Motorgliders (long)

[JJ Sinclair]

There are several questions concerning motorgliders on this years SSA / SRA
pilot poll. Some of the questions may have been spurred by my letter dated 7/11
03 which follows>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Members of the rules committee,
A few years back, we allowed motorgliders to have their engines available for
in-flight retrieves, in regional and national competition. I thought it was a
mistake at the time, but nothing much happened. No motorglider won the
nationals. The top pilots didn't rush right out and buy a motorglider. This is
changing, I have flown with several motorgliders in open class in the last few
years. Some very capable pilots are flying motorgliders and they enjoy a
distinct advantage. Allow me to give an example; At region 8 championships on
day 2, the sky had been completely overcast for hours. The 5 contestants in
open class were working warm areas of freshly plowed ground. We all made it to
the last turn point, some 30 miles from home. None of us had enough altitude to
attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable terrain.
They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they both
started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to the
location where they started their engines. A few years back, I tried a similar
final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I ended
up a mile short with a broken ship.

I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage. I recommend we consider
returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider to have their engine
available for in-flight use, but they must land to get distance points. Any
in-flight use would result in zero points for the day. They would still have
the option of using a constructive landout, as is the case with non-motorized
ships. The constructive land out is claimed after a landing, but not at the
point of engine start. This rule would make motorgliders exactly EQUAL to
non-motored sailplanes, but still allow them the option of using their engines
if the situation warranted its use. Allowing the engine to be available would
also negate the argument that motorglider insurance may be invalidated if their
engines were disabled. After landing, the motorglider would have the option of
selflaunching and flying back to the contest airport.

Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider was scored at the last
achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning to this rule wouldn't be
fair because they could still make a final glide without sufficient altitude.
If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they still get scored at the
last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not to try the unsafe final
glide.

On a lesser important note, some creative rules interpretation is occuring at
the regional level. Some regions have optained a waver of the "All launches
will be by aerotow" rule. I would ask that no more waivers be granted because
selflaunching allowes the motorglider to drive around until they find a good
thermal, before shutting down their engines.The non-motored contestant must
release shortly after reaching release altitude. The creative rules
interpretation has also led to something called an "In-flight relight", where a
low motorglider just flies within 1 mile of the airport and then starts up his
engine and performs his in-flight relight. This is also clearly unfair to the
non-motored sailplane who must land, possibly with water, shove his sailplane
back to the end of the runway, and wait for a tow plane to come out. I request
that more specific language be use to make these practices unavailable in the
future.

Thank you for your consideration of the indicated rules changes. I request
these issues be placed on the fall pilots poll.
JJ Sinclair
PS. Please don't interpret my position as bad-mouthing motorgliders, we need
them to fill out our fledgling 18 meter class and to bolster our dwindling open
class. Zero points for engine use, may seem harsh, but after your careful
consideration, I believe you will come to the conclusion it is the only way to
level the playing field again.

JJ Sinclair

[Michael McNulty]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> There are several questions concerning motorgliders on this years SSA /
SRA
> pilot poll. Some of the questions may have been spurred by my letter dated
7/11
> 03 which follows>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<sniip>
> attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
> motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable
terrain.
> They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they
both
> started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to the
> location where they started their engines. A few years back, I tried a
similar
> final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I
ended
> up a mile short with a broken ship.
>
<snip>

Would you have still "ended up a mile short with a broken ship" if you had
been flying with a 500 ft minimum finish altitute to get speed points?

Mike McNulty

[Gary Evans]

Thanks for another excellent post JJ. The clear advantages
of a motor glider you pointed out must be the reason
why sales are quickly shifting to powered ships. An
alternative method of handicapping them could be to
restricting the air intake like racecars do or maybe
a cork in the exhaust would stop this madness. Don’t
these people know that risk taking is just part of
the sport.
Interestingly this is the same dilemma that faced early
push lawn mower operators when some finally put a motor
on one and we know how that turned out.




At 09:54 18 September 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>There are several questions concerning motorgliders
>on this years SSA / SRA
>pilot poll. Some of the questions may have been spurred
>by my letter dated 7/11
>03 which follows>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Members of the rules committee,
>A few years back, we allowed motorgliders to have their
>engines available for
>in-flight retrieves, in regional and national competition.
>I thought it was a
>mistake at the time, but nothing much happened. No
>motorglider won the
>nationals. The top pilots didn't rush right out and
>buy a motorglider. This is
>changing, I have flown with several motorgliders in
>open class in the last few
>years. Some very capable pilots are flying motorgliders
>and they enjoy a
>distinct advantage. Allow me to give an example; At
>region 8 championships on
>day 2, the sky had been completely overcast for hours.
>The 5 contestants in
>open class were working warm areas of freshly plowed
>ground. We all made it to
>the last turn point, some 30 miles from home. None
>of us had enough altitude to
>attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn
>point, but the two
>motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly
>unlandable terrain.
>They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting
>the bump, they both
>started their engines a few miles from home and got
>distance points to the
>location where they started their engines. A few years
>back, I tried a similar
>final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized
>Nimbus 3. I ended
>up a mile short with a broken ship.
>
>I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage. I recommend
>we consider
>returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider
>to have their engine
>available for in-flight use, but they must land to
>get distance points. Any
>in-flight use would result in zero points for the day.
>They would still have
>the option of using a constructive landout, as is the
>case with non-motorized
>ships. The constructive land out is claimed after a
>landing, but not at the
>point of engine start. This rule would make motorgliders
>exactly EQUAL to
>non-motored sailplanes, but still allow them the option
>of using their engines
>if the situation warranted its use. Allowing the engine
>to be available would
>also negate the argument that motorglider insurance
>may be invalidated if their
>engines were disabled. After landing, the motorglider
>would have the option of
>selflaunching and flying back to the contest airport.
>
>Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider
>was scored at the last
>achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning
>to this rule wouldn't be
>fair because they could still make a final glide without
>sufficient altitude.
>If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they
>still get scored at the
>last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not
>to try the unsafe final
>glide.
>
>On a lesser important note, some creative rules interpretation
>is occuring at
>the regional level. Some regions have optained a waver
>of the 'All launches
>will be by aerotow' rule. I would ask that no more
>waivers be granted because
>selflaunching allowes the motorglider to drive around
>until they find a good
>thermal, before shutting down their engines.The non-motored
>contestant must
>release shortly after reaching release altitude. The
>creative rules
>interpretation has also led to something called an
>'In-flight relight', where a
>low motorglider just flies within 1 mile of the airport
>and then starts up his
>engine and performs his in-flight relight. This is
>also clearly unfair to the
>non-motored sailplane who must land, possibly with
>water, shove his sailplane
>back to the end of the runway, and wait for a tow plane
>to come out. I request
>that more specific language be use to make these practices
>unavailable in the
>future.
>
>Thank you for your consideration of the indicated rules
>changes. I request
>these issues be placed on the fall pilots poll.
> JJ Sinclair
>PS. Please don't interpret my position as bad-mouthing
>motorgliders, we need
>them to fill out our fledgling 18 meter class and to
>bolster our dwindling open
>class. Zero points for engine use, may seem harsh,
>but after your careful
>consideration, I believe you will come to the conclusion
>it is the only way to
>level the playing field again.
>
>JJ Sinclair
>

[tango4]

Motorgliders fly at permanently higher wing loadings - not fair!
Motorgliders have to make the decision to start at least 500' above or 6km
before the non-mg does - not fair

But having a turbo means that I can attend a comp without having to drag
someone else along to sit around on an airfield whilst I enjoy myself. It
means that I can go and fly midweek and know that I can get home. If
motorgliding is keeping our sport alive then it's essential that we treat
the pilots of motorgliders fairly. I'm not suggesting that we allow them an
advantage just welcome them into the fold.

Is the problem not at the door of the task setters or rules that expect task
setters to attempt to get 10% of the field to land out? If the task is just
too long for the day then it's not the motorgliders advantage it's to
*everybodys* dissadvantage. We all get up-in-arms about safety but we all
accept being put in this position. A motorglider is as likely to sustain
serious damage following an engine failure over unlandable terrain as a
*pure* sailplane. Surely competition tasks where the tail-end charlies
finish at 120kph against the winners 150 kph are just as much of a race as
those where the winners come in at 120kph and the also rans come in at 80.

I'm a tail-end-charlie, I go out to have fun and I don't particularly mind
coming last provided I've learnt something or at least had a good weeks
flying and tested my limits. Knowing that I'd always be pushing my personal
envelope I went and bought a turbo so that I could still compete ( try to
get crew when you are seeded 50th in a field of 30! :-) ) I go to the comp,
make up the numbers, pay the dues, enjoy the company and learn a bit every
time.

PS: I wonder how many current MG/Turbo pilots were crews in their early
days? How many of them, like me, on some some dark, evil night in a remote
field , up to their ankles in mud with the rain lashing down, the pilot
asleep on the back seat of the retrieve car and a 250km drive home on
unsurfaced roads, swore that they would never, given the option, subject any
crew to that type of treatment?

Ian

"Duane Eisenbeiss" > wrote in message
et...
> "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
> ...
> > There are several questions concerning motorgliders on this years SSA /
> SRA
> > pilot poll. Some of the questions may have been spurred by my letter
dated
> 7/11
> > 03 which follows>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >........... None of us had enough altitude to
> > attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
> > motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable
> terrain.
> > They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they
> both
> > started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to
the
> > location where they started their engines. A few years back, I tried a
> similar
> > final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I
> ended
> > up a mile short with a broken ship.
> >
> > I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage. I recommend we consider
> > returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider to have their engine
> > available for in-flight use, but they must land to get distance points.
> Any
> > in-flight use would result in zero points for the day. ..............
> > JJ Sinclair
>
> 15-20 years ago when I was writing the rules I was probably the strongest
> opponent of allowing motorgliders in sanctioned contests for the very
reason
> that you state. When the pure sailplane finds no lift over unlandable
> terrain there is a probable crash. The motorglider in the same situation
> simply starts the engine. The pure sailplane pilot most likely would not
> venture into such an area. That is definitely an unfair advantage. I
did
> not think that it was proper to disable the engine because that would put
> the SSA in the position of suggesting pilots fly their sailplane out of
> certification limits. Therefore the rule was made to not allow
motorgliders
> in sanctioned contests at that time.
>
> Over the years the rules became more liberal.until we have arrived at the
> current situation. I find it interesting that your comments are similar
to
> my logic of long ago. Your suggestion of zero points for any "in-flight"
> engine start is the correct way to go. This allows the motorgliders to
> enter contests, but, still provides for a fair competition.
>
> Duane
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...

> Some very capable pilots are flying motorgliders and they enjoy a
> distinct advantage. Allow me to give an example; At region 8 championships on
> day 2, the sky had been completely overcast for hours. The 5 contestants in
> open class were working warm areas of freshly plowed ground. We all made it to
> the last turn point, some 30 miles from home. None of us had enough altitude to
> attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
> motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable terrain.

I am one of those pilots. There are NUMEROUS safe landing fields
between Coulee City and Ephrata, and I was never out of reach of one
of these fields, nor was the other pilot. I just don't fly that way,
and I'm very disappointed JJ thinks I do. I've talked to him about
this, but obviously haven't changed his mind.

> They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they both
> started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to the
> location where they started their engines.

I actually turned back to be over a good field at decent altitude to
restart my engine. Had I been flying without an engine, I would've
continued because...

-at 6.7 pounds/sq ft (no engine weight) versus 8.2 lbs/sq ft, I would
have climbed in the weak thermal I found there to gain the few hundred
feet I needed

-if I did have to land, it's safer to do it at 6.7 lbs/sq ft vs 8.2

-it's a heck of a lot easier to retrieve a glider with a 320 pound
fuselage instead of a 500 pound fuselage!

> A few years back, I tried a similar
> final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I ended
> up a mile short with a broken ship.

I must point out that a motor is not a safety advantage. Motor glider
pilots also land out and break their gliders when they make bad
choices, often by picking a poor field, waiting until too low to
attempt a restart, then botching the landing when the motor doesn't
start. And the landing doesn't go any better with an 8 lb/ft2 wing
loading, than it would with the 6 lb/ft2 wing loading of a Nimbus 3.

The competitor in an unpowered glider has an advantage because he can
safely thermal lower than the motor glider pilot, because he doesn't
need an extra few hundred feet to safely attempt a restart, and he
lands slower.

> I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage.

I contend a serious competitor will fly a glider with a wide range of
wing loadings, and that is very definitely NOT a motorglider.

> I recommend we consider
> returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider to have their engine
> available for in-flight use, but they must land to get distance points. Any
> in-flight use would result in zero points for the day. They would still have
> the option of using a constructive landout, as is the case with non-motorized
> ships. The constructive land out is claimed after a landing, but not at the
> point of engine start. This rule would make motorgliders exactly EQUAL to
> non-motored sailplanes,

Exactly EQUAL? What about the 180 pounds of ballast (engine, fuel,
batteries, etc) I can't drop? That's worth 1.5 pounds/sq ft of wing
loading. Let me rewrite Moffat's comment: "Contests are won on the
weak days, not by getting lucky over unlandable terrain".

Because of the weight difference and other factors, I don't see any
way to avoid one type of glider from having some advantage over the
other type. I suggest an approach that balances the advantages so that
pilots of both types will want to fly in a contest. The "zero points
for day" for an inflight restart will discourage motorglider pilots
from entering contests for two reasons:

-Self-launchers: the high weight makes field landings (higher touch
down speed) and retrieves very unattractive, so they would have to
stay within reach of an airport at all times; coupled with the high
minimum wing loading, some of us will decide doing well is simply not
possible.

-Sustainers: landing means they can't self-retrieve, so some will
decide the hassle of a ground retrieve or the expense of an aerotow
aren't worth it.

> but still allow them the option of using their engines
> if the situation warranted its use. Allowing the engine to be available would
> also negate the argument that motorglider insurance may be invalidated if their
> engines were disabled. After landing, the motorglider would have the option of
> selflaunching and flying back to the contest airport.

Except the sustainers, of course.
>
> Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider was scored at the last
> achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning to this rule wouldn't be
> fair because they could still make a final glide without sufficient altitude.
> If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they still get scored at the
> last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not to try the unsafe final
> glide.

How about the very real possibility that the motor won't start, and
the altitude lost while the motor is extended? It's enough to keep me
from flying out of reach of a safe landing place! Once you've had an
engine refuse to start, it gives you a new perspective.

> On a lesser important note, some creative rules interpretation is occuring at
> the regional level. Some regions have optained a waver of the "All launches
> will be by aerotow" rule. I would ask that no more waivers be granted because
> selflaunching allowes the motorglider to drive around until they find a good
> thermal, before shutting down their engines. The non-motored contestant must
> release shortly after reaching release altitude.

This is an advantage, and I've requested that our next contest at
Ephrata disallow this. I think there should a rule that all gliders
get "dropped" in about the same place; frankly, this isn't happening
even with the towed gliders. This can be enforced by looking at the
flight traces.

> The creative rules
> interpretation has also led to something called an "In-flight relight", where a
> low motorglider just flies within 1 mile of the airport and then starts up his
> engine and performs his in-flight relight. This is also clearly unfair to the
> non-motored sailplane who must land, possibly with water, shove his sailplane
> back to the end of the runway, and wait for a tow plane to come out. I request
> that more specific language be use to make these practices unavailable in the
> future.

I totally agree, but I don't think it was a "creative rules
interpretation" but just ignorance that allowed it to happen at
Ephrata. I support requiring the motorglider to land and wait for the
already landed gliders to launch before he does.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Eric Greenwell]

In article <A1oab.41596$n94.3841@fed1read04>,
says...
>
> Also interestingly enough is that two of them set a couple of state records
> this summer by getting airborn before the lift began then cruising around
> with engines on until they finally connected with something. Sounds like an
> advantage to me anyway. I suppose the rest of us could have just stayed on
> tow for an hour or so! ;-)

Yes, you could, and it would be cheaper than owning a motorglider,
believe me. Or you could take a higher tow (say, 5000') if you
discovered the lift hadn't started, then slowly waft down until you
sank to where the lift was. Or you could just launch, fall down, wait
a bit, and relaunch - even cheaper. The point is, the motor is a
_convenience_ before the flight, not an advantage during the task.

For flights (like staight out distance records) when an early start is
critical, the lighter, towed glider can stay up earlier; and when
flying late is critical, the towed glider can drop it's ballast and
waft along longer than the heavier motorglider.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[JJ Sinclair]

That was good Eric, I almost started feeling sorry for you motorgliders, all
the burdens you have to bear. The rest of us have only one burden to bear, we
don't know where that magic thermal can be found, you do.


