make everyone mad and change the handicaps every day based on either forecast or results submitted, I think that the system in place right now is pretty good. If there are adjustments that need to be made on the handicapping, please contact the Contest Board and the Hadicapping Committee.. Info available from ssa.org.

Steve Leonard

[waremark]

On Monday, 17 February 2014 19:40:33 UTC, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Monday, February 17, 2014 12:48:35 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>
> > > Another twist: How do you handicap non-MGs on weak days when a pure sailplane can dump ballast? Getting rid of the engine and fuel weight is impossible in flight. > > Possibly you've already found a fair solution?
>
>
>
> Or another answer to what John provided: Have you ever seen a day so weak that a non-motorized version of an otherwise IDENTICAL plane can stay up when the motorized one with an equaly experienced pilot can not stay up? And not just stay up, but climb and be able to move along?
>
>
>
> Yes, I know there is a weight penalty. Which increases the sink rate and speed at which that sink rate happens. But, we are talking of 3-4 knots in thermalling speed, and probably less than 25 ft/min change in sink rate. Pilot technique can mask that pretty easily.
>
>
>
> And to be totally honest, the only one ever happy with the handicap is the guy or gal on top of the scoresheet at the end of the contest. Handciaps are set based on a series of assumptions about the weather. Unless you want to really make everyone mad and change the handicaps every day based on either forecast or results submitted, I think that the system in place right now is pretty good. If there are adjustments that need to be made on the handicapping, please contact the Contest Board and the Hadicapping Committee. Info available from ssa.org.
>
>
>
> Steve Leonard

So to recap, unless I have missed something, a glider with an engine has two disadvantages - it cannot fly light for when conditions are weak (can be relevant where I fly, and can make an enormous difference to scores on a very weak day) and if flown by a cautious/prudent pilot it will abandon the task higher than a pure glider will commit to a field landing. It has one big advantage - that the pilot will not have to cope with late and tiring retrieves. As mentioned the extent of benefit or disadvantage for each difference will depend entirely on conditions. I don't believe there could be a fair way to adjust handicap ratings.

If motor glider handicap ratings were adjusted adversely I suspect keen pilots flying handicapped comps would take their engines out.

BTW, I fly a self-launcher in Regionals in the UK. The rules say the engine must be off not more than 100 feet above designated launch height. Obviously one wants to leave a little safety margin, and cooling and putting the engine away can cost significantly more than 100 feet. This is a high workload and stressful start to a competition flight, although it is not likely to affect the results. On the other hand, when I needed a relight, the ability to taxi back to the launch point was a significant advantage (once at the launch point you obviously have to wait for your place in the grid before relaunching).

Mark Burton

[RW[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates..
>
> Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.
>
> While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.
>
> Kirk
> LS6 66

no

[RW[_2_]]

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:52:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:27:03 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
> > Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider. For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable. Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope? Lou
>
> Of course it does for the simple reason that there are always opportunities to improve the score by adding risk to the flight. For the purpose of my comment let's assume that we are talking about risk of not completing the task and not of extending the risk to potential accident. Many times we might consider risking the flight, but don't because of the added issue of landing out and needing a retrieve, on top of getting a poor score. For crewless pilots this can be an even bigger consideration.
> If I have a way to retrieve myself, and I think it will probably will work, of course I might cross that dead area. Without the retreive capability, it is a much harder decision.
> Throw in high risk weather, or bad terrain, and the potential advantage is obviously increased.
> Is there a way to quantify it? Not that we've found yet.
> Why let them play in our races? Easy, we're too small a sport to send people home.
> The guys with engines will also argue that they have to quit higher in order to safely use the engine. Obviously not so with FES.
> And we even like some of them. LOL
>
> UH

Yes, and few years later pure glider pilots will be considered kamikaze.
We have to change this before our grandchildren can ask us about it !