>> Some very capable pilots are flying motorgliders and they enjoy a
>> distinct advantage. Allow me to give an example; At region 8 championships
>on
>> day 2, the sky had been completely overcast for hours. The 5 contestants in
>> open class were working warm areas of freshly plowed ground. We all made it
>to
>> the last turn point, some 30 miles from home. None of us had enough
>altitude to
>> attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
>> motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable terrain.
>
>I am one of those pilots. There are NUMEROUS safe landing fields
>between Coulee City and Ephrata, and I was never out of reach of one
>of these fields, nor was the other pilot. I just don't fly that way,
>and I'm very disappointed JJ thinks I do. I've talked to him about
>this, but obviously haven't changed his mind.
>
>> They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they
>both
>> started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to the
>> location where they started their engines.
>
>I actually turned back to be over a good field at decent altitude to
>restart my engine. Had I been flying without an engine, I would've
>continued because...
>
>-at 6.7 pounds/sq ft (no engine weight) versus 8.2 lbs/sq ft, I would
>have climbed in the weak thermal I found there to gain the few hundred
>feet I needed
>
>-if I did have to land, it's safer to do it at 6.7 lbs/sq ft vs 8.2
>
>-it's a heck of a lot easier to retrieve a glider with a 320 pound
>fuselage instead of a 500 pound fuselage!
>
>> A few years back, I tried a similar
>> final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I
>ended
>> up a mile short with a broken ship.
>
>I must point out that a motor is not a safety advantage. Motor glider
>pilots also land out and break their gliders when they make bad
>choices, often by picking a poor field, waiting until too low to
>attempt a restart, then botching the landing when the motor doesn't
>start. And the landing doesn't go any better with an 8 lb/ft2 wing
>loading, than it would with the 6 lb/ft2 wing loading of a Nimbus 3.
>
>The competitor in an unpowered glider has an advantage because he can
>safely thermal lower than the motor glider pilot, because he doesn't
>need an extra few hundred feet to safely attempt a restart, and he
>lands slower.
>
>> I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage.
>
>I contend a serious competitor will fly a glider with a wide range of
>wing loadings, and that is very definitely NOT a motorglider.
>
>> I recommend we consider
>> returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider to have their engine
>> available for in-flight use, but they must land to get distance points. Any
>> in-flight use would result in zero points for the day. They would still
>have
>> the option of using a constructive landout, as is the case with
>non-motorized
>> ships. The constructive land out is claimed after a landing, but not at the
>> point of engine start. This rule would make motorgliders exactly EQUAL to
>> non-motored sailplanes,
>
>Exactly EQUAL? What about the 180 pounds of ballast (engine, fuel,
>batteries, etc) I can't drop? That's worth 1.5 pounds/sq ft of wing
>loading. Let me rewrite Moffat's comment: "Contests are won on the
>weak days, not by getting lucky over unlandable terrain".
>
>Because of the weight difference and other factors, I don't see any
>way to avoid one type of glider from having some advantage over the
>other type. I suggest an approach that balances the advantages so that
>pilots of both types will want to fly in a contest. The "zero points
>for day" for an inflight restart will discourage motorglider pilots
>from entering contests for two reasons:
>
>-Self-launchers: the high weight makes field landings (higher touch
>down speed) and retrieves very unattractive, so they would have to
>stay within reach of an airport at all times; coupled with the high
>minimum wing loading, some of us will decide doing well is simply not
>possible.
>
>-Sustainers: landing means they can't self-retrieve, so some will
>decide the hassle of a ground retrieve or the expense of an aerotow
>aren't worth it.
>
>> but still allow them the option of using their engines
>> if the situation warranted its use. Allowing the engine to be available
>would
>> also negate the argument that motorglider insurance may be invalidated if
>their
>> engines were disabled. After landing, the motorglider would have the option
>of
>> selflaunching and flying back to the contest airport.
>
>Except the sustainers, of course.
>>
>> Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider was scored at the
>last
>> achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning to this rule wouldn't
>be
>> fair because they could still make a final glide without sufficient
>altitude.
>> If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they still get scored at
>the
>> last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not to try the unsafe
>final
>> glide.
>
>How about the very real possibility that the motor won't start, and
>the altitude lost while the motor is extended? It's enough to keep me
>from flying out of reach of a safe landing place! Once you've had an
>engine refuse to start, it gives you a new perspective.
>
>> On a lesser important note, some creative rules interpretation is occuring
>at
>> the regional level. Some regions have optained a waver of the "All launches
>> will be by aerotow" rule. I would ask that no more waivers be granted
>because
>> selflaunching allowes the motorglider to drive around until they find a
>good
>> thermal, before shutting down their engines. The non-motored contestant
>must
>> release shortly after reaching release altitude.
>
>This is an advantage, and I've requested that our next contest at
>Ephrata disallow this. I think there should a rule that all gliders
>get "dropped" in about the same place; frankly, this isn't happening
>even with the towed gliders. This can be enforced by looking at the
>flight traces.
>
>> The creative rules
>> interpretation has also led to something called an "In-flight relight",
>where a
>> low motorglider just flies within 1 mile of the airport and then starts up
>his
>> engine and performs his in-flight relight. This is also clearly unfair to
>the
>> non-motored sailplane who must land, possibly with water, shove his
>sailplane
>> back to the end of the runway, and wait for a tow plane to come out. I
>request
>> that more specific language be use to make these practices unavailable in
>the
>> future.
>
>I totally agree, but I don't think it was a "creative rules
>interpretation" but just ignorance that allowed it to happen at
>Ephrata. I support requiring the motorglider to land and wait for the
>already landed gliders to launch before he does.
>
>--
>!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
>directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Richland, WA (USA)
>
>
>
>
>
>


JJ Sinclair

[Dave Nadler \YO\]

C'mon JJ - Flying both motorized and non-motorized, I can definitely state:

- The decision height with the motor is MUTCH higher, if you want to be
safe,

- The decision point is MUTCH more critical - try a failed motor-start,
followed by a non-retract, then landing with huge drag/sink of motor out...
Don't even think about trying an air-start low over the small field that
would
be fine with the (lighter, slower, low-drag) unpowered glider. Yea, it
usually
starts, but then this HAS happened to me (over an airport, TWICE).

- There have been multiple times I didn't finish because I had to decide to
air-start HIGH, and I would easily have finished in the unpowered glider
with lower and less critical decision heights.

I love the flexibiliity of the motor-glider, but it comes at a significant
penalty. Less so with a sustainer of course, which is a much better
compromise if you've got a tow to get started.

See ya, Dave


"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> There are several questions concerning motorgliders on this years SSA /
SRA
> pilot poll. Some of the questions may have been spurred by my letter dated
7/11
> 03 which follows>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Members of the rules committee,
> A few years back, we allowed motorgliders to have their engines available
for
> in-flight retrieves, in regional and national competition. I thought it
was a
> mistake at the time, but nothing much happened. No motorglider won the
> nationals. The top pilots didn't rush right out and buy a motorglider.
This is
> changing, I have flown with several motorgliders in open class in the last
few
> years. Some very capable pilots are flying motorgliders and they enjoy a
> distinct advantage. Allow me to give an example; At region 8 championships
on
> day 2, the sky had been completely overcast for hours. The 5 contestants
in
> open class were working warm areas of freshly plowed ground. We all made
it to
> the last turn point, some 30 miles from home. None of us had enough
altitude to
> attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
> motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable
terrain.
> They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they
both
> started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to the
> location where they started their engines. A few years back, I tried a
similar
> final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I
ended
> up a mile short with a broken ship.
>
> I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage. I recommend we consider
> returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider to have their engine
> available for in-flight use, but they must land to get distance points.
Any
> in-flight use would result in zero points for the day. They would still
have
> the option of using a constructive landout, as is the case with
non-motorized
> ships. The constructive land out is claimed after a landing, but not at
the
> point of engine start. This rule would make motorgliders exactly EQUAL to
> non-motored sailplanes, but still allow them the option of using their
engines
> if the situation warranted its use. Allowing the engine to be available
would
> also negate the argument that motorglider insurance may be invalidated if
their
> engines were disabled. After landing, the motorglider would have the
option of
> selflaunching and flying back to the contest airport.
>
> Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider was scored at the
last
> achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning to this rule wouldn't
be
> fair because they could still make a final glide without sufficient
altitude.
> If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they still get scored at
the
> last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not to try the unsafe
final
> glide.
>
> On a lesser important note, some creative rules interpretation is occuring
at
> the regional level. Some regions have optained a waver of the "All
launches
> will be by aerotow" rule. I would ask that no more waivers be granted
because
> selflaunching allowes the motorglider to drive around until they find a
good
> thermal, before shutting down their engines.The non-motored contestant
must
> release shortly after reaching release altitude. The creative rules
> interpretation has also led to something called an "In-flight relight",
where a
> low motorglider just flies within 1 mile of the airport and then starts up
his
> engine and performs his in-flight relight. This is also clearly unfair to
the
> non-motored sailplane who must land, possibly with water, shove his
sailplane
> back to the end of the runway, and wait for a tow plane to come out. I
request
> that more specific language be use to make these practices unavailable in
the
> future.
>
> Thank you for your consideration of the indicated rules changes. I request
> these issues be placed on the fall pilots poll.
> JJ Sinclair
> PS. Please don't interpret my position as bad-mouthing motorgliders, we
need
> them to fill out our fledgling 18 meter class and to bolster our dwindling
open
> class. Zero points for engine use, may seem harsh, but after your careful
> consideration, I believe you will come to the conclusion it is the only
way to
> level the playing field again.
>
> JJ Sinclair

[Eric Greenwell]

There's another question on the survey that might benifit from some
explanation. Since I proposed it, here it is:
----------------------

8.0 Airfield Landing Bonus for Motorgliders
For a motorglider to claim the 25-point airfield landing bonus,
current rules require it to land on an approved airfield before the
use of the engine.

8.1 Should motorgliders that start their engine over an approved
airfield be allowed to claim the 25-point airfield landing bonus?
----------------------
Here is my letter to the Rules Committee:

I'd appreciate it if you could put the following proposal into the
rules system for consideration.

Currently, pilots can be awarded a 25 point bonus if they land at an
airport rather than landing out. Even motorgliders are required to
land at an airport before starting the engine to get the bonus, and
this is were the potential for less safe flying can arise. Consider
the situation I encountered at our Region 8 contest this year:

I arrived at Coulee City airport about 1300' agl. Already on the
airport runway were a glider, and a second glider was getting ready to
land. I elected to start my engine, losing the airport bonus, rather
than land and add to the congestion at this small airfield. Because of
this, I lost second place by 25 points to the glider that was landing
(we were both scored as landing at Coulee City).

So, the bonus rule, as currently implemented, can have actually
discourage the safest behavior when a motorglider is involved. Besides
the situation described above were not landing is obviously the safest
course, it is usually safer even when there are no other gliders
involved, because it avoids the dangers inherent in another landing
and takeoff.

Here's my suggestion for modifying the rule to encourage safer flying
by using the air restart ability of a motorglider:

10.10.4.1 A pilot with an incomplete task who lands at a designated
airfield can receive a score bonus for such a landing. A motorglider
will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.

(10.10.4.2,3, and 4: no change)

10.10.4.5 [delete] (this deletion allows the pilot to receive the
bonus, even if he lands at the airfield after attempting to start the
motor, should the motor fail to start, or weather or other conditions
make in wise to land at the airfield even if the motor starts)

Please let me know if you or others on the Rules Committee have
concerns about this proposal , and I'll do my best to answer them.

Regards,

Eric Greenwell

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Dave Nadler \YO\]

Of course, its safer to land (as a glider) and then launch (as a
motor-glider),
especially if low. Barring congestion problems as in Eric's case below...
Best Regards, Dave

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
.. .
> There's another question on the survey that might benifit from some
> explanation. Since I proposed it, here it is:
> ----------------------
>
> 8.0 Airfield Landing Bonus for Motorgliders
> For a motorglider to claim the 25-point airfield landing bonus,
> current rules require it to land on an approved airfield before the
> use of the engine.
>
> 8.1 Should motorgliders that start their engine over an approved
> airfield be allowed to claim the 25-point airfield landing bonus?
> ----------------------
> Here is my letter to the Rules Committee:
>
> I'd appreciate it if you could put the following proposal into the
> rules system for consideration.
>
> Currently, pilots can be awarded a 25 point bonus if they land at an
> airport rather than landing out. Even motorgliders are required to
> land at an airport before starting the engine to get the bonus, and
> this is were the potential for less safe flying can arise. Consider
> the situation I encountered at our Region 8 contest this year:
>
> I arrived at Coulee City airport about 1300' agl. Already on the
> airport runway were a glider, and a second glider was getting ready to
> land. I elected to start my engine, losing the airport bonus, rather
> than land and add to the congestion at this small airfield. Because of
> this, I lost second place by 25 points to the glider that was landing
> (we were both scored as landing at Coulee City).
>
> So, the bonus rule, as currently implemented, can have actually
> discourage the safest behavior when a motorglider is involved. Besides
> the situation described above were not landing is obviously the safest
> course, it is usually safer even when there are no other gliders
> involved, because it avoids the dangers inherent in another landing
> and takeoff.
>
> Here's my suggestion for modifying the rule to encourage safer flying
> by using the air restart ability of a motorglider:
>
> 10.10.4.1 A pilot with an incomplete task who lands at a designated
> airfield can receive a score bonus for such a landing. A motorglider
> will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
> within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
> providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.
>
> (10.10.4.2,3, and 4: no change)
>
> 10.10.4.5 [delete] (this deletion allows the pilot to receive the
> bonus, even if he lands at the airfield after attempting to start the
> motor, should the motor fail to start, or weather or other conditions
> make in wise to land at the airfield even if the motor starts)
>
> Please let me know if you or others on the Rules Committee have
> concerns about this proposal , and I'll do my best to answer them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Greenwell
>
> --
> !Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
> directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Richland, WA (USA)

[JJ Sinclair]

Earlier Eric wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..> A motorglider
>will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
>within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
>providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.

Sounds like the "In-flight relight" at a different location, to me.
Best Regards,


JJ Sinclair

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> Earlier Eric wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..> A motorglider
> >will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
> >within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
> >providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.
>
> Sounds like the "In-flight relight" at a different location, to me.
> Best Regards,

It's not a relight, because the task is over for that pilot, and he
can't attempt the task again. The airport bonus is awarded to
encourage safer flying, but did not always have that effect for a
motorglider pilot. The proposed rule attempts to extend that
encouragement to the motorglider pilot. No racing purpose is served by
having the glider land.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
.. .
> .....................
> I arrived at Coulee City airport about 1300' agl. Already on the
> airport runway were a glider, and a second glider was getting ready to
> land. I elected to start my engine, losing the airport bonus, rather
> than land and add to the congestion at this small airfield. Because of
> this, I lost second place by 25 points to the glider that was landing
> (we were both scored as landing at Coulee City). .....................
>
A pilot flying a pure sailplane in the situation you describe would have to
come up with a plan. Maybe even having to land in a field next to the
airport if the situation got really bad. But, because you have an engine,
you seem to be asking for a special privilege. What you suggest might be
safer, but, is it fair to all of the pilots flying pure sailplanes that you
should be exempt from the same exposures as them just because you have an
engine?

Duane

[Tom Seim]

I flew my motorglider at the same regional that JJ insisted that the
other open class MGs take aero tows. I made it clear to the organizers
that I would not attend the competition if I could not self launch. I
would have left if I were told that the rules had changed.

I here the arguments about perceived advantages and disadvantages and
think, "Get a life!". Hello, life is not fair! The guys that go out a
buy the latest technology have an UNFAIR advantage over everybody
else. If you think MGs have an unfair advantage, then go out and buy a
god damned motorglider and stop complaining!

The bottom line for contest organizers is allowing MGs into their
contests increase or decrease the number of competitors. I will
continue to enter only those contests that allow me to use my MG to
its fullest capability. If you don't like then don't come! This, of
course, means that nationals (other than the MG nationals) are out of
the question, and that's OK.

Tom Seim
DG-400
Richland, WA

[Eric Greenwell]

In article <UGuab.384426$cF.116390@rwcrnsc53>,
says...
>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > .....................
> > I arrived at Coulee City airport about 1300' agl. Already on the
> > airport runway were a glider, and a second glider was getting ready to
> > land. I elected to start my engine, losing the airport bonus, rather
> > than land and add to the congestion at this small airfield. Because of
> > this, I lost second place by 25 points to the glider that was landing
> > (we were both scored as landing at Coulee City). .....................
> >
> A pilot flying a pure sailplane in the situation you describe would have to
> come up with a plan. Maybe even having to land in a field next to the
> airport if the situation got really bad. But, because you have an engine,
> you seem to be asking for a special privilege. What you suggest might be
> safer, but, is it fair to all of the pilots flying pure sailplanes that you
> should be exempt from the same exposures as them just because you have an
> engine?

My action benefited the unpowered gliders by reducing congestion at
the airport.

Isn't that a good thing that should be encouraged?

If you were one of the gliders landing at the airport, would you
rather I landed or stayed out of the way?

And if I was able to stay out of the way, would you really begrudge
me the same 25 points you got for essentially the same goal: arriving
at an airport to make the end of the flight safer?

Would the rule proposed be agreeable to you if it also allowed a
glider to get the bonus if it landed near the airport to avoid a
safety problem like I described?

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...

> The bottom line for contest organizers is allowing MGs into their
> contests increase or decrease the number of competitors.

For the Ephrata (Region 8), allowing motorgliders to self-launch has
additional value beyond just another glider in field. It means they
can do all the contest towing with "local" towplanes, instead of
having to contract with a towplane from somewhere else. This reduces
costs and makes planning easier.

> I will
> continue to enter only those contests that allow me to use my MG to
> its fullest capability.

For me, it's the additional cost: I've already paid for my "towplane",
so I'm inclined to use it rather than pay for contest tows. Frankly,
taking tows at a contest is easier and advantageous, compared to self-
launching. The main reason for this is I and the glider are
immediately ready to soar after releasing, whereas with a self-launch,
I must stop the engine, partially retract the propeller, then spend 3
to 5 minutes thermalling this way while the engine bay cools before I
can fully retract it. The procedure is distracting and inefficient
compared to simply releasing from tow.

This isn't a complaint: it's an observation. Also, I follow the
towplane route, and do not wander around looking for a thermal.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[John Morgan]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Well, now Tom. The rules state, and I quote, "All tows will be by aerotow"
> Ephrata did NOT have a waiver to this rule. Now was I correct is insisting
that
> the rules were followed, or not?

I've not flown a contest yet, so was gonna stay out of this. But I have to
ask how JJ can deduce that a MG doing a self-launch is *any* kind of a tow?
I wouldn't think it's a tow at all. If the rules are as you state, "All tows
will be by aerotow", how then is a self-launch in violation of those rules?

As someone else posted, we should be doing our best to embrace all types of
gliders. There will be nothing good gained in taking sides and throwing
rocks. As Eric says, MG's have significant disadvantages and some advantages
as compared with "pure" gliders. At contests, if that balance comes down in
favor of MG's, then reasonable rules - - again as Eric suggests, should be
implemented to allow us all to play together. Otherwise us MG owners might
pick up our toys and go home - - so there.

JJ, are we dealing with "motor envy" here?

--
bumper >
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 8/29/2003

[Mark Zivley]

I didn't read every post before this one, but zero points for the day is
a bit harsh. What if you gave distance points only, but used the last
turnpoint successfully rounded as the landing point rather than the
location where the engine was started. You could also take it back one
previous turnpoint (if available) to put a little more emphasis on not
using the engine.

Dave Nadler "YO" wrote:
> C'mon JJ - Flying both motorized and non-motorized, I can definitely state:
>
> - The decision height with the motor is MUTCH higher, if you want to be
> safe,
>
> - The decision point is MUTCH more critical - try a failed motor-start,
> followed by a non-retract, then landing with huge drag/sink of motor out...
> Don't even think about trying an air-start low over the small field that
> would
> be fine with the (lighter, slower, low-drag) unpowered glider. Yea, it
> usually
> starts, but then this HAS happened to me (over an airport, TWICE).
>
> - There have been multiple times I didn't finish because I had to decide to
> air-start HIGH, and I would easily have finished in the unpowered glider
> with lower and less critical decision heights.
>
> I love the flexibiliity of the motor-glider, but it comes at a significant
> penalty. Less so with a sustainer of course, which is a much better
> compromise if you've got a tow to get started.
>
> See ya, Dave
>
>
> "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>There are several questions concerning motorgliders on this years SSA /
>
> SRA
>
>>pilot poll. Some of the questions may have been spurred by my letter dated
>
> 7/11
>
>>03 which follows>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>Members of the rules committee,
>>A few years back, we allowed motorgliders to have their engines available
>
> for
>
>>in-flight retrieves, in regional and national competition. I thought it
>
> was a
>
>>mistake at the time, but nothing much happened. No motorglider won the
>>nationals. The top pilots didn't rush right out and buy a motorglider.
>
> This is
>
>>changing, I have flown with several motorgliders in open class in the last
>
> few
>
>>years. Some very capable pilots are flying motorgliders and they enjoy a
>>distinct advantage. Allow me to give an example; At region 8 championships
>
> on
>
>>day 2, the sky had been completely overcast for hours. The 5 contestants
>
> in
>
>>open class were working warm areas of freshly plowed ground. We all made
>
> it to
>
>>the last turn point, some 30 miles from home. None of us had enough
>
> altitude to
>
>>attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
>>motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable
>
> terrain.
>
>>They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they
>
> both
>
>>started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to the
>>location where they started their engines. A few years back, I tried a
>
> similar
>
>>final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I
>
> ended
>
>>up a mile short with a broken ship.
>>
>>I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage. I recommend we consider
>>returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider to have their engine
>>available for in-flight use, but they must land to get distance points.
>
> Any
>
>>in-flight use would result in zero points for the day. They would still
>
> have
>
>>the option of using a constructive landout, as is the case with
>
> non-motorized
>
>>ships. The constructive land out is claimed after a landing, but not at
>
> the
>
>>point of engine start. This rule would make motorgliders exactly EQUAL to
>>non-motored sailplanes, but still allow them the option of using their
>
> engines
>
>>if the situation warranted its use. Allowing the engine to be available
>
> would
>
>>also negate the argument that motorglider insurance may be invalidated if
>
> their
>
>>engines were disabled. After landing, the motorglider would have the
>
> option of
>
>>selflaunching and flying back to the contest airport.
>>
>>Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider was scored at the
>
> last
>
>>achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning to this rule wouldn't
>
> be
>
>>fair because they could still make a final glide without sufficient
>
> altitude.
>
>>If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they still get scored at
>
> the
>
>>last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not to try the unsafe
>
> final
>
>>glide.
>>
>>On a lesser important note, some creative rules interpretation is occuring
>
> at
>
>>the regional level. Some regions have optained a waver of the "All
>
> launches
>
>>will be by aerotow" rule. I would ask that no more waivers be granted
>
> because
>
>>selflaunching allowes the motorglider to drive around until they find a
>
> good
>
>>thermal, before shutting down their engines.The non-motored contestant
>
> must
>
>>release shortly after reaching release altitude. The creative rules
>>interpretation has also led to something called an "In-flight relight",
>
> where a
>
>>low motorglider just flies within 1 mile of the airport and then starts up
>
> his
>
>>engine and performs his in-flight relight. This is also clearly unfair to
>
> the
>
>>non-motored sailplane who must land, possibly with water, shove his
>
> sailplane
>
>>back to the end of the runway, and wait for a tow plane to come out. I
>
> request
>
>>that more specific language be use to make these practices unavailable in
>
> the
>
>>future.
>>
>>Thank you for your consideration of the indicated rules changes. I request
>>these issues be placed on the fall pilots poll.
>> JJ Sinclair
>>PS. Please don't interpret my position as bad-mouthing motorgliders, we
>
> need
>
>>them to fill out our fledgling 18 meter class and to bolster our dwindling
>
> open
>
>>class. Zero points for engine use, may seem harsh, but after your careful
>>consideration, I believe you will come to the conclusion it is the only
>
> way to
>
>>level the playing field again.
>>
>>JJ Sinclair
>
>
>

[JJ Sinclair]

Dave wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>You could also take it back one
>previous turnpoint (if available) to put a little more emphasis on not
>using the engine.

That could work, Dave. I just think a significant penalty needs to apply in
order to make the motorglider think like the rest of us. Some of then already
do, a DG-800 driver in our Minden regionals voluntarily landed at Tpoaz
International, rather than cranking up the put-put. He is thinking and flying
like he doesn't have an engine. I admire him for the way he flies.
JJ Sinclair

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message >
> .................
> My action benefited the unpowered gliders by reducing congestion at
> the airport.
>
> And if I was able to stay out of the way, would you really begrudge
> me the same 25 points you got for essentially the same goal: arriving
> at an airport to make the end of the flight safer?
>
> Would the rule proposed be agreeable to you if it also allowed a
> glider to get the bonus if it landed near the airport to avoid a
> safety problem like I described?
> Eric Greenwell
> Richland, WA (USA)

I know what you are saying. Been there, done that. At a Hobbs Nat when a
squall line developed suddenly, about 26 sailplanes landed at a small single
strip airport in about 20 minutes. We somehow worked it out. At a
Moriairty Nats I was the last to arrive at a small airport that we found had
been turned into a dump. The first 6 sailplanes were still in the little
spaces that were landable (the surrounding area was unlandable). I landed
in a short piece of ground near the end of the old runway and came to a stop
a foot or so from a discarded refrigerator and a couple of microwave ovens.
In both cases it sure would have been nice to have been able to extend an
engine and have other choices. But, I did not have that choice.

For the flight that you stated, what you did might have been safer, but what
would you have done if you had not had an engine? If you fly in a pure
sailplane contest, should you not be exposed to the same mental strain and
decision making of the other contestants? There are many special
disadvantages as to starting the engine as you state, but that is mostly
because you elected to fly "out of class". Also, the motorgliders with an
engine in the nose do not have many of those problems. Yes, I know that not
many exist .... now. If the pure sailplane pilot has to make an off
field landing it sometimes works out that the pilot returns very late and
hungry. The motorglider pilot flys home, has a nice dinner, and gets to bed
early. Is that fair? If you use the engine to modify your decision making
are you competing the same as the other pilots?

I am not really against what you propose, but the total concept should be
thought through. I am really just asking a question about total fairness.

Duane

[Steve Bralla]

In article >, Mark Zivley
> writes:

> What if you gave distance points only, but used the last
>turnpoint successfully rounded as the landing point rather than the
>location where the engine was started.

How about if both MG and "pure" sailplanes got scored this way. (Land-out or
motor start gets scored to last turnpoint.) Would that be fair?

Steve
With motor envy.

[Scott Correa]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
>
> Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider was scored at the
last
> achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning to this rule wouldn't
be
> fair because they could still make a final glide without sufficient
altitude.
> If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they still get scored at
the
> last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not to try the unsafe
final
> glide.


Very Good Point............. I don't see a way to get aroung the "engine
restart safety net"
if in fact it is one. But consider this, You can't fit the motor thru a
dump valve on a weak day
and on a strong day the water bombers are not at a wing loading
disadvantage. This means that
if the empty guys are barely scratching on a marginal weak day the M-Glider
is in worse shape.

As far as the motor into lift dillema, give them 2 minutes after the
customary release
height +300 ft is achieved to secure the bird. I don't think the extra 300
ft is killing anybody
after seeing the machinations a m-glider go's thru to put away the fan.

The crux of the problem is in the task call...................Yeah, 500k's
are neat, but why not fly
smaller courses with very high finish ratios and make racing about speed.
Multiple laps might not
be a bad idea either, shorter retrieves if you need to make them. These
kind of changes might
reduce the spread you are describing while not hamstringing anybody.

Thanks for listening.

Scott

[Tom Seim]

> I am not really against what you propose, but the total concept should be
> thought through. I am really just asking a question about total fairness.

If you follow your train of thought to "total fairness" there is only
one possible conclusion: the ONLY way to be totally fair is to exclude
MGs from the contest because there is, simply, no way to eliminate all
possible inequities. In other words, "total fairness" is best
described as "threat elimination". Recommended reading on this subject
is "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.

[Tom Seim]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...
> Well, now Tom. The rules state, and I quote, "All tows will be by aerotow"
> Ephrata did NOT have a waiver to this rule. Now was I correct is insisting that
> the rules were followed, or not? BTW, that rule applies to all alasses, not
> just open. Sports class and the management of the contest was in violation of
> the SSA rules. If we don't follow the rules, all we have is a local fun fest.

I entered that contest ONLY after being assured that I could
self-launch. If the contest organizers were not following the rules
that was not my fault. That said I will ensure in the future that they
have applied for the appropriate waiver of the rule. I did not fly in
your class and did not have an opinion concerning your insistance that
the rule be followed. I think the Eric has adequately addressed the
concerns you have about self launching.

>
> I will agree with you on one point, though. I think this may come down to
> everybody getting a G.D. MOTOR or nobody having a G.D. MOTOR. Isn't that where
> we were when the motorgliders wanted to be included in SSA regionals and
> nationals? You had your own Motorglider Class, why didn't you just stay there
> and leave the rest of us alone?

Simple: Region 8 did not have a motor glider class; I flew in Sports
(I could have also flown in 15M, but there advantage of dumpable
ballast was too much of an advantage).
Also, I thought that you flew in Open class, did I miss something?

[JJ Sinclair]

Steve wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> What if you gave distance points only, but used the last
>>turnpoint successfully rounded as the landing point rather than the
>>location where the engine was started.
>
>How about if both MG and "pure" sailplanes got scored this way. (Land-out or
>motor start gets scored to last turnpoint.) Would that be fair?

Steve, the Motorglider isn't forced to get zero points or distance points to
an earlier turn point. Under my proposed change to the rules, all he is
required to do is to land. Just the same as the pure sailplane is forced to do
in the same situation.The MG is also free to claim a constructive land-out if
that is to his advantage.



JJ Sinclair

[JJ Sinclair]

Tom wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>I entered that contest ONLY after being assured that I could
>self-launch. If the contest organizers were not following the rules
>that was not my fault.

Tom,
When you entered that contest, you signed the entry form which says, among
other things, "I have read and understand the rules".

You think you have a god given right to use your engine, any time, any place,
and NO set of rules is going to change that.
JJ Sinclair

[dennis brown]

To be equal to a non-powered glider in a non-powered glider event, the
entire flight, from tow to landing must be unpowered. Any other scenario
is not equal. For that reason, if the engine is run during any time
between the start of takeoff roll and the time the glider touches the ground,
it should be disqualified as a glider flight. Zero points.
Simple rule. Takes care of the inequalities. Everybody makes the same
land/no land/where to fly decisions.
Such a rule would not prohibit retrieving the glider by self launching.
Dennis


In article >,
(Tom Seim) wrote:
(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message
> >...
>> Well, now Tom. The rules state, and I quote, "All tows will be by aerotow"
>> Ephrata did NOT have a waiver to this rule. Now was I correct is insisting
> that
>> the rules were followed, or not? BTW, that rule applies to all alasses, not
>> just open. Sports class and the management of the contest was in violation of
>> the SSA rules. If we don't follow the rules, all we have is a local fun fest.
>
>I entered that contest ONLY after being assured that I could
>self-launch. If the contest organizers were not following the rules
>that was not my fault. That said I will ensure in the future that they
>have applied for the appropriate waiver of the rule. I did not fly in
>your class and did not have an opinion concerning your insistance that
>the rule be followed. I think the Eric has adequately addressed the
>concerns you have about self launching.
>
>>
>> I will agree with you on one point, though. I think this may come down to
>> everybody getting a G.D. MOTOR or nobody having a G.D. MOTOR. Isn't that
> where
>> we were when the motorgliders wanted to be included in SSA regionals and
>> nationals? You had your own Motorglider Class, why didn't you just stay there
>> and leave the rest of us alone?
>
>Simple: Region 8 did not have a motor glider class; I flew in Sports
>(I could have also flown in 15M, but there advantage of dumpable
>ballast was too much of an advantage).
>Also, I thought that you flew in Open class, did I miss something?

[John Morgan]

"dennis brown" > wrote in message
et...
> To be equal to a non-powered glider in a non-powered glider event, the
> entire flight, from tow to landing must be unpowered. Any other scenario
> is not equal. For that reason, if the engine is run during any time
> between the start of takeoff roll and the time the glider touches the
ground,
> it should be disqualified as a glider flight. Zero points.
> Simple rule. Takes care of the inequalities. Everybody makes the same
> land/no land/where to fly decisions.
> Such a rule would not prohibit retrieving the glider by self launching.
> Dennis


I think most would agree there are many off field landing sites suitable for
a glider with light wing loading that would be unsuitable for a heavier
glider. And that the non-powered glider will doubtless dump his ballast
prior to any outlanding. The MG can't do that and so incurs a much higher
risk of damage in less than optimum conditions. Not fair!

So unless you *require* the non-powered glider to keep his water ballast
throughout the entire flight, including landing, your rule isn't equal. Of
course the non-powered glider should get zero points if he dumps ballast at
any time prior to landing.

--
bumper >
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left









---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 8/30/2003

[Eric Greenwell]

In article <e9Lab.525378$uu5.87796@sccrnsc04>,
says...
>
> For the flight that you stated, what you did might have been safer, but what
> would you have done if you had not had an engine?

In that particular case, I would've landed at the airport, as I think
that, overall, it would've been the safest thing to do.

> If you fly in a pure
> sailplane contest,

Indulge me while I be a bit peevish: I don't think I am flying in a
"pure" sailplane contest: I fly in sailplane contests. Some of the
gliders in the contest have motors, some have flaps, some have two
seats, some can go to a very high (or low) wing loadings, and so on.
We write the rules to accommodate these variations to various degrees
(e.g., almost no accommodation for the 1-26 class, lots of it for the
Sports class).

> should you not be exposed to the same mental strain and
> decision making of the other contestants?

During the task, yes, but once the task is over, why not encourage the
safest behaviour? We've already had two rule changes to encourage
safer behaviour (I.e, discourage landing out) in unpowered gliders
(allowing aero retrieves and the 25 point airport bonus), so I'm
suggesting a small change to the airport bonus to do the same thing
for a powered glider.

> There are many special
> disadvantages as to starting the engine as you state, but that is mostly
> because you elected to fly "out of class". Also, the motorgliders with an
> engine in the nose do not have many of those problems. Yes, I know that not
> many exist .... now.

The current self-launchers, even the Stemme, have similar problems
with starting reliability. Sometime in the future, we will need to
consider if the expected reliability of the battery powered sailplanes
(like the Antares) changes the arguments I've presented.

> If the pure sailplane pilot has to make an off
> field landing it sometimes works out that the pilot returns very late and
> hungry. The motorglider pilot flys home, has a nice dinner, and gets to bed
> early. Is that fair?

It's a balance: the motorglider pilot is more likely "land out"
because of it's higher wing loading and the need to stop soaring 500'+
higher than the same glider without a motor. So, for contest flying,
sometimes it's a benefit, sometimes it's not. My opinion is the
serious contest pilot will fly without a motor, because the low wing
loading then available is almost always the more important aspect.

Here's a similar question: If a pilot of an unpowered glider has to
make an off field landing it sometimes works out that the pilot
returns very late and hungry. The pilot of an unpowered glider that
landed at an airport gets an aerotow retrieve has a nice dinner, and
gets to bed early. Is that fair? In the past we didn't allow aero
retrieves. Was that fair?

> If you use the engine to modify your decision making
> are you competing the same as the other pilots?

Our decision making is always affected by the equipment we fly. The
Open class at Region 8 this year featured a 20 meter Jantar, a 26
meter Nimbus 4 M, an 18 meter ASH 26 E, an ASH 25, and a Nimbus 3. I'm
sure we didn't make the same decisions, even accounting for the motors
in the 26 and the 4!

How about this question, instead: "Did the presence of the engine
cause you to place higher or lower than you would've without it?" I
think I finished lower; JJ thinks I finished higher. My philosophy is
I've flown a lot of contests, my wife has made a lot of retrieves, and
we're both happier if I accept some competitive disadvantage and we
don't have to do that anymore.

> I am not really against what you propose, but the total concept should be
> thought through. I am really just asking a question about total fairness.

These are good questions, and our idea of "fairness" continues to
evolve. The change to aerotow retrieves about 10-15 years ago is an
illustration of that.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> To be equal to a non-powered glider in a non-powered glider event, the
> entire flight, from tow to landing must be unpowered. Any other scenario
> is not equal. For that reason, if the engine is run during any time
> between the start of takeoff roll and the time the glider touches the ground,
> it should be disqualified as a glider flight. Zero points.
> Simple rule. Takes care of the inequalities. Everybody makes the same
> land/no land/where to fly decisions.

In fact, everyone doesn't make the same decisions, even if they are
all flying unpowered gliders. A pilot with a good crew and a light
weight glider will be much more inclined to accept the possibility of
a field landing than a pilot with no crew and heavy glider will not.
For example, JJ flew his large and very heavy ASH 25 in our regional,
and his co-pilot was handicapped. Do you really think he made the same
decisions about where to land as he would've when flying his Genesis?

One of the things we try to achieve with our contest rules is
participation in soaring. So, will a rule like this increase or
decrease participation? Our experience at Ephrata is it will likely
decrease participation, as most motorglider pilots, faced these
choices:

1) landing out to maximize their contest points
2) landing at airport to ease the retrieve but giving up many points

will decide not to enter the contest at all, and the rule won't
attract enough unpowered glider pilots to make up the loss. This year
there were 5 self-launchers in the contest. One that normally enters
was instead in the Return to Kitty Hawk race, and another dropped out
at the last moment when he hurt his back. And there are more coming to
the area, so it's a substantial number of gliders for our regional
contest. Most of these are long time glider pilots doing a lot of good
for our region. One of them was the contest manager, for example.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Tom Seim]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...
> Tom wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >I entered that contest ONLY after being assured that I could
> >self-launch. If the contest organizers were not following the rules
> >that was not my fault.
>
> Tom,
> When you entered that contest, you signed the entry form which says, among
> other things, "I have read and understand the rules".
>
JJ,
This, simply, doesn't make any sense.