[RW[_2_]]

On Friday, February 14, 2014 10:25:35 AM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> On 02/13/2014 8:04 PM, Steve Leonard wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:27:03 PM UTC-6, MNLou wrote:
> >> Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider. For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable. Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope? Lou
> >
> > As the others have said, "OF Course it does!". Especially since you made the assumption of 100% reliability and no drag penalty. It probably does even with some drag penalty, and the existing weight penalty. But, as Hank says, you really can't put a number on confidence, and we want all the participation we can get. So, get your FES and come play!
> >
> > Steve
> >
> All of the above plus the big advantage that hasn't been mentioned yet;
> the mass landout scenario. Guys without motors are stuck in a field and
> get home late, pilots with motors get home have a nice dinner and are
> well rested for flying the next day...
>
> Luke
I agree with all you guys.
In 10 years we all will be considered as kamikazee(to our grandchildren).
Lets try to minimize it ,and let FEZ guys make a kit for FEZ.
We could start in less restrictive land first, in US (our gurus like Hank,know how to make it legally)
He and I would like to put battery in the wings(I just put my word in his mouth).
Rest is FES company to think about.
For slow thinkers: here in US we can have some smart guys(like UH) to try implement it in gliders in US has now,and later EASA will see our 1-3 record and will adopt.
Luca trust me.
keRW
FES in existing gliders

[RW[_2_]]

On Friday, February 14, 2014 11:12:50 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> I should stay out of this, but you know what they say,"too soon old, too late smart". Anyway, let's play one of One Tango's scenarios. Your at a nationals and flying a one turn MAT. About the time you log the mandatory turn-point, you see a Cu pop about 50 miles out in the boonies. You could probably milk enough altitude to give it a try, but if you try and don't connect...............you will be down in a rough area that doesn't even have roads.. Should you go for it? Nope, the risk/reward ratio is too lopsided toward the risk side.
>
> OK, lets put ourselves in a motor glider. How does the risk/reward ratio look now? If I connect with that tempting Cu, you could win the day. If you miss the Cu, you will crank up your trusty put-put and get distance to where I started up and still be home for a cool shower and a hot meal...........I believe you will give it a go!
>
> I didn't dream up this scenario , it is exactly what happened at a Sports Nationals at Parowan a few years back and yes, the motor glider did win the day!
>
> The RC thinking on this is: We know is isn't fair, but we don't have enough gliders showing up at our contests to restrict the motor glider in any way.
>
> Question: How many don't attend a contest because they know a certain good pilot (who flies a motor glider) will be there?
>
> I there a way to allow motor gliders to fly with pure gliders and make things a little more equal? Yes, change the rules to state: If a motor glider starts his motor, he will be landed at his last recorded turn-point before the point where he cranked up.
>
> OK, flash back to the decision point in our little scenario. If the motor glider
> tries for the Cu, he could win the day, but if it doesn't work he will loose the 50 miles he flew trying to get to the Cu. I submit the risk/reward ratio is pretty much the same for both pilots and I'd bet the motor glider pilot would have not pressed his advantage that day.
> Cheers,
> JJ

There is only 3% chance that 50km away cu will give you **** when you get there.
keRW

[RW[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:11:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

Only because we are all looking for ways to make it safer,
now FES is on the table and we all think,it could be a bit safer.
keRW

[RW[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:11:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

System for coming safe home implemented ,is the only way to sustain our sport.

[RW[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates..
>
> Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.
>
> While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.
>
> Kirk
> LS6 66

Kirk, I fly SZD55 and my lows are usually 3 times lower than motor-glides,or sustainer gliders.I think you are wrong.
One day we will all have a way to come home safe and fast,maybe FES is the answer.
keRW

[RW[_2_]]

On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:00:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:40:22 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> > The proposed rule change allows a MG to claim an airport bonus without actually overflying the bonus airport. The new rule only requires he show that he had sufficient altitude to glide to the approved airport, at the time of engine start. The airport bonus is given as an incentive to land at a safe airport and not attempt a shaky glide towards the next turn point. Question; What if the engine doesn't start? Not an uncommon occurrence out west where high altitude cold-soaks the engine. If the engine didn't start as the MG overflew the bonus airport, it would be a non event. If the engine fails to start half way down final glide...................? Doesn't the proposed rule change negate the reason for giving an airport bonus in the first place? :>) JJ
>
> Nope- The airport bonus is a scoring incentive to encourage pilots to land safely at an airport instead of gliding on to land in a field to get more distance points.
> UH