> You think you have a god given right to use your engine, any time, any place,
> and NO set of rules is going to change that.

Actually I prefer to use my engine as little as possible. But I do
want to do self retrieves, especially since I had a knee operation. I
recognize that there are those few that want to drive motorgliders out
of contests, which is what your recommendations would do. The bottom
line is can regionals exist without the support of MGs. If so, then
you have a chance of getting your proposals thru (I think that is a
long shot because, frankly, your viewpoint is in the minority).
Otherwise you will jepardize some regional contests. Either way, I can
take it or leave it. Contest flying is not my reason for living, and
if they told me to stay home I wouldn't skip a beat. In fact, I could
go to the contest and fun fly and be perfectly happy.

Tom

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article <e9Lab.525378$uu5.87796@sccrnsc04>,
> says...
> >
>
> These are good questions, and our idea of "fairness" continues to
> evolve. The change to aerotow retrieves about 10-15 years ago is an
> illustration of that.
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Richland, WA (USA)

Like I stated in my first post, I am just asking questions.

When I used the term "pure sailplane" contest I was using the term in the
"purest sense". The rules for Std, 15-M, & Open started as rules for FAI
class sailplanes. The FAI class definitions did not include engines. Motor
gliders were/are a separate class. But through evolution, definitions are
becoming confused.

As to the aerotow retrieve, I disagree with it. I think that we should
still have the rule that "all retrieves will be by trailer". Besides the
rest issue, sometimes aerotow retrieves are available only to the pilots
with extra spending funds. It is not fair to the pilots trying to compete
on a budget.

Duane

[Eric Greenwell]

In article <XT9bb.530734$YN5.354624@sccrnsc01>,
says...

> Like I stated in my first post, I am just asking questions.

And I'm pleased to see them. I hope my answers are useful.

> When I used the term "pure sailplane" contest I was using the term in the
> "purest sense". The rules for Std, 15-M, & Open started as rules for FAI
> class sailplanes. The FAI class definitions did not include engines. Motor
> gliders were/are a separate class.

They were a separate class, but no longer, at least internationally.
From the Sporting code:

7.6.2 Motor gliders
Motor gliders are integrated into the other championship classes
(except the World Class which is a one-design class) under
championship rules for motor gliders (see Annex A).

So, FAI class definitions now include motor gliders. As an example of
the integration, here is this from Appendix A 7.3 Launching
Procedures:

7.3.2 Motor Gliders Motor gliders may self launch or launch by aero
tow. The Organisers shall describe the launch procedures in the Local
Procedures.
a. If they self launch their MoP must be shut down in the designated
release area below the maximum release altitude.
b. If they require a second launch for a start, they must land prior
to taking the new launch, otherwise they will be scored to the
position at which they started their MoP.

These procedures are what I think we should be using in our contests.

The motorglider class was also removed from the International records
a few years ago, but is retained in the USA for state and national
records. There is a motorglider contest

> But through evolution, definitions are
> becoming confused.



--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[tango4]

Life's not fair! Not all of us can afford a brand new ASW 22 BL but we're
still forced to fly in competitions that allow them to enter. Sailplane
racing is largely a cheque book sport. If you can't take the heat, stay out
of the kitchen! If nothing else the guy who pitches up in a brand new ship
has a psychological edge on you if your attitude is 'It's not fair' rather
than 'New ship? Hmmm I'm still going to thrash you'.

If in the next world championship the top 10 places were all taken by a new
aircraft that cost twice as much as it's nearest competitor then it would be
the one to own and the winners would go out and get one - *engine equipped
or not*

The amount of whinging going on in this thread about perceived advantages is
quite sickening. I suspect the real winners are ROTFLAO knowing that your
cockpit decisions are clouded by your distraction from the task at hand. Go
out, fly the ship, beat the competition!

Ian

"Duane Eisenbeiss" > wrote in message
news:XT9bb.530734$YN5.354624@sccrnsc01...
>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > In article <e9Lab.525378$uu5.87796@sccrnsc04>,
> > says...
> > >
> >
> > These are good questions, and our idea of "fairness" continues to
> > evolve. The change to aerotow retrieves about 10-15 years ago is an
> > illustration of that.
> >
> > Eric Greenwell
> > Richland, WA (USA)
>
> Like I stated in my first post, I am just asking questions.
>
> When I used the term "pure sailplane" contest I was using the term in the
> "purest sense". The rules for Std, 15-M, & Open started as rules for FAI
> class sailplanes. The FAI class definitions did not include engines.
Motor
> gliders were/are a separate class. But through evolution, definitions are
> becoming confused.
>
> As to the aerotow retrieve, I disagree with it. I think that we should
> still have the rule that "all retrieves will be by trailer". Besides the
> rest issue, sometimes aerotow retrieves are available only to the pilots
> with extra spending funds. It is not fair to the pilots trying to compete
> on a budget.
>
> Duane
>
>
>

[JJ Sinclair]

Ian, Wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>The amount of whinging going on in this thread about perceived advantages is
>quite sickening.

Ian, Don't confuse *Whining* with those of us who wish to make racing ,*Fair*
for all who enter a contest and wish to play on a level field again.

I just had a good idea, lets start a list of RAS, SYNONYMS
1. Fair-------------------Whining
2. Safety---------Restricting my options
3. Enhance Safety--Dumbing up the rules
4. Task setters------Idiots


JJ Sinclair

[Soarin]

> How about this question, instead: "Did the presence of the engine
> cause you to place higher or lower than you would've without it?" I
> think I finished lower; JJ thinks I finished higher. My philosophy is
> I've flown a lot of contests, my wife has made a lot of retrieves, and
> we're both happier if I accept some competitive disadvantage and we
> don't have to do that anymore.

It's not surprising that a motor glider pilot would want to claim that
of course he has a competative disadvantage.

This might be true for Motor glider pilots that religiously fly
conservatively.
But to claim that all motor glider pilots fly that way, and especially
in competition. Is a bunch of Bull!

A typical example would be two pilots on a ridge, in the next valley
are landable fields. Failing to find lift at the next ridge will mean
landing in those fields. Although quite safe it will will mean that
the non motorized glider pilot will be getting back in the middle of
the night. But the motor glider pilot will just start his motor and
be back for evening dinner.

If you think that doesn't give the motor glider an advantage, then
there are
alot of people selling swamp land in florida that would like to talk
to you.

It sure would be a breath of fresh air, for some of the motor glider
pilots to
actually publish some of the instances where having a motor gave them
a distinct advantage compared to if they had been a non motorized
gliders in xc.

Soarin

[Gary Evans]

In the never-ending pursuit of fairness how about a
totally new approach to contests. Competition results
are determined by pilot skill, glider performance and
uncontrolled conditions (luck). Each factor has variables,
which can provide unfair advantages so they all need
to be standardized. The following format is therefore
proposed for consideration.

Contests would be conducted on simulators with a standard
aircraft computer model constructed from all existing
gliders so no one will have an advantage. For example
it may turn left like a 1-26, right like an LS-8, dive
like a Miller Tern, climb like a Czech made Discus
and land like a DG800 with the mast extended. The contestants
will be permitted to select an on-board engine but
it will only start ever 4th time and the mast will
extend at random during left turns.

Competitors will have 1 hour to practice, no more no
less and will have Novocain injected into their arms
so any genetic differences in eye/hand coordination
are nullified.

All competitors’ eyesight will be fitted with corrective
lenses & blinders to standardize sight and peripheral
vision. Masks will be worn to ensure even air consumption
during the event, which will prevent nose size from
giving an unfair edge and of course ear plugs.

I realized that even this format may have some inequities
but it’s a start!

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article <XT9bb.530734$YN5.354624@sccrnsc01>,
> says...

> They were a separate class, but no longer, at least internationally.
> From the Sporting code:

I am aware of that. That is sort of what I meant when I stated
> > But through evolution, definitions are becoming confused.

I was just trying to say that that is where our current rules grew from.
From when the sailplane types were separate.
The rule are allwas evolving. That is why discussion is valuable. I do not
fly motorgliders, so I admit that I have a prejudicial viewpoint. But,
sometimes I know that I am right! (That is supposed to be a joke.)

Duane

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

"tango4" > wrote in message
...
> Life's not fair!

Do not confuse "observations" as "complaints".
We all know that life is not fair. By discussing inequalities we can make
decisions as to which inequalities we judge to be acceptable (for whatever
reasons) and which are not.

Duane

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> > How about this question, instead: "Did the presence of the engine
> > cause you to place higher or lower than you would've without it?" I
> > think I finished lower; JJ thinks I finished higher. My philosophy is
> > I've flown a lot of contests, my wife has made a lot of retrieves, and
> > we're both happier if I accept some competitive disadvantage and we
> > don't have to do that anymore.
>
> It's not surprising that a motor glider pilot would want to claim that
> of course he has a competative disadvantage.

I flew unpowered gliders for 3000 hours before I began flying a
motorglider, which I've now flown for 1500 hours. I suggest this
experience gives me a good basis to understand the competitive
differences of the two types. To the best of my knowledge, the pilots
who think motorgliders have such big advantages have little or no
experience in them, and this why the claims of motorglider pilots are
often dismissed as self-serving.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[tango4]

Gosh, I think he's got it!

Ian

"Gary Evans" > wrote in message
...
> In the never-ending pursuit of fairness how about a
> totally new approach to contests. Competition results
> are determined by pilot skill, glider performance and
> uncontrolled conditions (luck). Each factor has variables,
> which can provide unfair advantages so they all need
> to be standardized. The following format is therefore
> proposed for consideration.
>
> Contests would be conducted on simulators with a standard
> aircraft computer model constructed from all existing
> gliders so no one will have an advantage. For example
> it may turn left like a 1-26, right like an LS-8, dive
> like a Miller Tern, climb like a Czech made Discus
> and land like a DG800 with the mast extended. The contestants
> will be permitted to select an on-board engine but
> it will only start ever 4th time and the mast will
> extend at random during left turns.
>
> Competitors will have 1 hour to practice, no more no
> less and will have Novocain injected into their arms
> so any genetic differences in eye/hand coordination
> are nullified.
>
> All competitors' eyesight will be fitted with corrective
> lenses & blinders to standardize sight and peripheral
> vision. Masks will be worn to ensure even air consumption
> during the event, which will prevent nose size from
> giving an unfair edge and of course ear plugs.
>
> I realized that even this format may have some inequities
> but it's a start!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Soarin]

> - The decision height with the motor is MUTCH higher, if you want to be
> safe,
> - The decision point is MUTCH more critical - try a failed motor-start,
> followed by a non-retract, then landing with huge drag/sink of motor out...

If your motor doesn't retract, of course your over a landable surface
anyhow so what is the big deal about the motor being out? I've
watched a DG800 land with his motor out and off. When questioned
afterward he said it still has decent L/D and lands quite well.

> - There have been multiple times I didn't finish because I had to decide to
> air-start HIGH, and I would easily have finished in the unpowered glider
> with lower and less critical decision heights.
> I love the flexibiliity of the motor-glider, but it comes at a significant
> penalty. Less so with a sustainer of course, which is a much better
> compromise if you've got a tow to get started.

The problem with your arguments are that they are all based on the
claim that of course ALL motor glider pilots always fly
conservatively. Realistically that is a load of crap. Motor glider
pilots have the flexibility of flying over unlandable, or less than
desirable terrain, getting the additional points that provides then
starting their motor and going home.

Here is a story as reported to me. That removed any doubt I may
have had regarding motor gliders having an advantage over non
motor gliders.

While attempting to qualify for the Hilton cup on the last day for
entries. A pilot flying a DG400 flew well past sunset (meaning it
was pitch black with no moon), and he was thermaling well below
glide for any known safe landing place. Afterward this pilot
openly admitted that he would not have flown into the dark,
if he had not had the motor to depend on. So did the fact he
was flying a motor glider give him an advantage? Of course it
did, and that advantage on that flight got him into the Hilton Cup.

So for those motor glider pilots who say they fly so conservatively
that the motor is always a penalty. Couldn't you also be honest
enough to openly admit that for the less conservative motor glider
pilots it provides a distinct competative advantage.

So if you want to fly head to head in competition with non
motorized gliders. You should either disable or remove the motor
and you will be more than welcome.

Soarin (non motorized)

[Dave Nadler \YO\]

There will always be pilots that do dumb things.
So, based on anecdotal here-say, you'd like to prevent
the rest of us from competing, or make it unpalatable ?
Really now...

PS: The L/D of my motor-glider with the motor out and
stopped is about 12; and it makes landing *interesting*.

"Soarin" > wrote in message
...
> > - The decision height with the motor is MUTCH higher, if you want to be
> > safe,
> > - The decision point is MUTCH more critical - try a failed motor-start,
> > followed by a non-retract, then landing with huge drag/sink of motor
out...
>
> If your motor doesn't retract, of course your over a landable surface
> anyhow so what is the big deal about the motor being out? I've
> watched a DG800 land with his motor out and off. When questioned
> afterward he said it still has decent L/D and lands quite well.
>
> > - There have been multiple times I didn't finish because I had to decide
to
> > air-start HIGH, and I would easily have finished in the unpowered glider
> > with lower and less critical decision heights.
> > I love the flexibiliity of the motor-glider, but it comes at a
significant
> > penalty. Less so with a sustainer of course, which is a much better
> > compromise if you've got a tow to get started.
>
> The problem with your arguments are that they are all based on the
> claim that of course ALL motor glider pilots always fly
> conservatively. Realistically that is a load of crap. Motor glider
> pilots have the flexibility of flying over unlandable, or less than
> desirable terrain, getting the additional points that provides then
> starting their motor and going home.
>
> Here is a story as reported to me. That removed any doubt I may
> have had regarding motor gliders having an advantage over non
> motor gliders.
>
> While attempting to qualify for the Hilton cup on the last day for
> entries. A pilot flying a DG400 flew well past sunset (meaning it
> was pitch black with no moon), and he was thermaling well below
> glide for any known safe landing place. Afterward this pilot
> openly admitted that he would not have flown into the dark,
> if he had not had the motor to depend on. So did the fact he
> was flying a motor glider give him an advantage? Of course it
> did, and that advantage on that flight got him into the Hilton Cup.
>
> So for those motor glider pilots who say they fly so conservatively
> that the motor is always a penalty. Couldn't you also be honest
> enough to openly admit that for the less conservative motor glider
> pilots it provides a distinct competative advantage.
>
> So if you want to fly head to head in competition with non
> motorized gliders. You should either disable or remove the motor
> and you will be more than welcome.
>
> Soarin (non motorized)

[Soarin]

> There will always be pilots that do dumb things.
> So, based on anecdotal here-say, you'd like to prevent
> the rest of us from competing, or make it unpalatable ?
> Really now...

The story was not here-say. It was an eyewitness report
from a pilot who was next to the runway when the motor
glider landed. He even said that although he was standing
less than 300 feet from the runway and there were runway
lights on he didn't know the glider was on the runway
until he heard the wheel chirp on the asphault.

Give them an inch and they will take a mile. You motor
guys weren't happy just being allowed to enter competitions
with non motorized gliders. Now you not only want to deny
there are any advantages to motor gliders. But you want to
claim you have disadvantages and want even more concessions.

Eric wants to be able to get airport bonus points for not
landing at an airport worth bonus points. He says it's
safer for a motor glider to start his motor and fly away
rather than land for airport bonus points. He claims
that at Coulee he gave up the airport bonus points by
starting his motor in order to make it safer for other
gliders. I guess we should assume that the fact that
the runway is only an 18 foot wide gravel runway, had
no bearing on his decision.
http://www.airnav.com/airport/WA15

If you want to compete with non motored gliders in
competition, at a minimum you should.

Launch by aerotow
relight by aerotow
be scored to the last turn completed if motor is used
land at the airport to get that airports bonus points

Soarin (motorless)

[JJ Sinclair]

Eric,
You are side-stepping the issue;
With conditions deteriorating, two experienced pilots declined to attempt the
glide, while two motorgliders felt comfortable attempting it. I say again, The
REAL inequity was that you were able to sample air for another 20 miles, had
you found a thermal that was strong enough to climb in, you would have
finished. That finish would have been a DIRECT result of you having an engine
for back-up.
This inequity will always be present as long as there is NO PENALTY to be paid
for attempting a marginal glide.
JJ Sinclair

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> > There will always be pilots that do dumb things.
> > So, based on anecdotal here-say, you'd like to prevent
> > the rest of us from competing, or make it unpalatable ?
> > Really now...
>
> The story was not here-say. It was an eyewitness report
> from a pilot who was next to the runway when the motor
> glider landed. He even said that although he was standing
> less than 300 feet from the runway and there were runway
> lights on he didn't know the glider was on the runway
> until he heard the wheel chirp on the asphault.

I contacted Hannes Linke, one of the primary people running the Hilton
Cup and who has been with it from the start, about this story. He says
he is not aware of it. Perhaps you could give us some details, like a
year and a name? It's hard to understand how a glider pilot flies in
pitch black conditions, even in a DG 400.

Even if the story is true, back then the Hilton Cup was run very
differently than our contests are now, which use GPS loggers.
Obviously, getting points for flying after sunset isn't possible in a
contest.

It is still possible for motorglider pilot to fly low over unlandable
terrain, planning to use the engine to save him if he doesn't find
lift. Possible isn't the same as probable, and I don't see any
evidence that this kind of behavior is a problem in our contests. I
think this is because most motorglider pilots are conservative, and
the situation where this kind of risk would be worth taking doesn't
occur very often.

I'm reminded of a conversation years ago, even before there were
motorgliders in contests, when I tried to persuade a pilot to enter a
contest. Basically, he claimed you had to take crazy risks to win a
contest, like landing out in bad fields or flying low over unlandable
terrain to get the good lift, and he wasn't going to fly like that, so
he had no chance of winning a contest, so why enter?

Well, most of us are still willing enter contests, even though we know
it is possible that some pilot might gain an advantage by taking undue
risk. I hope we'll be willing to enter contests with motorgliders,
until there is evidence that "low flight over ugly terrain" is
changing the contest results.

>
> Give them an inch and they will take a mile. You motor
> guys weren't happy just being allowed to enter competitions
> with non motorized gliders. Now you not only want to deny
> there are any advantages to motor gliders.

I don't think any of us have claimed there are no advantages to flying
a motorglider in contests. We have stated our belief that, overall, a
serious competitor will almost always be better off in a motorless
glider. A pilot less serious about winning, who flies so he can always
land at an airport, may or may not have an advantage over a
motorglider pilot that is willing to start his engine over a field
(depends on the contest area and the weather). A motorglider pilot
that flies to be at an airport when he gets low, whether he actually
lands at the airport or starts the engine over the airport, will be at
a distinct disadvantage to the other pilots.

> But you want to
> claim you have disadvantages and want even more concessions.
>
> Eric wants to be able to get airport bonus points for not
> landing at an airport worth bonus points. He says it's
> safer for a motor glider to start his motor and fly away
> rather than land for airport bonus points. He claims
> that at Coulee he gave up the airport bonus points by
> starting his motor in order to make it safer for other
> gliders. I guess we should assume that the fact that
> the runway is only an 18 foot wide gravel runway, had
> no bearing on his decision.
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/WA15

Whether I am a self-serving, cynical, son-of-a-bitch or not, the
current airport bonus does not encourage the safest action from a
pilot flying a motor glider. Since the only purpose of the bonus is
encourage a safer termination of the flight, I believe my proposal is
worthy of consideration. Please consider that the bonus for "landing
at an airport" is not intended to encourage LANDING, since a motorless
glider is going to land regardless, but to encourage AT THE AIRPORT.

The Coulee strip is narrow, but 25 meter span Nimbus 3's can take off
from this runway, and so can my 18 meter span ASH 26 E. We do need a
wing runner to do it, and there were plenty of them that day. If there
were no other gliders there (and consequently no wing runners), I
might have decided not to land, and give up the 25 points. So, we have
a situation where the availability of 25 point bonus and wing runners
(a consequence of the other gliders landing there) is encouraging me
to do the less safe thing.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> Eric,
> You are side-stepping the issue;
> With conditions deteriorating, two experienced pilots declined to attempt the
> glide, while two motorgliders felt comfortable attempting it. I say again, The
> REAL inequity was that you were able to sample air for another 20 miles, had
> you found a thermal that was strong enough to climb in, you would have
> finished. That finish would have been a DIRECT result of you having an engine
> for back-up.
> This inequity will always be present as long as there is NO PENALTY to be paid
> for attempting a marginal glide.
> JJ Sinclair

Since our discussion is turning more to the minutiae of a particular
contest leg, and probably isn't of much concern to the rest of the
newsgroup, how about we hash this out in private? We could present a
mutual posting at the end, separate postings if we are still so
polarized, or none at all, but at least we'd spare the newsgroup!
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[JJ Sinclair]

Eric,
My postings are in support of my proposal that started this thread and
hopefully will lead to rule changes that I believe are required to level the
playing field again.
JJ Sinclair

[Tom Serkowski]

Thanks Eric, for saying what I was thinking, but just didn't have the
time to prepare a thoughtful post myself.

As a relatvely active 15m competitor for over 20 years and now an
owner of a self-launcher fo the last 2 years, I agree with most of
what Eric and Dave Nadler have said so far.

In the last 2 years, I have discovered that the motor has given me the
abilty to push the envelope of my weekend flying. I have also learned
that when I'm pushing the limits of a day while trying to not use the
engine it is more difficult than in an unpowered sailplane. I have to
stop soaring several minutes sooner than I would if not planning to
make an engine start. I can't dump my ballast (engine), so have to
make that low save while flying at a much higher wing loading than I
would if I'd removed the engine for the contest.

In my many years of soaring, I've watched other pilots of
non-motorized sailplanes head off over unlandable terrain, while I
deviated or worked that weak thernal for a few hundred more feet, or
landed. It's been done without a motor, and it's just as dangerous,
if not more so with a motor.

In most contests, all IGC logs are available for review. Stupid
decision while down low in any type of sailplane can now be replayed
and analyzed. Until we find several cases of unsafe flying that can't
be defended by the pilot, why not just give it a rest?

As for the motor allowing me to get home every day and be rested, a
good crew whith a motorhome will also provide that. Should we force
all retrieves to be by car to prevent this advantage some of us may
have?

Tom Serkowski
ASH-26E

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> Eric,
> You are side-stepping the issue;
> With conditions deteriorating, two experienced pilots declined to attempt the
> glide, while two motorgliders felt comfortable attempting it.

I think you are unintentionally combining two days. Looking at the
2003 Open Class flight files, I see:

July 1, assigned task, last turnpoint: Dry Falls (near Coulee City
airport)

One Open class glider landed at Coulee City; I started my motor over
Coulee City without attempting a glide home. The Nimbus 4M did attempt
a glide home, starting the engine about 7 nm from Ephrata. JJ makes it
home to win the day in a motorless glider.

July 2, modified assigned task, no last turnpoint specified:

I attempted a final glide from Dry Falls turnpoint (near Coulee City),
starting with 5700' msl, a 28:1, 4+ MC setting glide to Ephrata. By
the time I decided to abandon the glide, it was still 28:1.

The only other Open class glider to use Dry Falls as the last
turnpoint that day was a Nimbus 3, which finished (speed finish) the
task, doing the Dry Falls/Ephrata leg with a 90+ knot average speed.

This doesn't seem like a compelling example of motorglider
superiority.

> I say again, The
> REAL inequity was that you were able to sample air for another 20 miles, had
> you found a thermal that was strong enough to climb in, you would have
> finished. That finish would have been a DIRECT result of you having an engine
> for back-up.

Do you mean that without a motor, I would have been unable to sample
that air? The glider goes just as far without the motor in it. As long
as I was willing to risk a landout, I could have sampled the same air.

Perhaps you mean I would not have dared risk a landout in a motorless
ASH 26 E, and therefore, it was only because I had a motor that I
pressed on?

You've told me you're willing to land out in your ASH 25; I'm telling
you I'm willing to land out in a motorless ASH 26.

> This inequity will always be present as long as there is NO PENALTY to be paid
> for attempting a marginal glide.

The "penalty" for being able to attempt this "no penalty" marginal
glide is I carry 180 pounds of ballast that can't be dropped.

Maybe I can sum up our differing concepts for contests:

JJ believes motorgliders must have all advantages removed (except
self-retrieving after landing at an airport) to achieve a fair
contest. Any disadvantages caused by the motor are irrelevant and
should not be considered.

Eric believes we can allow motorgliders an advantage in some
situations, achieving fairness overall when their disadvantages are
considered.

We each hope that the pilots voting in the poll agree with us!
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> As for the motor allowing me to get home every day and be rested, a
> good crew whith a motorhome will also provide that. Should we force
> all retrieves to be by car to prevent this advantage some of us may
> have?

It doesn't even take a motorhome. An SUV, station wagon, van, or mini-
van will provide plenty of room for the pilot to stretch out and sleep
while the crew drives back. Some people can sleep well in a mostly
reclined passenger seat in a regular sedan.

In the olden days, the serious pilots would have their crew out on
course well before they landed, even if they thought they might get
back, just to keep the retrieve as short as possible. I don't know if
anyone does that anymore.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Jack]

in article , Tom Serkowski at
wrote on 2003/09/24 17:54:

> As for the motor allowing me to get home every day and be rested, a
> good crew whith a motorhome will also provide that. Should we force
> all retrieves to be by car to prevent this advantage...?

It's not a motor home competition, it's a _glider_ competition. So glide
already. What a bunch of whiners you MG people seem to be.

Sure, having a motor is a great training tool. But once you've learned
enough that you think you are competitive as a _glider_, not a powered ship,
then enter competitions for _gliders_ and leave the training wheels at home.



Jack

[JJ Sinclair]

Ian,
The Turbo gives you the ability to attempt a glide that a prudent un-powered
sailplane pilot wouldn't try, therefore I would place you in the same motored
category and *use of engine* penalty would apply.

I do agree with your post that suggested;

Standard class-------------No Engine
15 Meter----------------------Turbo only
18 Meter----------------------Engine
Open---------------------------Engine
Sports-------------------------??? I don't know, what do the rest think?

If this rule became *stable* (Good luck on that) most pilots in each class
could be appropriately equipped and inequity would, for the most part, be
eliminated.
JJ Sinclair

[Bill Daniels]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Ian,
> The Turbo gives you the ability to attempt a glide that a prudent
un-powered
> sailplane pilot wouldn't try, therefore I would place you in the same
motored
> category and *use of engine* penalty would apply.
>
> I do agree with your post that suggested;
>
> Standard class-------------No Engine
> 15 Meter----------------------Turbo only
> 18 Meter----------------------Engine
> Open---------------------------Engine
> Sports-------------------------??? I don't know, what do the rest think?
>
> If this rule became *stable* (Good luck on that) most pilots in each class
> could be appropriately equipped and inequity would, for the most part, be
> eliminated.
> JJ Sinclair

I seem to always be in agreement with JJ.

Last year I listened to an excellent pilot describe a 1000K flight over
difficult terrain in his MG without an engine start. Afterward, I wondered
if this flight would have happened without the safety net of the engine. If
the flight had been in a pure sailplane, I would have given the flight a
"10" - in a motorglider, only a "5".

There is always this question after a good flight in a MG - was the pilot
good or did he get lucky after a dumb decision? There's no way to tell.

Motorgliders, like pure sailplanes before them, will continue to improve and
the rules for their use will continue to liberalize. It all makes me wonder
if we will end up with mere powered airplanes that must only demonstrate an
ability to "glide" to a landing. This is a slippery slope and if we go that
far, it would be very sad.

We fly merely for the bragging rights. MG's are a very convenient, low
risk, low effort way to fly. Pure sailplanes are hard work and require that
an endless series of difficult decisions be made before and during flight.
Pure sailplanes will always earn the greatest bragging rights for any given
flight.

They should also earn the greatest points in contests.

I think JJ is right to dig in his heels and insist that this sport remain
soaring in the traditional sense.

Bill Daniels

[Bob Kuykendall]

I'm beginning to wonder if there shouldn't be some sort of contest
penalty for people who repair their own gliders.

Consider for a moment a long final glide over sagebrush terrain. Two
competitors are at the same position and zero-margin height. One can
repair his glider overnight if he lands in the sage. The other can't.
Which one will be more likely to attempt the marginal final glide?

Maybe we ought to level the playing field by landing the guy with the
repair station certificate back at the last turnpoint unless he
finishes at 500 feet...

:)

Bob "juuuuust kidding!" K.

[Liam Finley]

I agree, motorgliders => discounted bragging rights.

I also tend to discount flights done by people who fly around with a
ground crew following them every step of the way.

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message et>...
>
> Last year I listened to an excellent pilot describe a 1000K flight over
> difficult terrain in his MG without an engine start. Afterward, I wondered
> if this flight would have happened without the safety net of the engine. If
> the flight had been in a pure sailplane, I would have given the flight a
> "10" - in a motorglider, only a "5".
>
> There is always this question after a good flight in a MG - was the pilot
> good or did he get lucky after a dumb decision? There's no way to tell.
>
> Motorgliders, like pure sailplanes before them, will continue to improve and
> the rules for their use will continue to liberalize. It all makes me wonder
> if we will end up with mere powered airplanes that must only demonstrate an
> ability to "glide" to a landing. This is a slippery slope and if we go that
> far, it would be very sad.
>
> We fly merely for the bragging rights. MG's are a very convenient, low
> risk, low effort way to fly. Pure sailplanes are hard work and require that
> an endless series of difficult decisions be made before and during flight.
> Pure sailplanes will always earn the greatest bragging rights for any given
> flight.
>
> They should also earn the greatest points in contests.
>
> I think JJ is right to dig in his heels and insist that this sport remain
> soaring in the traditional sense.
>
> Bill Daniels

[303pilot]

No Bob, you're definitely on to something here. Let's also dock the best
bull$hit artists 100 points per day because even with poor results, they'll
still have better stories than the rest of us.


"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm beginning to wonder if there shouldn't be some sort of contest
> penalty for people who repair their own gliders.
>
> Consider for a moment a long final glide over sagebrush terrain. Two
> competitors are at the same position and zero-margin height. One can
> repair his glider overnight if he lands in the sage. The other can't.
> Which one will be more likely to attempt the marginal final glide?
>
> Maybe we ought to level the playing field by landing the guy with the
> repair station certificate back at the last turnpoint unless he
> finishes at 500 feet...
>
> :)
>
> Bob "juuuuust kidding!" K.

[Tom Serkowski]

Holy cow Bill, you can't be serious?!

The only differences I've observed so far are:

- I can take a 'tow' when I feel like it and can 'release' at a place
convenient to me. In other words, I don't wait in line for takeoff
and I have the 'towplane' all to myself and can 'hang on' for 20 or 30
miles as I seek a good/convenient place to release. This, of course,
is not while participating in a contest.

- I worry less about needing a retreive. I still think about it and
plan my glides appropriately. I sweat just as hard in my ASH-26E as I
did in the ASW-20B when I'm low. I don't want to use the engine. It
'spoils' a soaring acheivement for me.

The bottom line is that flying a self-launcher or turbo, is probably
very similar to going XC back in the 40's and 50's. Back then
sailplanes flew slow enough that the crew could generally keep up and
stay below the pilot. Today, XC speeds are just too high (nost of the
time) for this to be possible. The motor is just an extension of the
crew. When I finally do start the engine and begin climbing away, I'm
just as exhausted and disappointed as I would have been if I'd landed.
And, I don't think I've put any less effort into the flight than your
'pure' sailplane pilot.

Flying as if the motor will ALWAYS start is a very bad idea and is
equivalent to pressing on because 'there will be a thermal ahead'. In
either case, the plane and the pilot may be hurt. Some people do it
anyway, whether they have a motor or not. So where on your 'hero
list' would you put the 'pure' sailplane pilot who pushed on into
unlandable terrain and got away with it?

-Tom
ASH-26E (5Z)

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message et>...
> We fly merely for the bragging rights. MG's are a very convenient, low
> risk, low effort way to fly. Pure sailplanes are hard work and require that
> an endless series of difficult decisions be made before and during flight.
> Pure sailplanes will always earn the greatest bragging rights for any given
> flight.
>
> They should also earn the greatest points in contests.
>
> I think JJ is right to dig in his heels and insist that this sport remain
> soaring in the traditional sense.
>
> Bill Daniels

[Mike Borgelt]

On 25 Sep 2003 13:06:57 -0700, (Tom Serkowski)
wrote:

>Holy cow Bill, you can't be serious?!
>
>The only differences I've observed so far are:
>
>- I can take a 'tow' when I feel like it and can 'release' at a place
>convenient to me. In other words, I don't wait in line for takeoff
>and I have the 'towplane' all to myself and can 'hang on' for 20 or 30
>miles as I seek a good/convenient place to release. This, of course,
>is not while participating in a contest.
>
>- I worry less about needing a retreive. I still think about it and
>plan my glides appropriately. I sweat just as hard in my ASH-26E as I
>did in the ASW-20B when I'm low. I don't want to use the engine. It
>'spoils' a soaring acheivement for me.
>
>The bottom line is that flying a self-launcher or turbo, is probably
>very similar to going XC back in the 40's and 50's. Back then
>sailplanes flew slow enough that the crew could generally keep up and
>stay below the pilot. Today, XC speeds are just too high (nost of the
>time) for this to be possible. The motor is just an extension of the
>crew. When I finally do start the engine and begin climbing away, I'm
>just as exhausted and disappointed as I would have been if I'd landed.
> And, I don't think I've put any less effort into the flight than your
>'pure' sailplane pilot.
>
>Flying as if the motor will ALWAYS start is a very bad idea and is
>equivalent to pressing on because 'there will be a thermal ahead'. In
>either case, the plane and the pilot may be hurt. Some people do it
>anyway, whether they have a motor or not. So where on your 'hero
>list' would you put the 'pure' sailplane pilot who pushed on into
>unlandable terrain and got away with it?
>
>-Tom
>ASH-26E (5Z)
>
I completely agree, Tom.
As I said the other day there are gliders and there are motorless
gliders.

Having to start the motor means the equivalent of a landout. Doesn't
feel real good but I can avoid the risk of actually landing in the
field I've picked. In this country we have a lot of SWER lines(Single
Wire Earth Return) for mains power distribution in rural areas. They
like to hide the poles in clumps of trees. We also have a lots of
rabbits and the two main hazards of landing out are dropping the wheel
in a rabbit hole(can't see from the air and there are other
equivalent surface hazards) or hitting a hidden SWER line.

I find flying a self launcher an immensely liberating experience due
to not depending on a towplane and pilot.

One other thing you might all like to contemplate is this:
With the growth of agribusiness, GM foods and things like the foot and
mouth disease outbreak in the UK last year do you think it will be
socially acceptable to fly motorless gliders cross country in the
future? And land willy nilly in fields? It is one thing to have an
engine fail to start and have to land out. It is another to not even
have the means to do so.

Mike Borgelt

[Bill Daniels]

Hey, Tom. I wasn't talking about you. I have no doubt that you could have
done your 1000K with a pure sailplane. You did your homework and deserve
the bragging rights. I was speaking of others who just keep relying on the
engine to save the day when it goes bad until they get lucky and bag a big
flight.

There are also sailplane pilots who venture over dangerous terrain and get
lucky enough to get away with it - for awhile.

However, there are others who make their own luck with skill and knowledge
and have flown astonishing flights for many decades with incident. These
people have done their homework, understand the risks and how to manage
them. Most of them kept notebooks with drawings and notes about safe
landing sites in difficult areas. they spent a lot of time driving remote
area to get this information. As I said, it takes work and perseverance to
make the big flights without a motor. I respect that.