Hank,you're wrong.g
With current rules it is better to risk to damage glider and land out just 2 miles off field than coming home from same position with only 200 ft extra on final.
You get more points this way(look at last day of club class nat in Mifflin,I made my point to prove it)
keRW

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:32:22 AM UTC-4, RW wrote:
> On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:00:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:40:22 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> > > The proposed rule change allows a MG to claim an airport bonus without actually overflying the bonus airport. The new rule only requires he show that he had sufficient altitude to glide to the approved airport, at the time of engine start. The airport bonus is given as an incentive to land at a safe airport and not attempt a shaky glide towards the next turn point. Question; What if the engine doesn't start? Not an uncommon occurrence out west where high altitude cold-soaks the engine. If the engine didn't start as the MG overflew the bonus airport, it would be a non event. If the engine fails to start half way down final glide...................? Doesn't the proposed rule change negate the reason for giving an airport bonus in the first place? :>) JJ
> >
> > Nope- The airport bonus is a scoring incentive to encourage pilots to land safely at an airport instead of gliding on to land in a field to get more distance points.
> > UH
>
> Hank,you're wrong.g
> With current rules it is better to risk to damage glider and land out just 2 miles off field than coming home from same position with only 200 ft extra on final.
> You get more points this way(look at last day of club class nat in Mifflin,I made my point to prove it)
> keRW

Argh. I'm not ready for Winter.

T8

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:27:03 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
> Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider.
>
> For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable.
>
> Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope?
>
> Lou

As a competition sustainer pilot, would I go for that Cu 50mi away over unlandable terrain? Nope. Never! And Darwin's theory of Natural Selection will eventually catch up to those who would.

[Dan Marotta]

If I had a self launcher, I could live somewhere other than near a
glider port.

Dan Marotta

On 10/27/2014 10:05 PM, RW wrote:
> On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:52:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:27:03 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
>>> Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider. For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable. Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope? Lou
>> Of course it does for the simple reason that there are always opportunities to improve the score by adding risk to the flight. For the purpose of my comment let's assume that we are talking about risk of not completing the task and not of extending the risk to potential accident. Many times we might consider risking the flight, but don't because of the added issue of landing out and needing a retrieve, on top of getting a poor score. For crewless pilots this can be an even bigger consideration.
>> If I have a way to retrieve myself, and I think it will probably will work, of course I might cross that dead area. Without the retreive capability, it is a much harder decision.
>> Throw in high risk weather, or bad terrain, and the potential advantage is obviously increased.
>> Is there a way to quantify it? Not that we've found yet.
>> Why let them play in our races? Easy, we're too small a sport to send people home.
>> The guys with engines will also argue that they have to quit higher in order to safely use the engine. Obviously not so with FES.
>> And we even like some of them. LOL
>>
>> UH
> Yes, and few years later pure glider pilots will be considered kamikaze.
> We have to change this before our grandchildren can ask us about it !

[JS]

Hahaaaa!
I'm not ready for winter either.
Jim


On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:15:42 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> If I had a self launcher, I could live
> somewhere other than near a glider port.
>
> Dan Marotta

[kirk.stant]

On Monday, October 27, 2014 11:00:11 PM UTC-5, RW wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > > Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.
> >
> > Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.
> >
> > While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.
> >
> > Kirk
> > LS6 66
>
> no

RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!

Otherwise, no, yes.

Kirk
66

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:20:04 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > > Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.
> >
> > Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.
> >
> > While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.
> >
> > Kirk
> > LS6 66
>
> Kirk, I fly SZD55 and my lows are usually 3 times lower than motor-glides,or sustainer gliders.I think you are wrong.
> One day we will all have a way to come home safe and fast,maybe FES is the answer.
> keRW

All that says is that you are either a more aggressive pilot, or pilots who buy sustainer gliders have a higher "knock it off" threshold due to their greater investment, or that perhaps they bought sustainers so that they don't have to have white-nuckle saves.

We are talking about racing pilots on racing tasks in essentially identically performing gliders.

So please explain why you think I'm wrong.