Bill Daniels


"Tom Serkowski" > wrote in message
m...
> Holy cow Bill, you can't be serious?!
>
> The only differences I've observed so far are:
>
> - I can take a 'tow' when I feel like it and can 'release' at a place
> convenient to me. In other words, I don't wait in line for takeoff
> and I have the 'towplane' all to myself and can 'hang on' for 20 or 30
> miles as I seek a good/convenient place to release. This, of course,
> is not while participating in a contest.
>
> - I worry less about needing a retreive. I still think about it and
> plan my glides appropriately. I sweat just as hard in my ASH-26E as I
> did in the ASW-20B when I'm low. I don't want to use the engine. It
> 'spoils' a soaring acheivement for me.
>
> The bottom line is that flying a self-launcher or turbo, is probably
> very similar to going XC back in the 40's and 50's. Back then
> sailplanes flew slow enough that the crew could generally keep up and
> stay below the pilot. Today, XC speeds are just too high (nost of the
> time) for this to be possible. The motor is just an extension of the
> crew. When I finally do start the engine and begin climbing away, I'm
> just as exhausted and disappointed as I would have been if I'd landed.
> And, I don't think I've put any less effort into the flight than your
> 'pure' sailplane pilot.
>
> Flying as if the motor will ALWAYS start is a very bad idea and is
> equivalent to pressing on because 'there will be a thermal ahead'. In
> either case, the plane and the pilot may be hurt. Some people do it
> anyway, whether they have a motor or not. So where on your 'hero
> list' would you put the 'pure' sailplane pilot who pushed on into
> unlandable terrain and got away with it?
>
> -Tom
> ASH-26E (5Z)
>
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
et>...
> > We fly merely for the bragging rights. MG's are a very convenient, low
> > risk, low effort way to fly. Pure sailplanes are hard work and require
that
> > an endless series of difficult decisions be made before and during
flight.
> > Pure sailplanes will always earn the greatest bragging rights for any
given
> > flight.
> >
> > They should also earn the greatest points in contests.
> >
> > I think JJ is right to dig in his heels and insist that this sport
remain
> > soaring in the traditional sense.
> >
> > Bill Daniels

[tango4]

5 months of this sort of stuff on R.A.S and we're all going to be nuts I
think!

Ian

"Ruud Holswilder" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 Sep 2003 09:50:53 GMT, (JJ Sinclair) wrote:
>
> BIG SNIP, because everything has been discussed in this NG again and
> again and again....
>
> It seems that the soaring season 2003 is over.

[tango4]

Touche'

"Keith W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "tango4" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 5 months of this sort of stuff on R.A.S and we're all going to be nuts
I
> > think!
> >
> > Ian
> >
> What? You mean to say that you're not already? 8-))
>
> Keith
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
>in article , Tom Serkowski at
wrote on 2003/09/24 17:54:
>
>> As for the motor allowing me to get home every day and be rested, a
>> good crew whith a motorhome will also provide that. Should we force
>> all retrieves to be by car to prevent this advantage...?
>
>It's not a motor home competition, it's a _glider_ competition. So glide
>already. What a bunch of whiners you MG people seem to be.

Uh, isn't those other guys that are using the motorhome? You know, the
motorless guys? And I'm guessing you don't remember AJ Smith, who
thought a crew car that wasn't worn out at the end of a contest meant
the crew was a slacker. Ol' AJ, he knew what it took to win a contest...

>Sure, having a motor is a great training tool. But once you've learned
>enough that you think you are competitive as a _glider_, not a powered ship,
>then enter competitions for _gliders_ and leave the training wheels at home.

And then there is Ron Tabery, who flew his ASW 22 BLE, with the engine,
in the Open Class nationals this year. Even though he is a five time
member of the US Team, including the 2003 team, we look forward to the
day he learns how to do it, and discards his "training wheels".
--
==> change the decimal.point in my address to . to reply directly

[Eric Greenwell]

In article et>,
says...
>There is always this question after a good flight in a MG - was the pilot
>good or did he get lucky after a dumb decision? There's no way to tell.
>
>Motorgliders, like pure sailplanes before them, will continue to improve and
>the rules for their use will continue to liberalize. It all makes me wonder
>if we will end up with mere powered airplanes that must only demonstrate an
>ability to "glide" to a landing. This is a slippery slope and if we go that
>far, it would be very sad.

When I got my motorglider in 1995, there were still a lot "purists", who
warned me (and others) a motorglider would soon turn me into a real wuss
- little more than a power pilot flying a bad airplane.

The years went by, the purists have almost vanished, and instead of
warnings about what the motorglider will do to me, pilots tell me their
envy at my independence and the flights I make. They express the hope
that some day, they can afford to step up to a motorglider. They know an
ASH 26 E isn't a "mere powered airplane".

>We fly merely for the bragging rights.

Surely you don't mean this? Most of us seem to fly for the joy of
soaring, and bragging rights are just an occasional bonus.

> MG's are a very convenient,

Convenient at the launch and at the end of a flight if you didn't get
home, but otherwise more trouble. Anything with an engine is more hassle
and expense to own.

> low risk,

My experience: to maintain the same risk you would have flying a
motorless glider, you must be a more careful pilot. This is due to the
extra complexity of operation, the additional maintenance required, and
the additional vulnerability during self-launch. Not everyone is up to
the task.

> low effort way to fly.

I have no idea what you mean by this. I work just as hard now as I did
before. I know what does reduce the effort to fly: more L/D! Every time
I went up in L/D, the flying got easier, and I didn't get in trouble as
often.

> Pure sailplanes are hard work and require that
>an endless series of difficult decisions be made before and during flight.

I haven't noticed a motor reducing the decision making or the work, but
I have noticed more L/D can reduce the number of decisions I _need_ to
make. The more L/D I have, the better the "waffle along until I blunder
into a thermal" technique works, for example.

>Pure sailplanes will always earn the greatest bragging rights for any given
>flight.
>
>They should also earn the greatest points in contests.
>
>I think JJ is right to dig in his heels and insist that this sport remain
>soaring in the traditional sense.

And what is "soaring in the traditional sense" when we are talking about
contests? In the 28+ years I've been with this sport, I've seen contests
change considerably. Remember when we used to choose our own launch
times? When we flew distance tasks - real distance tasks when you left
as soon as you could stay up, and flew straight out until you couldn't
stay up? Exactly what "tradition" would you have us remain with?

--
==> change the decimal.point in my address to . to reply directly

[Eric Greenwell]

In article et>,
says...
>Hey, Tom. I wasn't talking about you. I have no doubt that you could have
>done your 1000K with a pure sailplane. You did your homework and deserve
>the bragging rights. I was speaking of others who just keep relying on the
>engine to save the day when it goes bad until they get lucky and bag a big
>flight.
>
>There are also sailplane pilots who venture over dangerous terrain and get
>lucky enough to get away with it - for awhile.
>
>However, there are others who make their own luck with skill and knowledge
>and have flown astonishing flights for many decades with incident. These
>people have done their homework, understand the risks and how to manage
>them. Most of them kept notebooks with drawings and notes about safe
>landing sites in difficult areas. they spent a lot of time driving remote
>area to get this information. As I said, it takes work and perseverance to
>make the big flights without a motor. I respect that.

So, it takes "work and perseverance" to make a big flight without a
motor, but you also credit Tom with "work and perseverance", even though
he flies with a motor. It sounds like it's not the motor that's
important to you, but your perception of how much skill vs luck went
into the flight. In other words, just like we've always done:

- the 1-26 driver gets big credit for a 500K flight, but not the ASW 22
pilot

- the 500K done at Minden gets a ho-hum, but the 500K done in Minnesota
gets a "job well done!"

- the guy that lands out, hitch hikes home, then retrieves himself gets
the admiration; the guy that lands at an airport and gets an aero-
retrieve doesn't even get a "how did it go"

Someday, motors in gliders won't seem so special, and they'll just be
one more factor in how we judge a glider pilot. Personally, my favorite
way is to measure the size of the smile on his (or her) face after
landing.

--
==> change the decimal.point in my address to . to reply directly

[John Morgan]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
t...
> In article et>,
> says...
>
> Someday, motors in gliders won't seem so special, and they'll just be
> one more factor in how we judge a glider pilot. Personally, my favorite
> way is to measure the size of the smile on his (or her) face after
> landing.


And really, that's what it's all about. Enjoyment, fun, and appreciation for
the beauty and majesty that soaring brings. It matters not if your L/D is 15
or 60, if your ship has fabric or carbon wings, or if there's a motor along
or not. Not one little bit. For those whining and complaining about motors -
get over it. You don't have to have one if you don't want.

Motorgliders are here to stay. The fact that most of the new ships have
engines probably means there are good reasons for the motor, other than rich
Americans wanting to spend more money on their toys. I fly motorgliders and
enjoy the freedom, convenience, and ability to fly places you would never
ever see a engineless glider. Not so much due to unlandable terrain, but
more due to logistics, a lack of facilities and tow planes. Two years ago, 4
Stemmes flew a 9 day trip from CA to Telluride . . . no tow planes, no
ground support and not possible without a motorglider.

At Minden yesterday, I watched a group of sailplanes waiting at the staging
area for a tow. Some pilots were getting high tows to the crest of the
Sierras and this was probably slowing things down I guess. As I readied my
Stemme for the flight back to Napa, CA, I watched some 10 motorgliders
self-launch. No wait, just start and go. I climbed to 16K and did a final
glide home across the central valley. Not my favorite way to soar, but I was
still smiling after I landed.

--
bumper >
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003

[JJ Sinclair]

Eric asked for examples of motorglider advantage in contests.

My favorite story occured at the Minden regionals, a few years back. Gary and
I were working a decent little thermal, deep in the boonies, north of Basalt. I
spotted a wing flash on the next ridge and figured, "Anybody out here, knows
what they're doing." We left our 3 knotter and joined the glider I had spotted.
He didn't have a thing, just junk. Mad at myself for leaving the 3 knot
thermal, we all started a glide for Hawthorne. Gary was on the left, the
unknown glider, in the middle and I was on the right. As the ground became an
item of interest (read, we were below 1000 feet and Hawthorne was still more
than 10 miles away), I saw two little dors open on the unknown glider and an
IRON THERMAL appeared. Gary and I landed at Garlach Flats, its actually a
bombing range that isn't a restricted area. the Army tests cluster bombs there.
They just fly over with a cluster bomb slung below a helicopter, look all
around and if they don't see anybody on the ground, or in the air, they drop
the sucker. The individual bomblets are inert, they are just checking for a
good dispersal pattern.

Anyway, we landed in this bombing range. I shouted to Gary at the last moment,
to land outside the fence. Supper that night consisted of my apple and Gary's
candy bar. I gave him exactly half of my apple, but I think I got shorted on
his Baby Ruth. We gathered up all the fire wood we could find and then about
sundown, I felt the *call of nature*. I wiped myself with half of the task
sheet and then used the other half to start a fire. About 10 PM, the last of
the wood was consumed, so we got in our cockpits and settled down for a long,
gold night. As I drifted off to sleep I thought, "Wonder where that motorglider
is sleeping tonight."
JJ Sinclair

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
>Eric asked for examples of motorglider advantage in contests.

Actually, it was someone else, who said they'd like to hear from
MOTORGLIDER pilots about what they thought their advantages were. I
seconded the motion, since we'd been hearing a lot about motorglider
advantages from pilots that weren't motorglider pilots. And we still
are.

The situation JJ describes below is a well recognized advantage of
motorgliders. I've never disputed it. When the lift is too weak that NO
ONE can stay up, the advantage goes to the motorglider, since he'll
usually get home sooner, even if everyone lands at an airport.

As an aside, I sometimes miss the retrieves. They were generally quite
entertaining, often involving odd characters and unusual situations, as
JJ so well relates (no, no, I don't mean JJ or Gary are odd
characters!). Even though the retrieves left me with a bundle of good
stories, and I'm glad I flew motorless gliders, after 20 years and 3000
hours in motorless gliders, I decided I'd been there, done that, and it
was time to try something new.

So, are there any MOTORGLIDER pilots that would like to divulge their
advantages?

> My favorite story occured at the Minden regionals, a few years back. Gary and
>I were working a decent little thermal, deep in the boonies, north of Basalt. I
>spotted a wing flash on the next ridge and figured, "Anybody out here, knows
>what they're doing." We left our 3 knotter and joined the glider I had spotted.
>He didn't have a thing, just junk. Mad at myself for leaving the 3 knot
>thermal, we all started a glide for Hawthorne. Gary was on the left, the
>unknown glider, in the middle and I was on the right. As the ground became an
>item of interest (read, we were below 1000 feet and Hawthorne was still more
>than 10 miles away), I saw two little dors open on the unknown glider and an
>IRON THERMAL appeared. Gary and I landed at Garlach Flats, its actually a
>bombing range that isn't a restricted area. the Army tests cluster bombs there.
>They just fly over with a cluster bomb slung below a helicopter, look all
>around and if they don't see anybody on the ground, or in the air, they drop
>the sucker. The individual bomblets are inert, they are just checking for a
>good dispersal pattern.
>
>Anyway, we landed in this bombing range. I shouted to Gary at the last moment,
>to land outside the fence. Supper that night consisted of my apple and Gary's
>candy bar. I gave him exactly half of my apple, but I think I got shorted on
>his Baby Ruth. We gathered up all the fire wood we could find and then about
>sundown, I felt the *call of nature*. I wiped myself with half of the task
>sheet and then used the other half to start a fire. About 10 PM, the last of
>the wood was consumed, so we got in our cockpits and settled down for a long,
>gold night. As I drifted off to sleep I thought, "Wonder where that motorglider
>is sleeping tonight."
>JJ Sinclair
>

--
-----
Eric Greenwell USA

[Chuck Scrivner]

At 02:42 29 September 2003, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>In article ,
says...
>Actually, it was someone else, who said they'd like
>to hear from MOTORGLIDER pilots about what they thought
their advantages were. I seconded the motion, since
we'd been hearing a lot about motorglider advantages
from pilots that weren't motorglider pilots. And we
still are.
****
Chuck Writes;
OK here goes ....

My focus is upon Private Glider Pilot-in fixed wing
experimental
aircraft as an alternative to the Sport Pilot initiative
with it's focus on no medical required.
>
> The Private Glider Pilot Certificate is already available
>to the pilot that is unable to obtain a medical, but
still wants to fly.

> It appears that these (glider) privileges AND AIRCRAFT
>capabilities are far greater than those offered by
the Sport Pilot Proposal. And, the Infrastructure for
training and certification is already in place.
>
> These greater privileges include;

> no medical (Sport requires State Driver license)

> no weight restriction (Sport = 1235lbs Gross)

> no passenger restriction (surprised?) (Sport = 2 px)

> no speed restriction (Sport =132mph)

> no restriction on retractable gear (Sport =restricted)

> no restriction of in-flight adjustable prop. (Sport
>= restricted)

> no multi engine or type restriction (Sport = single
>engine )

> no altitude restrictions (including Class A windows)
> (Sport
> =10,000ft)

> no airspace restrictions (Sport = Endorsement required
>-

> no ELT requirements (Sport = for more than one
>seat - required -

> no transponder requirement in Mode-C veil or above
>10,000ft (Sport = required -)

> flight at night permitted (Sport = Restricted to
>Day VFR with
> greater visibility requirements : 3 mile Class G)

> Transitional training for Private Pilot serves as
>BFR and is only 3 hours

> Minimum new Glider student Training hours =10. (Sport
>= 17hours)

> Recognised by IOAC - Sport and Rec.Pilot not recognised

> Flight outside US borders permited - Sport/Rec. =no

> No make/model endorsement requirements. (Sport = requires
> endorsement for EACH make and model)
>
> (Make and model endorsement required of all Private
>Pilots
> flying under Sport Privileges without a medical)
>
> No Tailwheel endorsement required (Sport = standards
>set within the FAR's)

> No endorsement for 'complex' operations - (Variable
>pitch prop,
> retract gear, flaps) Sport = don't even think about
>it

> No endorsement for 'high performance' Glider (greater
>than 200
HP.) Part 61.31(e) (f)
>

> Within the regulations for certification/registration
>of
EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, (Special Airworthiness) there
are no minimum requirements related to the designs,
flight characteristics, weight or configuration for
the registration/airworthyness certifications of an
EXPERIMENTAL > glider (motorglider...motor does not
>appear on the registration)
>
> Therefore, I think it very possible to register any
>experimental
> aircraft as experimental glider and enjoy all of the
>privileges
> associated with that pilot certification.
>
> As an example of one such registration, I submit the
>following,
>
> A Quicksilver MXII Ultralight trainer. -
> BURNS JOHN M III
> Model Name : QCKSLVR MX 2 SPRINT
> Manufacturer : BURNS JOHN M III
> Model Name : QCKSLVR MX 2 SPRINT
> Aircraft Type : Glider
> N-number : N62538
> Engine Type : Reciprocating
> Aircraft Category : Land
> Number of Engines : 1
> Number of Seats : 2
> Max. Gross Weight : Less than 12,500 lbs
> Amateur Certification : Yes
> Aircraft Code : 05607UQ
>
> AND at the other end of the spectrum ..

> Burt Rutan's 16 ft wing span, rocket powered -
> SpaceShipOne rocket-propelled Experimental Registered
>Glider N-328KF
>
> http://www.compositesworld.com/hpc/issues/2003/July/150

(must copy and paste entire string)

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/photos/images/800
/feather800.jpg

Here's My Motor Glider, the Oldershaw 0-3 N-25888
Parked on my pad behind my house.

(must copy and paste entire string to your browser)

http://www.sailplanedirectory.com/PlaneDetails.cfm?PlaneID=251

Chuck

[Shaber CJ]

>- the guy that lands out, hitch hikes home, then retrieves himself gets
>the admiration;

I have hitched a ride home twice in an airplane, once off a dry lake! Then
went to self retrieve.

[Tom Seim]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...
> Good letter Soarin,
> You clearly understand the motorglider issues. I would suggest one change to
> your position, though.
>
> >If you want to compete with non motored gliders in
> >competition, at a minimum you should.
> >
> >Launch by aerotow
> >relight by aerotow
> >be scored to the last turn completed if motor is used
> >land at the airport to get that airports bonus points
>
> If the penalty for using the engine, is to be landed at the last achieved turn
> point, then nothing has changed, except the MG can't claim a constructive
> land-out. At the start of a marginal glide, the MG might be thinking; "Might as
> well give it a try, I'm only going to lose 20 miles or so, if I don't find lift
> and start up my engine."
>
> Under my proposal, the MG would face the exact SAME decision that un-powered
> sailplane pilots must make. i.e, "If I start this shaky glide, I may be forced
> to land in a field, or worse." He would be in the same situation that the rest
> of us are facing, " I may try a shaky glide, but if I don't find something, I
> MUST land to get my distance points. I can land at a designated airfield and
> get distance points + 25 bonus points OR I can start this shaky glide, but if
> it doesn't work, I will have to find a place to land. If I crank up the
> Put-Put, I will get ZERO points for all my work today."
> The penalty for engine use could be a percentage of the daily winners score,
> say 30%, but I think it must be substantial, or taking a chance and pulling it
> off, with the engine as a back-up will continue to be an attractive option in
> the minds of some MG pilots.
>
> JJ Sinclair


I flew 15M one year. One day had a very marginal third leg on an AST.
Most of the non-MGs made it in - barely. I didn't stand a chance given
my high wing loading and very scratchy, weak thermals on that leg and
ended up landing at the last TP. I believe this more realistically
represents the situation faced by most MGs (the turbos would have a
much smaller disadvantage). Of course, you don't care when the MGs
have the disadvantage.

I believe what you are proposing is, to paraphrase, "trying to kill a
gnat with a sledge hammer". Furthermore, CDs can set additional safety
rules for situations such as the one you keep reciting, i.e. no
restarts in a particular zone of unlandable terrain.

I agree that on self launching MGs should shut down in a designated
release area and not be permitted to sniff for thermals. That said,
trying to shut down and retract an engine while centering a marginal
thermal is next to impossible. The sink rate with the engine out and
shut down, while in a 45 degree bank, goes thru the roof! I find it
easier to go thru the cool down, retract process while on a glide to a
gaggle of gliders.

Tom Seim
DG-400
Richland, WA

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
>At any rate, them's the rules and we don't get to make up a few more as the
>contest goes along. While your in there, be sure to not overlook the one that
>says, ALL LAUNCHES WILL BE BY AERO-TOW.

From the SSA sanction application form:

"Will any waiver of SSA Competition Rules be required? _______ (If
yes, attach a detailed explanation.)"

So, waivers may be requested as part of the contest sanctioning
procedure. When granted, "The Rules" are amended for that contest, so we
have a different set of "The Rules", which all entrants in the contest
will be required to observe.

In the past, Ephrata (Region 8) has been granted a waiver to allow self-
launching by motorgliders. We typically have 5 or more motorglider
pilots from our Region that wish to enter our Regional contest, and
these pilots prefer to self-launch. The contest management likes having
the extra entrants, and especially ones that don't require bringing in
an expensive towplane from somewhere else.


--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

[Tom Seim]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...
> Tom wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.> CDs can set additional safety
> >rules for situations such as the one you keep reciting, i.e. no
> >restarts in a particular zone of unlandable terrain.
>
> Come on Tom, the CD isn't free to make up rules. That's why we have a very
> thick book of rules that we must follow.
>
>
> >I agree that on self launching MGs should shut down in a designated
> >release area and not be permitted to sniff for thermals
>
> Once again, Tom, you really need to read those rules. I believe I mentioned in
> an earlier post that you signed the entry form that said, I HAVE READ AND
> UNDERSTAND THE RULES, to which, you answered, "That doesn't make any sense."
> Now, I wasn't sure if you meant the rules didn't make and sense, or your
> reading them didn't make any sense.
>
> At any rate, them's the rules and we don't get to make up a few more as the
> contest goes along. While your in there, be sure to not overlook the one that
> says, ALL LAUNCHES WILL BE BY AERO-TOW.
>
>
> JJ Sinclair

Once again, you have come out with a non sequitur. Have you checked
out the sanctioned contest application form? Probably not because
there is an item on it to request a rule waiver:

Will any waiver of SSA Competition Rules be required? _______ (If
yes, attach a detailed explanation.)

What we are talking about is a waiver on the aero-tow only rule and
how launches should be conducted if the waiver is granted. If the
waiver isn't granted the rest of the discussion is moot.

JJ, if you are going to quote me at least you could quote me
accurately. I did not say "That doesn't make any sense", I said:

"This, simply, doesn't make any sense"

meaning your statement doesn't make sense, not the rule ("this" is
present tense, "that" is past tense).

Tom

[JJ Sinclair]

Eric wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>So, waivers may be requested as part of the contest sanctioning
>procedure.

Sounds easy, doesn't it? Ephrata would prefer to let motorgliders self-launch.
Why not? Well, let me tell you WHY NOT.

1. Some self-launching MG's don't feel it is necessary to go to the designated
sailplane release area.

2. There is nothing in the rules to varify that the MG's went to the release
area or to check on the altitude they climbed to.

3. Ephrata didn't even bother to get a waiver last year, but felt their
home-spun Airborn-Relight procedure could also continue to be used. (Don't look
for it in the rules, its not there)

4. This in not normally a *biggie*, but MG's that self-launch are allowed to
take off, right after the tow plane before their turn, has taken off. The rest
of us must wait 10 minutes for our tow plane to return. That's 10 minutes they
can use to get away on a day that's dying (overcast moving in, etc.)

5. Out rules have been carefully crafted over many years to MAKE THE CONTEST
FAIR TO ALL WHO ENTER.

Why do I care? Because its FLAT NOT FAIR for the rest of us. When I'm
struggling right after I release (in the release area) to find a thermal, I
expect to see some of my class down there with me, scratching up a thermal.
When I must Relight, I expect the MG's to Relight right along with me, NOT just
fly within 1 mile of home and crank her up again.
As I said in my letter to the Rules Committee, that started this thread. "I
request that waivers to allow self-launch NOT BE GRANTED, because its not fair
to the non-powered contestants."
Just JJ Whining again,




JJ Sinclair

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
>Eric wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>So, waivers may be requested as part of the contest sanctioning
>>procedure.
>
>Sounds easy, doesn't it? Ephrata would prefer to let motorgliders self-launch.
>Why not? Well, let me tell you WHY NOT.
>
>1. Some self-launching MG's don't feel it is necessary to go to the designated
>sailplane release area.

They will do this at the next Region 8 contest. We're ("we" includes
almost everyone that has participated in thread, I think) all agreed
this should be done, and have been agreed for this entire discussion.
>
>2. There is nothing in the rules to varify that the MG's went to the release
>area or to check on the altitude they climbed to.

They will do this at the next Region 8 contest. We're ("we" includes
almost everyone that has participated in thread, I think) all agreed
this should be done, and have been agreed for this entire discussion.

>
>3. Ephrata didn't even bother to get a waiver last year,

They will do this at the next Region 8 contest. We're ("we" includes
almost everyone that has participated in thread, I think) all agreed
this should be done, and have been agreed for this entire discussion.

> but felt their
>home-spun Airborn-Relight procedure could also continue to be used. (Don't look
>for it in the rules, its not there)

They will do this at the next Region 8 contest. We're ("we" includes
almost everyone that has participated in thread, I think) all agreed
this should be done, and have been agreed for this entire discussion.

>4. This in not normally a *biggie*, but MG's that self-launch are allowed to
>take off, right after the tow plane before their turn, has taken off. The rest
>of us must wait 10 minutes for our tow plane to return. That's 10 minutes they
>can use to get away on a day that's dying (overcast moving in, etc.)

The rules require all gliders to be launched within an hour. As long as
this is accomplished, the contest is following "The Rules" (the
unamended ones), which is what you have been requesting.

>
>5. Out rules have been carefully crafted over many years to MAKE THE CONTEST
>FAIR TO ALL WHO ENTER.

There is a lot of "stretch" in the concept of fair. Is the Sports Class
"fair", with it's huge disparity of performance? Is it "fair" for one
pilot to have an ASW 27 while some other poor schmuck has to fly a PIK
20 in the 15 Meter class? Is it "fair" to limit the Standard Class to a
9 pound wing loading when some have gliders that can go to 10 pounds?

"Fairness" is not the only thing we attempt to achieve with our contest
rules, but also safety and participation. In Region 8, we attempt to
increase participation by allowing self-launch, and it seems to be
working. We had more motorgliders in our contest than any other contest
in the country, including all of Region 11's contests combined, even
though Region 11 has far more motorgliders than Region 8.

>Why do I care? Because its FLAT NOT FAIR for the rest of us. When I'm
>struggling right after I release (in the release area) to find a thermal, I
>expect to see some of my class down there with me, scratching up a thermal.
>When I must Relight, I expect the MG's to Relight right along with me, NOT just
>fly within 1 mile of home and crank her up again.
>As I said in my letter to the Rules Committee, that started this thread. "I
>request that waivers to allow self-launch NOT BE GRANTED, because its not fair
>to the non-powered contestants."

A lot of people in Region 8 don't think it's fair for a narrow view of
"fairness" to keep us from making our contests attractive to the pilots
in our Region. If a waiver is granted, this will be announced so all
interested pilots can decide if the contest is one they wish to attend.
--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

[JJ Sinclair]

Eric,
If a waiver isn't granted (and I don't think it should be) let me suggest that
you take your 10 motorgliders and have a motorglider class. It would probably
be the biggest class in the contest. You could;

+ Self-Launch and drive around until you find a thermal.

+ Perform Airborne-Relights.

+ Get scored to the point of engine start.

+ Get landing bonus points, for not landing.

In short, you could get EVERYTHING you are asking for in FAI classes. I see it
as a WIN-WIN situation.
JJ Sinclair

[Tom Seim]

> 4. This in not normally a *biggie*, but MG's that self-launch are allowed to
> take off, right after the tow plane before their turn, has taken off. The rest
> of us must wait 10 minutes for our tow plane to return. That's 10 minutes they
> can use to get away on a day that's dying (overcast moving in, etc.)
>

Speaking of being fair, why don't you fairly state the real situation?
Region 8 had 22 gliders being towed, which took less than 60 minutes
every day. This averages to less than 3 min per launch, a far cry from
your estimate of 10. Furthermore, we were held for at least 1 min
after the glider ahead of us launched. This makes your "advantage"
about 90 sec, not much of an advantage in my book. But, what the hell,
I would be willing to wait that additional 90 sec if that would make
you happy? Would it (I very much doubt it)?

Tom

BTW: Adding that hold time would increase the total launch time, and
the rules (remember them?) require launching the field in under 60
min. This could push the launch over the edge, forcing the organizers
to bring in another tow plane.

[JJ Sinclair]

You really got to read those rules, Tom.
They say, all sailplanes in EACH CLASS should be launched in 1 hour, not he
whole contest in 1 hour.

You motorglidres launch 1 minute after the guy in front of you, Us un-powered
slobs MUST wait for a Pawnee (Big ships) that took an average of 10 minutes to
come back from their last (big ship) delivery to the designated release area.
Do you know where that is? Anyway, How can you add in 10 motorgliders that
self-launched, into your total time between aero-tows? As usual, you MG's want
it both ways. Why don't you just fly a MG class? You can make up your own
rules, as you go along, Go anywhere, do anything, No need to worry about those
stupid FAI rules. You can be free-at -last, free-at-last.
JJ Sinclair

[Marc Ramsey]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote...
> Region 11 must have at least 40 motorgliders, but only 10% entered the 4
> contests held in Region 11.

Region 11 has well in excess of 100 motorgliders...

> Is Region 11 pleased with this level of participation?

Obviously, we'd like more gliders to participate, whether they have motors or
not...

> Are the pilots in Region 11 pleased with the choices available to them
> at their contests?

We takes what we gets...

> Perhaps Region 11 should consider changing what they offer. Since most
> of the motorgliders are a good fit in the 18 Meter class, I suggest
> Region 11 add the 18 Meter class to the contest. Request a waiver to
> allow self-launching in this class only, using the restrictions we've
> discussed here. Promote this class, along with others, but emphasize it
> will allow self-launch with appropriate restrictions. Mention that self-
> launchers won't pay tow fees unless they take a tow.

I'd rather fly my LAK in 18M class, and signed up for the offered 18M class at
Minden. I believe exactly one other person (with a motorglider) signed up for
18M. So, we both ended up in 15M. There just isn't a whole lot of interest in
the 18M class...

> If this idea is successful, the 18 meter class will have 10+ entrants
> (mostly motorgliders, but perhaps some unpowered gliders with their 18
> meter extensions), while "stealing" only a few from the rest of the
> classes, for a net gain of 5+ entrants.

Most of the motorglider pilots in the area, quite simply, do not appear to be
interested in flying in contests...

> Now, that's what I call a "win-win" situation.

Only if the motorglider guys want to play...

Marc

[JJ Sinclair]

Good idea, Eric.
But, I doubt it will work down here in region 11. We only had 12 in our 2003
Regionals, 6 in 15 meter and 6 in Standard, No Open or Sports. Good luck in
getting an 18 meter regionals. The minden Soaring Club had bid the 2005, 18
meter nationals, though. Come on down, I volunteered to CD it :>)>
>Region 11 has well in excess of 100 motorgliders...
>
>> Is Region 11 pleased with this level of participation?
>
>Obviously, we'd like more gliders to participate, whether they have motors or
>not...
>
>> Are the pilots in Region 11 pleased with the choices available to them
>> at their contests?
>
>We takes what we gets...
>
>> Perhaps Region 11 should consider changing what they offer. Since most
>> of the motorgliders are a good fit in the 18 Meter class, I suggest
>> Region 11 add the 18 Meter class to the contest. Request a waiver to
>> allow self-launching in this class only, using the restrictions we've
>> discussed here. Promote this class, along with others, but emphasize it
>> will allow self-launch with appropriate restrictions. Mention that self-
>> launchers won't pay tow fees unless they take a tow.
>
>I'd rather fly my LAK in 18M class, and signed up for the offered 18M class
>at
>Minden. I believe exactly one other person (with a motorglider) signed up
>for
>18M. So, we both ended up in 15M. There just isn't a whole lot of interest
>in
>the 18M class...
>
>> If this idea is successful, the 18 meter class will have 10+ entrants
>> (mostly motorgliders, but perhaps some unpowered gliders with their 18
>> meter extensions), while "stealing" only a few from the rest of the
>> classes, for a net gain of 5+ entrants.
>
>Most of the motorglider pilots in the area, quite simply, do not appear to be
>interested in flying in contests...
>
>> Now, that's what I call a "win-win" situation.
>
>Only if the motorglider guys want to play...
>
>Marc
>

JJ Sinclair

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
>
>4. This in not normally a *biggie*, but MG's that self-launch are allowed to
>take off, right after the tow plane before their turn, has taken off. The rest
>of us must wait 10 minutes for our tow plane to return. That's 10 minutes they
>can use to get away on a day that's dying (overcast moving in, etc.)

It certainly isn't a biggie; I'd say it isn't even a "smallie". In 25+
contests, I've never seen a delay of even 5 minutes. Most of the time,
the towplane is already there, or shows up in less than a minute.

Here's how I analyze this:

1) The motorglider gets a timely launch - that's what is _supposed_ to
happen!

2) The gliders behind him are now delayed by about 9 minutes, since the
motorglider uses about 30 seconds waiting for the tow ahead to proceed
safely and there has to be a 30 second wait after him for the same
reason.

3) All the gliders behind the self-launcher must wait, including any
motorgliders.

4) This wait was caused by poor contest management, some unforeseen
problem with a tow plane, etc., but _not_ by the motorglider that got a
launch at the proper time.

Basically, JJ is saying it's "unfair" for the motorglider to be treated
"fairly" (get a launch when he was supposed to get a launch)! I think
the problem that needs correcting is the launch delay that results in
all those gliders that are being treated "unfairly" (not getting launch
when they are supposed to get one). JJ's "fairness" solution is to have
one _additional_ glider treated unfairly.

We could address this "problem" (insufficient gliders being treated
unfairly) by holding the self-launcher until a towplane shows up for the
glider behind him. I won't be suggesting this "solution" to Region 8
contest management.

Consider this: the more self-launchers in a contest, the less likely it
is to have a delay like this, and the quicker a class can be launched. I
think the quicker a class is launched, the fairer it is.

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

[John Morgan]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >,
> says...
>
> Basically, JJ is saying it's "unfair" for the motorglider to be treated
> "fairly" > --
> -------
> Eric Greenwell USA


I suspect JJ "has it in" for motorgliders. Correct one of his "inequities"
and I bet he finds another. (No offense JJ - that's just the way I see it
from this thread.)

The only way to solve this is for a group of us MG pilots to catch that
sucker on the ramp, hold him down while the rest of us cut a hole in his
tail and shove a motor in there. Yeah, that's it! Oh, and while that's going
on, I'll fly high speed passes to make sure the purists don't mount a rescue
effort. (g)
--
bumper >
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/24/2003

[JJ Sinclair]

Yo John,
I had one of those suckers (Motor) in my ASH-25, took it out, couldn't stand
the smell of gas in the cockpit. Actually we couldn't make the 750 kg weight
with it in there and 2 of us in the cockpit. So there, but for the grace of a
few kg's, old JJ could have been a motorpuke.
>
>The only way to solve this is for a group of us MG pilots to catch that
>sucker on the ramp, hold him down while the rest of us cut a hole in his
>tail and shove a motor in there. Yeah, that's it! Oh, and while that's going
>on, I'll fly high speed passes to make sure the purists don't mount a rescue
>effort.
JJ Sinclair

[Tom Seim]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...
> You really got to read those rules, Tom.
> They say, all sailplanes in EACH CLASS should be launched in 1 hour, not he
> whole contest in 1 hour.
>
> You motorglidres launch 1 minute after the guy in front of you, Us un-powered
> slobs MUST wait for a Pawnee (Big ships) that took an average of 10 minutes to
> come back from their last (big ship) delivery to the designated release area.
> Do you know where that is? Anyway, How can you add in 10 motorgliders that
> self-launched, into your total time between aero-tows? As usual, you MG's want
> it both ways. Why don't you just fly a MG class? You can make up your own
> rules, as you go along, Go anywhere, do anything, No need to worry about those
> stupid FAI rules. You can be free-at -last, free-at-last.
> JJ Sinclair

JJ,

I suspect that you've been in the CA sun a bit too long. I didn't add
in 10 MGs (there were about 3 of us that self launched), I SUBTRACTED
the self launching MGs from the total (25-3 = 22). I didn't fly in the
MG class because, simply, there wasn't one. If there were, I would
consider it strongly.

Your waiting for a particular tow plane was your choice. And,
probably, it was a prudent one. But IT WAS YOUR CHOICE. So don't throw
in your waiting time as a "disadvantange"; it was self imposed.

Just my mis-guided thoughts,

Tom

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
>in article , Eric Greenwell at
wrote on 2003/09/28 17:54:
>
>>> Sure, having a motor is a great training tool. But once you've learned
>>> enough that you think you are competitive as a _glider_, not a powered ship,
>>> then enter competitions for _gliders_ and leave the training wheels at home.
>>
>> And then there is Ron Tabery, who flew his ASW 22 BLE, with the engine,
>> in the Open Class nationals this year. Even though he is a five time
>> member of the US Team, including the 2003 team, we look forward to the
>> day he learns how to do it, and discards his "training wheels".
>
>And your point is what?