Cheers,

Kirk
Ls6-b 66 (w/o sustainer)

[Paul B[_2_]]

Assuming both pilots are over a lendable terrain, the motorglider will have to abort higher as it takes much longer to extract the motor and start it. If it does not start, you have a very large airbrake out and that affects performance and hence your landing options. So if the two pilots accept similar level of risk, the one with the motor will break off earlier.

Cheers

Paul


On Saturday, 1 November 2014 03:26:36 UTC+10, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Monday, October 27, 2014 11:00:11 PM UTC-5, RW wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > > > Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.
> > >
> > > Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.
> > >
> > > While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > > LS6 66
> >
> > no
>
> RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!
>
> Otherwise, no, yes.
>
> Kirk
> 66



On Saturday, 1 November 2014 03:26:36 UTC+10, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Monday, October 27, 2014 11:00:11 PM UTC-5, RW wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > > > Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.
> > >
> > > Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.
> > >
> > > While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > > LS6 66
> >
> > no
>
> RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!
>
> Otherwise, no, yes.
>
> Kirk
> 66

[Ramy[_2_]]

The one with the motor has one more option if he doesn't want to give up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also land and relight if he is too low to start the engine.

Ramy

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Ramy wrote, On 10/31/2014 8:06 PM:
> The one with the motor has one more option if he doesn't want to give
> up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also land and
> relight if he is too low to start the engine.

Not an option in the "sustainer" context of this thread, unless there is
a tow plane there.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[[email protected]]

On Friday, October 31, 2014 10:50:22 PM UTC-4, Paul B wrote:
> ... motorglider will have to abort higher as it takes much longer to extract >the motor and start it. If it does not start, you have a very large airbrake out >and that affects performance and hence your landing options.

Not in the "FES" aspect of this thread...

[Dan Marotta]

Have you seen the video of the LAK-17b FES self-launching? Just keep
the tail wheel on the ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0288vzCSHI

Dan Marotta

On 10/31/2014 11:26 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Ramy wrote, On 10/31/2014 8:06 PM:
>> The one with the motor has one more option if he doesn't want to give
>> up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also land and
>> relight if he is too low to start the engine.
>
> Not an option in the "sustainer" context of this thread, unless there
> is a tow plane there.
>
>

[J9]

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:49:44 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> Sure it does. But who cares? Pure glider racers get all the chicks.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Right on, Evan! Engines are not sexy. Besides, it's no fun if you don't have a good retrieve story every once in a while.

J9 (aka SM Ground)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dan Marotta wrote, On 11/1/2014 9:30 AM:
> Have you seen the video of the LAK-17b FES self-launching? Just keep
> the tail wheel on the ground.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0288vzCSHI
>
> Dan Marotta
>
> On 10/31/2014 11:26 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Ramy wrote, On 10/31/2014 8:06 PM:
>>> The one with the motor has one more option if he doesn't want to give
>>> up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also land and
>>> relight if he is too low to start the engine.
>>
>> Not an option in the "sustainer" context of this thread, unless there
>> is a tow plane there.

Would it work at the airports in the Moriarty area in the afternoon on a
contest day? :^( Probably not!

But true, in some situations, self-launching would be an option, and
some motorglider pilots do operate that way, even when they aren't in a
contest.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[Dan Marotta]

I don't see why it wouldn't work at Moriarty. There's no degradation in
performance other than that pesky true airspeed thing (prop and wings)
and we have 7,000' x 75' to do your acceleration plus plenty of wind to
help with IAS. I keep trying to convince Renny to do it but, so far,
he's demurred.

Dan Marotta

On 11/1/2014 11:27 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Dan Marotta wrote, On 11/1/2014 9:30 AM:
>> Have you seen the video of the LAK-17b FES self-launching? Just keep
>> the tail wheel on the ground.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0288vzCSHI
>>
>> Dan Marotta
>>
>> On 10/31/2014 11:26 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>> Ramy wrote, On 10/31/2014 8:06 PM:
>>>> The one with the motor has one more option if he doesn't want to give
>>>> up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also land and
>>>> relight if he is too low to start the engine.
>>>
>>> Not an option in the "sustainer" context of this thread, unless there
>>> is a tow plane there.
>
> Would it work at the airports in the Moriarty area in the afternoon on
> a contest day? :^( Probably not!
>
> But true, in some situations, self-launching would be an option, and
> some motorglider pilots do operate that way, even when they aren't in
> a contest.
>

[John Firth[_4_]]

SLS s crash more often? Where do you get the statistics?
Les us see them!

JMF

t 02:50 01 November 2014, Paul B wrote:
>Assuming both pilots are over a lendable terrain, the motorglider will
>have=
> to abort higher as it takes much longer to extract the motor and start
>it.=
> If it does not start, you have a very large airbrake out and that
affects
>=
>performance and hence your landing options. So if the two pilots accept
>sim=
>ilar level of risk, the one with the motor will break off earlier.
>
>Cheers=20
>
>Paul
>
>
>On Saturday, 1 November 2014 03:26:36 UTC+10, kirk.stant wrote:
>> On Monday, October 27, 2014 11:00:11 PM UTC-5, RW wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
>> > > > Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many
>glide=
>rs sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud,
>unreliable=
>, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or
>w=
>hatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition
>a=
>dvantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash
a
>=
>lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance
>r=
>ates.
>> > >=20
>> > > Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There
is
>=
>a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and
>motorglider=
>s. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not
>b=
>eing as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a
>"get=
>-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the
>n=
>ewer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a
>pur=
>e glider" argument.
>> > >=20
>> > > While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the
>L=
>ottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a
>self-launchi=
>ng glider.
>> > >=20
>> > > Kirk
>> > > LS6 66
>> >=20
>> > no
>>=20
>> RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!
>>=20
>> Otherwise, no, yes.
>>=20
>> Kirk
>> 66
>
>
>
>On Saturday, 1 November 2014 03:26:36 UTC+10, kirk.stant wrote:
>> On Monday, October 27, 2014 11:00:11 PM UTC-5, RW wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
>> > > > Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many
>glide=
>rs sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud,
>unreliable=
>, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or
>w=
>hatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition
>a=
>dvantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash
a
>=
>lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance
>r=
>ates.
>> > >=20
>> > > Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There
is
>=
>a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and
>motorglider=
>s. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not
>b=
>eing as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a
>"get=
>-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the
>n=
>ewer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a
>pur=
>e glider" argument.
>> > >=20
>> > > While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the
>L=
>ottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a
>self-launchi=
>ng glider.
>> > >=20
>> > > Kirk
>> > > LS6 66
>> >=20
>> > no
>>=20
>> RW, would you care to expand your answer a bit? It's a bit cryptic!
>>=20
>> Otherwise, no, yes.
>>=20
>> Kirk
>> 66
>

[[email protected]]

Well, I do believe my LAK-17B FES could take off at Moriarty under its own power, especially on a cool morning, but I will not use it for take-off for several reasons including:

1. On page 2-7 of the Flight Manual it says:
"LAK-17B FES is sailplane with Front Electric Sustainer system and is prohibited from taking off solely by the means of its own power."

2. There are 3 towplanes at Sundance Aviation at Moriarty and I do believe it is critically important to try to support one's local soaring FBO (and our local tow pilots like Dan)!

3. At full charge I can run the FES for approximately one hour. That should get me theoretically 60 miles late in the day. Even if I could self-launch, I do want to save every "volt" in case I need to self-retrieve.

Finally, that video of the self-launching LAK-17B FES is actually my ship and it was taken in Lithuania just prior to it being shipped to the US in late 2011, so we know that it can be done, but for the reasons above, I have chosen not to....and there you have it!

Thanks - Renny

On Saturday, November 1, 2014 5:30:20 PM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I don't see why it wouldn't work at
> Moriarty.* There's no degradation in performance other than that
> pesky true airspeed thing (prop and wings) and we have 7,000'* x
> 75' to do your acceleration plus plenty of wind to help with IAS.*
> I keep trying to convince Renny to do it but, so far, he's
> demurred.
> Dan Marotta
> On 11/1/2014 11:27 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>
> Dan
> Marotta wrote, On 11/1/2014 9:30 AM:
>
>
> Have you seen the video of the LAK-17b FES
> self-launching?* Just keep
>
>
> the tail wheel on the ground.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0288vzCSHI
>
>
>
>
> Dan Marotta
>
>
>
>
> On 10/31/2014 11:26 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>
> Ramy wrote, On 10/31/2014 8:06 PM:
>
>
> The one with the motor has one more
> option if he doesn't want to give
>
>
> up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also
> land and
>
>
> relight if he is too low to start the engine.
>
>
>
>
>
> Not an option in the "sustainer" context of this thread,
> unless there
>
>
> is a tow plane there.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Would it work at the airports in the Moriarty area in the
> afternoon on a contest day? :^(* Probably not!
>
>
>
>
> But true, in some situations, self-launching would be an option,
> and some motorglider pilots do operate that way, even when they
> aren't in a contest.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dan Marotta wrote, On 11/1/2014 4:30 PM:
> I don't see why it wouldn't work at Moriarty. There's no degradation in
> performance other than that pesky true airspeed thing (prop and wings)
> and we have 7,000' x 75' to do your acceleration plus plenty of wind to
> help with IAS. I keep trying to convince Renny to do it but, so far,
> he's demurred.

The contest scenario would have you landing away from Moriarty, later in
the afternoon when it's the hottest, likely at an airport that's not
nearly so long. So there you are, density altitude of 10,000'+ with
5000' of runway, maybe some cross wind, some sink, and how much climb do
you have?

Another consideration, as Renny points out, is all that energy used to
self-launch won't be available for getting home. The FES unit is a
powerful sustainer, but it's still a very limited self-launch
motorglider. For example, it's practical to self-launch in my ASH 26 E,
and still count on a 250 mile retrieve, just with the 4 gallon fuselage
tank.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[Paul B[_2_]]

On Sunday, 2 November 2014 00:45:49 UTC+10, wrote:
> On Friday, October 31, 2014 10:50:22 PM UTC-4, Paul B wrote:
> > ... motorglider will have to abort higher as it takes much longer to extract >the motor and start it. If it does not start, you have a very large airbrake out >and that affects performance and hence your landing options.
>
> Not in the "FES" aspect of this thread...

Agreed, my response was an explanation why the SZD-55 driver had lower break off points than the motor / sustainers gliders, which I think Kirk was questioning.

Paul

[Dan Marotta]

Awwww... C'mon, Renny. Let me do it! I'll bring it back in one
piece... Mostly... I think...

Dan Marotta

On 11/1/2014 6:03 PM, wrote:
> Well, I do believe my LAK-17B FES could take off at Moriarty under its own power, especially on a cool morning, but I will not use it for take-off for several reasons including:
>
> 1. On page 2-7 of the Flight Manual it says:
> "LAK-17B FES is sailplane with Front Electric Sustainer system and is prohibited from taking off solely by the means of its own power."
>
> 2. There are 3 towplanes at Sundance Aviation at Moriarty and I do believe it is critically important to try to support one's local soaring FBO (and our local tow pilots like Dan)!
>
> 3. At full charge I can run the FES for approximately one hour. That should get me theoretically 60 miles late in the day. Even if I could self-launch, I do want to save every "volt" in case I need to self-retrieve.
>
> Finally, that video of the self-launching LAK-17B FES is actually my ship and it was taken in Lithuania just prior to it being shipped to the US in late 2011, so we know that it can be done, but for the reasons above, I have chosen not to....and there you have it!
>
> Thanks - Renny
>
> On Saturday, November 1, 2014 5:30:20 PM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> I don't see why it wouldn't work at
>> Moriarty. There's no degradation in performance other than that
>> pesky true airspeed thing (prop and wings) and we have 7,000' x
>> 75' to do your acceleration plus plenty of wind to help with IAS.
>> I keep trying to convince Renny to do it but, so far, he's
>> demurred.
>> Dan Marotta
>> On 11/1/2014 11:27 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dan
>> Marotta wrote, On 11/1/2014 9:30 AM:
>>
>>
>> Have you seen the video of the LAK-17b FES
>> self-launching? Just keep
>>
>>
>> the tail wheel on the ground.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0288vzCSHI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dan Marotta
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/31/2014 11:26 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ramy wrote, On 10/31/2014 8:06 PM:
>>
>>
>> The one with the motor has one more
>> option if he doesn't want to give
>>
>>
>> up too early, assuming he is near an airport he can also
>> land and
>>
>>
>> relight if he is too low to start the engine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not an option in the "sustainer" context of this thread,
>> unless there
>>
>>
>> is a tow plane there.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Would it work at the airports in the Moriarty area in the
>> afternoon on a contest day? :^( Probably not!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But true, in some situations, self-launching would be an option,
>> and some motorglider pilots do operate that way, even when they
>> aren't in a contest.

[kirk.stant]

On Sunday, November 2, 2014 1:21:54 AM UTC-5, Paul B wrote:

> Agreed, my response was an explanation why the SZD-55 driver had lower break off points than the motor / sustainers gliders, which I think Kirk was questioning.
>
> Paul

And again, why would an FES (or jet, or even a classic "turbo") sustainer have a higher break off point than a pure glider? You would still look for lift until it became obvious that the day was over, then while setting up a pattern, fire up the sustainer and either fly away, or land - and the drag of an extended sustainer (and the workload of starting it) is nowhere near that of an SLS.

So what penalty, other than the drag of the FES system (not present in classic "turbos" or jets) does a sustainer suffer over a pure glider? Weight? Does that mean that skinny pilots should be penalized over fat (ahem, "mature") pilots? Especially in "no-ballast" contests, the difference in wingloading is more affected by the "beer ballast" that the presence or lack of a sustainer!

Kirk
LS6 "66"
Happy at my 8psf dry wingloading!
I'll have another Stag, please...

[jfitch]

On Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:22:41 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 1:21:54 AM UTC-5, Paul B wrote:
>
> > Agreed, my response was an explanation why the SZD-55 driver had lower break off points than the motor / sustainers gliders, which I think Kirk was questioning.
> >
> > Paul
>
> And again, why would an FES (or jet, or even a classic "turbo") sustainer have a higher break off point than a pure glider? You would still look for lift until it became obvious that the day was over, then while setting up a pattern, fire up the sustainer and either fly away, or land - and the drag of an extended sustainer (and the workload of starting it) is nowhere near that of an SLS.
>
> So what penalty, other than the drag of the FES system (not present in classic "turbos" or jets) does a sustainer suffer over a pure glider? Weight? Does that mean that skinny pilots should be penalized over fat (ahem, "mature") pilots? Especially in "no-ballast" contests, the difference in wingloading is more affected by the "beer ballast" that the presence or lack of a sustainer!
>
> Kirk
> LS6 "66"
> Happy at my 8psf dry wingloading!
> I'll have another Stag, please...

To understand why an auxiliary powered glider has a higher break off point you would need to fly one for awhile. The pilot workload when low is significantly increased by the decisions and mechanics of the power plant. Perhaps less so for the FES system, but still there. Off field landings at a strange site are not normally accompanied by a feeling that you have all the time and can afford all the distraction in the world.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, November 2, 2014 10:22:41 AM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 1:21:54 AM UTC-5, Paul B wrote:
>
> > Agreed, my response was an explanation why the SZD-55 driver had lower break off points than the motor / sustainers gliders, which I think Kirk was questioning.
> >
> > Paul
>
> And again, why would an FES (or jet, or even a classic "turbo") sustainer have a higher break off point than a pure glider? You would still look for lift until it became obvious that the day was over, then while setting up a pattern, fire up the sustainer and either fly away, or land - and the drag of an extended sustainer (and the workload of starting it) is nowhere near that of an SLS.
>
> So what penalty, other than the drag of the FES system (not present in classic "turbos" or jets) does a sustainer suffer over a pure glider? Weight? Does that mean that skinny pilots should be penalized over fat (ahem, "mature") pilots? Especially in "no-ballast" contests, the difference in wingloading is more affected by the "beer ballast" that the presence or lack of a sustainer!
>
> Kirk
> LS6 "66"
> Happy at my 8psf dry wingloading!
> I'll have another Stag, please...

Kirk, you are simplifying things. What about a situation when the engine develops on partial power. You just don't fly away. You are quickly in very difficult situation.

When I used to fly pure sailplanes and I saved myself down to 600 feet quite safely. I would never attempt to start the engine less than 1500 feet, unless I had a really long field in front of me allowing for all kids of options. In reality since I started flying a self launcher I restart at 1500-2,000 feet depending on terrain.

Jet can also have starting issues as experience suggest. I know of at least one situation when a jet engine in a glider developed only partial power and the pilot barely got away from having a really bad day as he tried to start a bit low. I bet he will never do that again.

AK

[Ian[_2_]]

On 02/11/2014 02:03, wrote:

> 3. At full charge I can run the FES for approximately one hour. That
> should get me theoretically 60 miles late in the day. Even if I could
> self-launch, I do want to save every "volt" in case I need to
> self-retrieve.

I think if you make a habit of self launching a FES, or even climbing
out from a low car launch, you could put a noticeable dent in the life
of the batteries. Battery replacement costs might neutralize the saving
in aerotow fees.

(The opportunity cost is another story).


Ian

[kirk.stant]

On Sunday, November 2, 2014 11:09:18 AM UTC-6, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
> Kirk, you are simplifying things. What about a situation when the engine develops on partial power. You just don't fly away. You are quickly in very difficult situation.
>
> When I used to fly pure sailplanes and I saved myself down to 600 feet quite safely. I would never attempt to start the engine less than 1500 feet, unless I had a really long field in front of me allowing for all kids of options. In reality since I started flying a self launcher I restart at 1500-2,000 feet depending on terrain.
>
> Jet can also have starting issues as experience suggest. I know of at least one situation when a jet engine in a glider developed only partial power and the pilot barely got away from having a really bad day as he tried to start a bit low. I bet he will never do that again.
>
> AK

Andrzej, I understand the case for a self-launcher, with a much draggier and complicated power system. But aren't the "turbo's" supposed to be simple and easy to start, and have about as much drag as the landing gear when extended? Not having flown either SLS or sustainers, I admit I'm just guessing here.

Kirk

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 19:14 03 November 2014, kirk.stant wrote:


>Andrzej, I understand the case for a self-launcher, with a much draggier
>an=
>d complicated power system. But aren't the "turbo's" supposed to be
>simple=
> and easy to start, and have about as much drag as the landing gear
when
>ex=
>tended? Not having flown either SLS or sustainers, I admit I'm just
>guessin=
>g here.
>
>Kirk

The drag on a glider with an extended but non-running two stroke "turbo"
is similar to having about half airbrake extended - a lot more more than
just having the gear down.

John Galloway

[JS]

Just like winch tow, auto tow, landings on tow, spins, etc...
I think a self-launch endorsement is good training. Each is an eye-opener.
Without training in these elements there's an increased chance of misconception.
If a self-launch endorsement isn't available where you are, at least read Eric Greenwell's guide to self-launch sailplanes.
Yes, the FES is a different animal, but as far as I can tell there's no 100% guarantee.
Jim

[Renny[_2_]]

I definitely agree that there are no guarantees that a sustainer will always start, but one of the real benefits of the FES is that if it does not start, there is no additional drag penalty.....

Thanks - Renny

On Monday, November 3, 2014 2:00:12 PM UTC-7, John Galloway wrote:
> At 19:14 03 November 2014, kirk.stant wrote:
>
>
> >Andrzej, I understand the case for a self-launcher, with a much draggier
> >an=
> >d complicated power system. But aren't the "turbo's" supposed to be
> >simple=
> > and easy to start, and have about as much drag as the landing gear
> when
> >ex=
> >tended? Not having flown either SLS or sustainers, I admit I'm just
> >guessin=
> >g here.
> >
> >Kirk
>
> The drag on a glider with an extended but non-running two stroke "turbo"
> is similar to having about half airbrake extended - a lot more more than
> just having the gear down.
>
> John Galloway

[[email protected]]

Kirk, I fly a LS 8 st which has one of those simple engines, quite like a lawn mower, no starter, no alternator, engine only. To start, the engine is fully extended, equivalent to about half airbrakes out as earlier explained.. I the have to dive start, accelerating to 80 kts. That will be app 500 feet lower than at the beginning of the exercise. If the engine starts, I gain about 300 of those back immediately. How much safety would you put onto those 500 ft? For me the engine extract point is 1,500 ft. If I would fly competition with serious ambitions the engine would come out. There is absolutely no sense to have it.

Rolf