That even really experienced and competent pilots fly motorgliders in
contests. I was hoping the original poster would reconsider his concept
that a motor was equivalent to "training wheels".
>
>Why put motor Gliders up against real Gliders in competition?

Because motor gliders are real gliders, at least according to the SSA,
the FAA, and the IGC. For example, my ASH 26 E meets the requirements of
the Sports class, the 18 Meter class, and the Open class.

> Do we really
> need yet another layer of rules just to make that possible?

The "layer" is already in the rules. In total, the portions related to
motorized sailplanes (the term used in the rules) is about one page of
the 44 making up the Regional rules. I assume it is about the same for
the Sports Class and the National rules, but haven't measured it. About
1/3 of this amount basically says "disable it, seal it, or use a flight
recorder with engine monitoring". The rest are mostly one line
parenthetical additions scattered throughout the rules. Take a look at
the rules - the motorized sailplane parts aren't the confusing or
difficult parts, and you can ignore them if you are flying a motorless
glider.

>I hear that motor gliders are all the rage these days, so why not organize
>Motor Glider only events and avoid adding to the complication?

The Auxiliary-powered Sailplane Association (www.motorglider.org) does
hold a motorglider Nationals every year, but for many pilots, it isn't
convenient to attend it, not everyone likes the handicapped format, many
of us enjoy racing with the friends we flew with before we owned a
motorglider, and doesn't it lead to a place on the US Team (like Ron
Tabery wants). There aren't enough motorglider pilots interested in
contests to justify having a separate contest in each region.
Motorgliders have been included in US competitions for many years, so it
appears the "complication" is quite manageable.

>
>No wonder soaring is not attracting and holding the number of participants
>that it should.

I am baffled by this statement. How does having motorized sailplanes
flying in our contests _reduce_ the number of participants?

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

[JJ Sinclair]

Eric wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There aren't enough motorglider pilots interested in
>contests to justify having a separate contest in each region.

There IS enough at Ephrata to have a regional MG class. Didn't you say you had
10? That's bigger than any other class in region 8, isn't it? :>)

JJ Sinclair

[John Morgan]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message

"Jack" > wrote in message

<all manner of complaining snipped>

Once the motor is tucked away, my 26e or S10-VT look every bit as pretty in
the sky as most other gliders. Hawks and eagles still fly close in thermals
and don't think of diving away as they do when I try to snuggle up close in
the Champ. It matters not what you say about "training wheels", MGs are
sailplanes too, just with the ability to go places and explore where an
engineless glider could never go without great difficulty. Not because I can
start the engine and save myself over unlandable terrain (most MG pilots
don't fly that way), but rather because I need no tow plane at remote
airports.

It is apparent that despite the cost, complexity and weight disadvantages of
motorgliders, most purchasers of new sailplanes feel the advantages are
compelling. And so the majority buy new ships with motors. Will there be a
day when engineless gliders are the minority? I must admit that I'm not
looking forward to that as I love most all gliders and power planes too!

Soaring in the US is shrinking. We can take the path espoused by some, "keep
'em separate", or we can we can take the more logical approach, embrace
change and do what's needed to stay as one. The old concept "In unity
there's strength" still applies. Fighting amongst ourselves is really dumb.
--
bumper - ZZ >
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/25/2003

[JJ Sinclair]

> "In unity
>there's strength" still applies. Fighting amongst ourselves is really dumb.

John,
I agree, completely.I only wish to make the rules we follow in competition,
fair to all who enter the contest. We need MG's in our sport, the only question
is, what's fair?
:>)
JJ Sinclair

[Soarin]

> Soaring in the US is shrinking. We can take the path espoused by some, "keep
> 'em separate", or we can we can take the more logical approach, embrace
> change and do what's needed to stay as one. The old concept "In unity
> there's strength" still applies. Fighting amongst ourselves is really dumb.

Interesting that you have viewed these discussionas on RAS as fighting
amongst ourselves. I'm sure some of us have viewed it as a means of
trying to assure that those pilots voting in the SRA poll can have the
benefit of knowing both sides of the story. The motor glider pilots
wish to give the impression that the rule changes they would like are
quite reasonable and fair. On the other hand, some of the more
knowledgeable non-motorized pilots believe that granting further
concessions to motor gliders, through new rule changes, would unjustifiably
give the motor gliders an even bigger advantage in competiton.

Soarin

[Tom Serkowski]

I still feel that your argument of a MG pilot heading off into the
boonies with no landing options is exactly on par with the non-MG
pilot doing the same -- stupid.

As for this proposal, it looks good on the outside, but there's a
major flaw regarding risk avoidance here.

What do I tell my insurance company after picking a fantastic looking
field, landing, and hitting a single hidden obstacle that damages the
glider? What do I tell my fellow pilots as their insurance premiums
go up?

The engine is a tool to be used during field selection to attempt to
avoid validating that selection.

A couple weeks ago, my engine battery was flat when I arrived at the
airport. So I took a tow and flew a nice XC, knowing that I had no
engine to back me up. The day got weak, and I got low. On two
occasions, I would have popped the engine due to my height over a
landing site. In both cases, at least a minute after I would have
been climbing away under power, I found that low save and got away.
So I would have gotten distance not speed points had this been a
contest flight.

If you really think there's a *problem* with the MG pilot having an
unfair advantage by flying over unlandable terrain, I have a solution.
Let's all agree that a contestant may ask the CD to examine the trace
of another competitor due to a percieved 'unsafe' action. A panel of
judges will play back the trace and the pilot will justify any
questionable actions. Procedures here could be similar to how we
currently lodge a formal protest.

This could even be turned into a learning experience with both parties
being required to give a 2 minute talk at the next day's plot's
meeting about the incident, no matter which way the outcome was. I'm
sure one or both parties may have learned something worth sharing with
all the contestants, and this would have as positive an effect as our
current 'safety talk'.

Tom Serkowski
ASH-26E (5Z)

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...

> Under my proposal, the MG would face the exact SAME decision that un-powered
> sailplane pilots must make. i.e, "If I start this shaky glide, I may be forced
> to land in a field, or worse." He would be in the same situation that the rest
> of us are facing, " I may try a shaky glide, but if I don't find something, I
> MUST land to get my distance points. I can land at a designated airfield and
> get distance points + 25 bonus points OR I can start this shaky glide, but if
> it doesn't work, I will have to find a place to land. If I crank up the
> Put-Put, I will get ZERO points for all my work today."
> The penalty for engine use could be a percentage of the daily winners score,
> say 30%, but I think it must be substantial, or taking a chance and pulling it
> off, with the engine as a back-up will continue to be an attractive option in
> the minds of some MG pilots.
>
> JJ Sinclair

[JJ Sinclair]

Tom, Tom, Tom,
I don't know where to start with all that.
>
>What do I tell my insurance company after picking a fantastic looking
>field, landing, and hitting a single hidden obstacle that damages the
>glider? What do I tell my fellow pilots as their insurance premiums
>go up?

You tell them (insurance company & fellow pilots) the SAME thing the
non-motored pilot tels then. I screwed up! My proposal doesn't MAKE you land in
a field, land at an airport, start your engine if you wish, my proposal ONLY
makes the score fair and EQUAL for all contestants.

>Let's all agree that a contestant may ask the CD to examine the trace
>of another competitor due to a percieved 'unsafe' action. A panel of
>judges will play back the trace and the pilot will justify any

I can't believe you think something like that would work. The people that run
our contests are busy folks, every night they must deal with a whole bunch of
problems. XX busted the start altitude, what's his penalty?, lets look at the
trace. XA started his engine, get his trace up here, NK & JJ haven't beed heard
from, it's 8:00 PM, Lets launch Minden Air. The computer called this a 1000
point day, won't be when,and if we ever find the guys that haven't reported in
yet. And so it goes, every night. And NOW you would like to hold a Mini Grand
Jury at each pilots meeting? Who's the Judge going to be? The CD, he doesn't
have that authority, That's why we have very specific RULES and the CD in in
charge of following them (To the letter)



JJ Sinclair

[JJ Sinclair]

Some recent posts indicate that I was just taking *Cheep-Shots* at
motorgliders. There has been some intense debating and some attempts at humor,
But let me say, I fully support motorgliders in US competition. I voted to
allow MG's in 18 meter, Open and Sports classes (Regionals & Nationals) This
position was clearly stated in my letter to the rules committee, that started
this thread, some hundred posters back.

My proposed rules change would force both type of competitors to make the SAME
soaring decisions. Lets say, Eric (ASH-26) and JJ (ASH-25) are over the last
turn point, some 30 miles from home. We both have about 2500 feet and its 6:00
PM. If the day isn't dead, its dying fast. What do we do? We can land at the
turn point and get distance points + 25 bonus. We can start a glide and hope we
hit a bump out there, somewhere??? If we get lucky, we both make it home. No
difference, we both get speed points. If we don't get lucky, I must pick a
field and land, I have no choice. Eric may pick a field and land also. We will
both get distance points to our field, no difference. Eric has an option, he
can start his engine and fly home. My proposal deals with how do we fairly deal
with Eric's CHOICE to start his engine. The options are:

1. Eric gets distance points to engine start ( present rule)

2. Eric gets distance points to the last turn point. I don't agree , because
there is no reason for Eric to NOT try this unsuccessful glide. Get a bump and
make it home, don't get a bump, and get scored at the last turn point anyway.
Why not give it a try?

3. Eric gets ZERO points for starting his engine. It was HIS decision to
attempt the glide, He had exactly the SAME DECISION that I had. He knew the
consequences of his intended act. In my humble opinion, My proposed rule change
makes BOTH of us EXACTLY the SAME, again.
:>)
JJ Sinclair

[Tom Seim]

> Interesting that you have viewed these discussionas on RAS as fighting
> amongst ourselves. I'm sure some of us have viewed it as a means of
> trying to assure that those pilots voting in the SRA poll can have the
> benefit of knowing both sides of the story. The motor glider pilots
> wish to give the impression that the rule changes they would like are
> quite reasonable and fair. On the other hand, some of the more
> knowledgeable non-motorized pilots believe that granting further
> concessions to motor gliders, through new rule changes, would unjustifiably
> give the motor gliders an even bigger advantage in competiton.

It is crucial to recognize that there is a primal struggle going on
here. If the anti-MGs prevail we will leave (I certainly will). I
believe we have more than adequately answered the critics to any
impartially fair minded competitor. Now, there will be those that
totally reject the concept of allowing MGs in ANY contest. So be it.
If that group succeeds there will be a growing exodus of MG pilots
from competition soaring and, ultimately, from the SSA. This isn't a
threat; it is just natural for someone who is told that they are
unwelcome to leave and go where they are welcome. The key issue is
what does the majority of the SSA feel; not just a vocal minority on
RAS. Personally, I think the majority is inclusive, but I really don't
know.

Tom

[Rich Carr]

(Soarin) wrote in message
> Interesting that you have viewed these discussionas on RAS as fighting
> amongst ourselves. I'm sure some of us have viewed it as a means of
> trying to assure that those pilots voting in the SRA poll can have the
> benefit of knowing both sides of the story. The motor glider pilots
> wish to give the impression that the rule changes they would like are
> quite reasonable and fair. On the other hand, some of the more
> knowledgeable non-motorized pilots believe that granting further
> concessions to motor gliders, through new rule changes, would unjustifiably
> give the motor gliders an even bigger advantage in competiton.

"Motorglider pilots are selfish and deceptive. Non-motorglider pilots
are knowledgeable, and they know that motorglider pilots are selfish
and deceptive."

If this is "knowing both sides of the story", then "fighting amongst
ourselves" ought to be really entertaining.

- Rich Carr

[Soarin]

> It is crucial to recognize that there is a primal struggle going on
> here. If the anti-MGs prevail we will leave (I certainly will). I
> believe we have more than adequately answered the critics to any
> impartially fair minded competitor. Now, there will be those that
> totally reject the concept of allowing MGs in ANY contest. So be it.
> If that group succeeds there will be a growing exodus of MG pilots
> from competition soaring and, ultimately, from the SSA. This isn't a
> threat; it is just natural for someone who is told that they are
> unwelcome to leave and go where they are welcome. The key issue is
> what does the majority of the SSA feel; not just a vocal minority on
> RAS. Personally, I think the majority is inclusive, but I really don't
> know.
> Tom

Come on Tom stick with the facts. The overwhelming ammount of anti
motor glider postings have NOT been pushing to prohibit motor gliders
from being allowed in contests. What they have a problem with is the
concept that motor gliders not only want to fly in the same classes
with non motor gliders. But that the motor glider pilots also want
the rules to be changed to suite themselves.

Telling us that unless you get your way you will quit flying contestss
and eventually the SSA. Is alot like saying unless we let you play by
your rules you will take your bat and go home.

Soarin

[Gary Evans]

'Motorglider pilots are selfish, deceptive and HOME
ON TIME FOR DINNER.'


At 15:36 08 October 2003, Rich Carr wrote:
(Soarin) wrote in message
>> Interesting that you have viewed these discussionas
>>on RAS as fighting
>> amongst ourselves. I'm sure some of us have viewed
>>it as a means of
>> trying to assure that those pilots voting in the SRA
>>poll can have the
>> benefit of knowing both sides of the story. The motor
>>glider pilots
>> wish to give the impression that the rule changes
>>they would like are
>> quite reasonable and fair. On the other hand, some
>>of the more
>> knowledgeable non-motorized pilots believe that granting
>>further
>> concessions to motor gliders, through new rule changes,
>>would unjustifiably
>> give the motor gliders an even bigger advantage in
>>competiton.
>
>'Motorglider pilots are selfish and deceptive. Non-motorglider
>pilots
>are knowledgeable, and they know that motorglider pilots
>are selfish
>and deceptive.'
>
>If this is 'knowing both sides of the story', then
>'fighting amongst
>ourselves' ought to be really entertaining.
>
>- Rich Carr
>

[Jack]

in article ,
John Morgan at wrote on 2003/10/07 11:36:

> ...MGs are sailplanes too...despite the cost, complexity and weight
> disadvantages of motorgliders.

The point is that competition between gliders using motors and gliders not
using motors makes no sense, except perhaps in the sense of an exhibition.
Why not work up a scale of handicaps which include the 182 and invite that
ubiquitous Cessna to join as well? Just think of the potential for swelling
the ranks of the _Soaring_ Society of America.


> It is apparent that, most purchasers of new sailplanes feel the advantages are
> compelling. And so the majority buy new ships with motors.

And the majority will probably not use them in competition, so what has that
to do with the topic at hand?


> Soaring in the US is shrinking. We can take the path espoused by some, "keep
> 'em separate", or we can we can take the more logical approach, embrace
> change and do what's needed to stay as one.

I suspect most sailplane pilots, motorized or not, couldn't care less about
the arcane rules of competition, nor whether MGs and non-MGs go head to
head. If you equate membership size with success, then your arguement can't
pssibly have anything to do with the structure of competitive sailplane
events.

If shrinking participation in soaring and the rise of the Motor Glider are
occurring simultaneously, how would you relate those facts WRT to possible
cause and effect?



Jack

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
>Eric wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>There aren't enough motorglider pilots interested in
>>contests to justify having a separate contest in each region.
>
>There IS enough at Ephrata to have a regional MG class. Didn't you say you had
>10? That's bigger than any other class in region 8, isn't it? :>)

Typically, we've had 5 motorized sailplanes entered in various classes.
While 5 gliders is enough for a class, there is no Regional class for
"motorgliders". So, does Region 8 invent our own, non-sanctioned MG
class, or let these SSA members fly in the classes that are already
there in the SSA sanctioned contest put on by their region? In fact, we
have to let them fly in those classes, since they meet all the
requirements for them.

A separate MG class, however done, would likely cause a problem: the
Open class we normally run would have less than 5 entrants, and have to
be cancelled.

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...

>My proposed rules change would force both type of competitors to make the SAME
>soaring decisions. Lets say, Eric (ASH-26) and JJ (ASH-25) are over the last
>turn point, some 30 miles from home. We both have about 2500 feet and its 6:00
> If we don't get lucky, I must pick a
>field and land, I have no choice. Eric may pick a field and land also. We will
>both get distance points to our field, no difference. Eric has an option, he
>can start his engine and fly home. My proposal deals with how do we fairly deal
>with Eric's CHOICE to start his engine. The options are:
>
>1. Eric gets distance points to engine start ( present rule)
>
>2. Eric gets distance points to the last turn point. I don't agree , because
>there is no reason for Eric to NOT try this unsuccessful glide. Get a bump and
>make it home, don't get a bump, and get scored at the last turn point anyway.
>Why not give it a try?
>
>3. Eric gets ZERO points for starting his engine. It was HIS decision to
>attempt the glide, He had exactly the SAME DECISION that I had. He knew the
>consequences of his intended act. In my humble opinion, My proposed rule change
>makes BOTH of us EXACTLY the SAME, again.

JJ's post recognizes implicitly what we all know: the glider pilot that
is willing to land out has a competitive advantage over the pilot that
isn't willing to do that. He thinks it is unfair a motorized sailplane
can have this advantage without risking the inconvenience of landing. He
ignores the competitive disadvantages of having this option: a higher
wing loading in weak conditions (1.4 pounds extra for my glider), the
need to start the motor 500 feet higher than he would otherwise end a
"low save" attempt, and the extra 180 pounds (in the fuselage) to lug
out of a field if he lands (pilot's choice or failed engine start).

Let me suggest a fourth option:

4. Eric gets ZERO points for starting his engine, JJ gets ZERO points
for landing out. The pilots that landed at an airport (motorized or
motorless) get the usual points.

Besides making BOTH of us EXACTLY the SAME, again, this rule will appeal
to the many pilots that aren't willing to land out, suffering a
competitive disadvantage. This might actually increase participation in
our contests, as more pilots realize they don't have to take extra risks
just to have a chance of doing well in a contest.

In fact, this rule would continue what I believe is a trend to reduce
land outs in contests:

- about 30 years ago, we prohibited relights from a landing off the
contest airport

- about 15 years ago, we allowed aero retrieves from airports

- about 5 years ago, we began giving bonus points for landing at an
airport

My proposal is similar to substantially increasing the "airport bonus".
Potentially, it could increase contest safety as the "airport bonus" is
intended to; if it does, it will also reduce insurance claims, which
might reduce premiums.

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA