Re: Motorgliders and gliders in US contests

[Brian Case]

The rules say you may not exchange aircraft or even major components.

I belive there is an exception that a component may be replaced with
an exact replacement if the original compenent has been damaged
through no fault of the pilot or crew.

Here are the exact rules for regional contests:

6.1 General
6.1.1 The Contest Competition Committee has the authority to
reject a sailplane that it considers unsuitable for competition or a
sailplane that does not meet the requirements of the class in which it
is entered.
6.1.2 The CD has the right to inspect equipment at any time
during the contest.
6.1.3 Exchange of components
6.1.3.1 A sailplane's major components include the
fuselage, wings (including separable wingtips), empennage, and power
unit (in the case of a motorized sailplane).
6.1.3.2 Except as provided in these Rules, the exchange
of a sailplane or major component is not allowed.
6.1.3.3 If the CD determines that a sailplane was
damaged through no fault of the pilot or crew, exchange is permitted
provided the replacement exactly matches the damaged component.
6.1.3.4 In the case of damage to separable wingtips
whose span is less than 40 inches, exchange is permitted without
considering fault and without the requirement that the replacement be
an exact match. The CD must be informed and such an exchange may not
be done more than once during a contest.
6.1.4 Official Configuration
6.1.4.1 A sailplane's official configuration is the one
used during the first competition takeoff.
6.1.4.2 Except as provided in these Rules, the official
configuration may not be altered unless such alteration may be
performed in flight.


M B > wrote in message >...
> Hmmm...I'm wondering. Can a competition pilot change
> aircraft in the middle of a contest? Could someone
> own both a motorglider and a Nimbus 3 and pick which
> one to fly depending on the conditions and task? Have
> pilots who have damaged their gliders been allowed
> to fly in a new/different replacement glider in contests?
> I'm interested in how this works...
>
> Mark Boyd

[JJ Sinclair]

Eric wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...>
>If you mean contest flying, I'd like to hear about it, too. I've never
>been in a position where I had a "distinct" advantage for a contest,
>so I'd like to hear how this happens.

I have given several examples where motorgliders have enjoyed a distinct
advantage in cotests. Self-launch so they can motor around until finding a
thermal, airborn-relight while pure sailplaned must land, attemting a final
glide without sufficient altitude. Oh, but JJ's just WHINING again.
JJ Sinclair

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> Eric wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...>
> >If you mean contest flying, I'd like to hear about it, too. I've never
> >been in a position where I had a "distinct" advantage for a contest,
> >so I'd like to hear how this happens.
>
> I have given several examples where motorgliders have enjoyed a distinct
> advantage in cotests. Self-launch so they can motor around until finding a
> thermal,

I've never been in a contest where I've had these advantages, because
I didn't do those things. Whether the pilots involved did so out of
ignorance of the requirements originally imposed when we began self-
launching in Region 8 or because they were willing to cheat, I think
we're all agreed these tactics are unacceptable and should be
penalized. With GPS loggers we can do this, and we will do this at the
next contest I fly in, or I won't enter.

> airborn-relight while pure sailplaned must land, attemting a final
> glide without sufficient altitude. Oh, but JJ's just WHINING again.
> JJ Sinclair

And these last two are what we are discussing. JJ believes these give
a motorglider a distinct advantage; I and Dave Nadler have described
why we think they do not. Now, let's get back to the poster's
question:

"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." (emphasis added)

I'd still like to hear from some MOTOR GLIDER PILOTS about this. I
doubt we'll hear from the cheaters that JJ is so rightly angry at, but
perhaps there are legal situations that some motorglider pilot is
willing to describe.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Udo Rumpf]

JJ,
I agree with you regarding motor gliders in contests.
Even if there would be no perceived advantage to the motor glider
competitor, the fact remains the advantage is there.
Example: when most every one is landing out at least three times in five
days as in the past Sports Class Nat's and seeing the rested smiles on the
faces of the motor glider pilot, it makes it very clear as to who has the
advantage.
Plus the psychological advantage is indeed very powerful all being equal.
I have voted to restrict motor gliders to region sports class only.
Regards
Udo



"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Eric wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...>
> >If you mean contest flying, I'd like to hear about it, too. I've never
> >been in a position where I had a "distinct" advantage for a contest,
> >so I'd like to hear how this happens.
>
> I have given several examples where motorgliders have enjoyed a distinct
> advantage in cotests. Self-launch so they can motor around until finding a
> thermal, airborn-relight while pure sailplaned must land, attemting a
final
> glide without sufficient altitude. Oh, but JJ's just WHINING again.
> JJ Sinclair

[JJ Sinclair]

Eric wrote,
>
>I've never been in a contest where I've had these advantages, because
>I didn't do those things.

I guess I got to spell it out. Eric, I'm talking about YOU and JN.
I tell you about launch inequities and you say, Oh that, we will be getting a
waiver and fixing all that next year. We are right now, in the process of
amending the rules, so that WAIVERS won't be required next year. Let me add one
more advantage you are requesting, Give motorgliders a 25 point (approved
airport landing) bonus for NOT LANDING. But it's s SAFETY issue, isn't it? It
would be much safer to crank up the old put-put and not congest the airport
with all those pure sailplane slobs, down there, fighting for a spot on the
runway. I consider that part of the sport. If you want to play, you must accept
all the hazards along with the rewards this sport offers.

Just JJ, whining again,


JJ Sinclair

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> Eric wrote,
> >
> >I've never been in a contest where I've had these advantages, because
> >I didn't do those things.
>
> I guess I got to spell it out. Eric, I'm talking about YOU and JN.

I would be glad to send you (or anyone) my flight files for any
contest. They will show I did not "motor around" until I got a thermal
where the towed gliders didn't go.

> I tell you about launch inequities and you say, Oh that, we will be getting a
> waiver and fixing all that next year. We are right now, in the process of
> amending the rules, so that WAIVERS won't be required next year.

Here is what I said in my email to you. Please note the first eight
words, as I do realize we are filling out a survey that will influence
the rules for 2004:

------
If the 2004 SSA rules don't address this, and we get a waiver for the
2004 Region 8 contest, I'll insist that the contest inform the MG
pilots that they are to follow the towplane path, release at the
correct height (I suggest 2200' AGL, but would accept 2000' AGL
without complaint), and expect their flight files to be checked for
adherence to these rules, with a penalty for non-compliance (I suggest
something like the graduated penalties for missing a turnpoint).
-------------

> Let me add one
> more advantage you are requesting, Give motorgliders a 25 point (approved
> airport landing) bonus for NOT LANDING. But it's s SAFETY issue, isn't it? It
> would be much safer to crank up the old put-put and not congest the airport
> with all those pure sailplane slobs, down there, fighting for a spot on the
> runway. I consider that part of the sport. If you want to play, you must accept
> all the hazards along with the rewards this sport offers.

One more time: the Airport Bonus was implemented to increase safety by
encouraging gliders to land at airports instead of landing out. An
unintended consequence of the current implementation is it, in some
circumstances, has the opposite effect of discouraging the safest
practice. The change I propose requires the motorglider to go to the
airport before starting. Tactically speaking, it's better to plan to
land, so I can thermal about 300'-500' lower than I can if I plan an
in-air restart. I gain only convenience (and sometimes safety), by air
starting, not a contest advantage.

I fail to see how encouraging a less safe practice, after the task is
over, helps anyone, including those that have landed or are about to
land at the airport. Why would anyone want one more glider on the
runway? One solution is to eliminate the airport bonus entirely (as
Eisenbeiss suggests), but I am in favor of the airport bonus, and if I
must land to collect it, and can do so without decreasing the safety
of the other pilots using the airport, I will.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Andreas Maurer]

On 21 Sep 2003 20:13:30 GMT, (JJ Sinclair) wrote:

>Eric wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...>
>>If you mean contest flying, I'd like to hear about it, too. I've never
>>been in a position where I had a "distinct" advantage for a contest,
>>so I'd like to hear how this happens.
>
>I have given several examples where motorgliders have enjoyed a distinct
>advantage in cotests. Self-launch so they can motor around until finding a
>thermal, airborn-relight while pure sailplaned must land, attemting a final
>glide without sufficient altitude. Oh, but JJ's just WHINING again.


Results of this year's WGC, 18m class.

I'd be glad if you could point out how precisely the existence of an
engine turned out to be an advantage for the pilot in the final
results.
Do a search for yourself - but I did not find any competition result
where the motorgliders had an advantage that showed up in the results.


1 WO Janowitsch Wolfgang Austria Ventus 2cx 10594 No engine
2 250 Jones Stephen Great Britain Ventus 2cxt 10135 engine
3 210 Jones Philip Great Britain Ventus 2cxt 9978 engine
4 EP Henry Francois-Louis France Ventus 2c 9873 No engine
5 RB Brigliadori Riccardo Italy Lak17 9818 No engine
6 GR Rossier Gabriel Switzerland DG 800 s 9794 No engine
7 XT Termaat Ronald Netherlands Ventus 2cxt 9740 engine
8 MZ Breidahl Henrik A. Denmark LAK 17a 9655 no engine
9 IK Krejcirik Petr Czech Republic Ventus 2c xt 9625 engine
10 IAB Wujczak Stanislaw Poland LS6 18 9588 no engine
11 SV Sabeckis Vytautas Lithuania LAK 17A 9439 no engine
12 808 Fischer Ralf Germany DG 808S 9334 no engine
13 SP Jonker Uys South Africa Lak 17 9284 no engine
14 DG Tabart Tracey Australia DG808S 9192 no engine
15 BG Pristavec Bostjan Slovenia LAK 17A 9126 no engine
16 LI Kubovcik Viliam Slovak Republic Ventus C 8689 no engine
17 ZQ Ittner Gary USA Ventus 2cx 8533 no engine
18 UG Brialmont Olivier Belgium DG 800S 8214 no engine
19 HI Verebelyi Zoltan Hungary Ventus 2CXT 8002 engine
20 OG Raudsandmoen Geir Norway LS 8/18 7872 no engine
21 A1 Hollestelle Ed Canada LS 8-t 7613 engine
22 1 Ottosson Curt-Olle Sweden LS 8-18 7408 no engine
23 JM Salokannel Ismo Finland LAK 17A 6848 no engine



Bye
Andreas

[Tom Serkowski]

Sorry Udo, that's a very bad example. You don't need a motorglider
for this, just a motorhome and a crew willing to drive while you
sleep.

Tom Serkowski
ASH-26E (for the last 2 years, and over 1500 hours in ASW-20B prior)

"Udo Rumpf" > wrote in message >...
> JJ,
> I agree with you regarding motor gliders in contests.
> Even if there would be no perceived advantage to the motor glider
> competitor, the fact remains the advantage is there.
> Example: when most every one is landing out at least three times in five
> days as in the past Sports Class Nat's and seeing the rested smiles on the
> faces of the motor glider pilot, it makes it very clear as to who has the
> advantage.

[Shaber CJ]

>Subject: Re: Motorgliders and gliders in US contests
>From: Eric Greenwell
>
>When the top pilots start showing up in motorgliders, we'll know for
>sure that motorgliders are an advantage overall. PY, are you looking
>for a motorglider to fly in the next contest?

Not really as a top pilot would win anyway. Case in point Ron Tabery.

[Eric Greenwell]

In article <4tubb.543101$o%2.240229@sccrnsc02>,
says...
>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > Eric wrote,
> >
> >
> One solution is to eliminate the airport bonus entirely (as
> > Eisenbeiss suggests), but I am in favor of the airport bonus, and if I
> > must land to collect it, and can do so without decreasing the safety
> > of the other pilots using the airport, I will.
> >
> >> Eric Greenwell
>
> Whoa, Eisenbeiss never said anything like that!

Oops, sorry! It was the aero tow retrieves you would disallow, not the
bonus.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

"M B" > wrote in message
...
>.............. But is it OK for a motorglider pilot
> to remove the engine and fly the whole contest without
> it installed? Has anyone ever done this, or are there
> weight and balance issues, as well as airworthiness
> problems? ..............
>How much of a hassle is it to remove or reinstall
> an engine? Has anyone out there removed an engine
> from a motorglider and then flown it?
>
Most motorgliders are certified with the engine installed. Flying without
the engine would be outside of certification.
15 - 20 years ago when I was writing the rules and there was much discussion
as to whether motorgliders should be allowed to enter FAI class contests,
Weibel told me that he was designing a motorglider (the ASH-26) that would
be certified both with and without the engine. He also said that
removal/installation of the engine would be simple (his words). This was
contemplated to end the problem. Since it has been in production I have not
heard of anyone doing engine removal for contest entry. Also other
manufactures did not seem to follow his idea of dual certification. Contest
rules have been slowly liberalized to permit entry by motorgliders. Now
removal of the engine is no longer needed, but could be done for only one
motorglider that I know of..

Duane

[Dave Nadler \YO\]

Sure its OK, if the manual permits it. I removed my motor for the
nationals in Uvalde, but I left it in (disabled) for Tonopah. It takes
"a couple hours" according to the factory; more like 5 by my
counting. The turbos are less time/hassle, but less weight so
why bother. As usual, the USA trails the world comps rules
in handling of motors...

Best Regards, Dave

"M B" > wrote in message
...
> It seems clear that the glider must have the same major
> components throughout the contest as during the first
> contest flight. But is it OK for a motorglider pilot
> to remove the engine and fly the whole contest without
> it installed? Has anyone ever done this, or are there
> weight and balance issues, as well as airworthiness
> problems? If not, it seems like it might be great
> to own a motorglider, and if the contest looked like
> it would be flown in light conditions, just remove
> the engine for that contest. Or just for regular flying
> too. How much of a hassle is it to remove or reinstall
> an engine? Has anyone out there removed an engine
> from a motorglider and then flown it?

[JJ Sinclair]

I don't need to look at your traces, Eric. I saw it and NK saw it also. Now
lets discuss this self-launch a bit further. For years the US rules allowed
self-launching of motorgliders. In about year 2000 the rules were changed to;
ALL LAUNCHES
WILL BE BY AERO-TOW ONLY. Wonder why that change was made? Could it be because
of motorglider abuse of the self-launch privilege? That rule change didn't have
any affect on your Regionals though, you just kept right on allowing your
motorgliders to self-launch. Your not obeying this rule has produced guys like
Tom Siem, who thinks JJ is the guy that wouldn't allow him to self-launch.

You didn't discuss your leaving an airport without enough altitude to make it
home, at 5:00 PM on a day that had been completely overcast for hours. Your
glide was mostly over unlandable terrain, you cranked up the motor, a few miles
out and saved an off-field landing. We havent discussed the REAL inequity on
days like that. Suppose you did hit a bump and were able to climb 500 feet? You
would have been able to make it home and your success would have been a direct
result of your back-up (the put-put). This inequity will ALWAYS be there as
long as motorgliders are allowed to compete with pure sailplanes.

You didn't deny using the IN-FLIGHT RELIGHT, Ever do one of those?
JJ Sinclair

[Ian Forbes]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:13:30 +0000, JJ Sinclair wrote:

> I have given several examples where motorgliders have enjoyed a distinct
> advantage in cotests. Self-launch so they can motor around until finding
> a thermal, airborn-relight while pure sailplaned must land, attemting a
> final glide without sufficient altitude. Oh, but JJ's just WHINING
> again. JJ Sinclair

Of course motor gliders have many advantages (and some disadvantages) when
compared to pure gliders. A good illustration of this is Klaus Ohlmann's
3000km flight in the Andes. I suspect it would have taken him many more
seasons to reach this goal if all of his knowledge and experience had to
be gained flying a pure glider. This may explain why most new gliders
leaving the factory today, have a motor installed.

Perhaps the way to make to make the sport more 'fair' is to revise the
definitions of the various FAI classes. We already have Standard, 15m and
18m classes which are not separated by major technical features,
performance ability or price. Many gliders can compete competitively in
more than one class (given appropriate weather and/or a different set of
wing tips).


How about using the classes to separate the engine issues? For example:

Standard class, no engine permitted.

15m class. Sustainers permitted, but no self launchers.

18m. Self launchers permitted (encouraged?).

Open class, no limitations (well it is open class).

The guys with sustainers in their standard class ships could disable (or
remove) them, or fly 15m class. Same goes for 15m ships with self
launchers.

Open class pilots have always been faced with the prospect of somebody
with more money arriving at the flight line with a significantly better
performing glider. You may be safe for a couple of years if you fly an
Eta. (Sorry JJ, this won't help make your Nimbus III competitive - but I
am sure that you will continue to enjoy flying it safely!)

None of these changes would "obsolete" an existing competitive glider but
it would definitely help distinguish between the the classes in terms of
cost and performance.


Ian

PS: At the same time maybe vertical winglets and (dump-able) tail ballast
tanks should be banned from standard class. They add to the cost and
complexity with just a small increase in performance - which was never
really the intention of 'standard' class.

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> I don't need to look at your traces, Eric. I saw it and NK saw it also.

If this was just a email spat between us, I'd let it go. You do need
to see my traces, because you posted your claim for the world to see,
and you are wrong. I'm sending you my flight files for 2002; if that
isn't the right contest, tell me the year. Anyone else that's
interested can get them at

http://webpages.charter.net/engreenwell/index.html

> Now
> lets discuss this self-launch a bit further. For years the US rules allowed
> self-launching of motorgliders. In about year 2000 the rules were changed to;
> ALL LAUNCHES
> WILL BE BY AERO-TOW ONLY. Wonder why that change was made? Could it be because
> of motorglider abuse of the self-launch privilege? That rule change didn't have
> any affect on your Regionals though, you just kept right on allowing your
> motorgliders to self-launch.

I don't know what the reasoning was behind the rules change, but
Ephrata did get a waiver to allow self-launching after the change,
Getting a waiver is "following the rules", and we aren't the only
contest to get waivers for various reasons. At some point they got
sloppy, and stopped requesting the waiver. Shame on them.

>
> You didn't discuss your leaving an airport without enough altitude to make it
> home, at 5:00 PM on a day that had been completely overcast for hours. Your
> glide was mostly over unlandable terrain,

This is completely wrong. The Coulee City to Ephrata route is
sprinkled with mile square farmed fields, either fallow (soft dirt) or
cut (short stubble). Any glider, even a 1-26 instead of an ASH 26,
leaving Coulee city with the altitude I had could stay within easy
reach of a safe field. Since you doubt this, please ask an experienced
Ephrata pilot that you trust about it.

> you cranked up the motor, a few miles
> out and saved an off-field landing. We havent discussed the REAL inequity on
> days like that. Suppose you did hit a bump and were able to climb 500 feet? You
> would have been able to make it home and your success would have been a direct
> result of your back-up (the put-put).

Wrong. An unpowered ASH 26 (no E, no engine) pilot (6.7 wing loading
instead of 8.2) would either have been able to climb high enough in
the weak thermal I found; taken the 1700' agl over the airport (10 sm
out; 30:1) and pressed on over the even better fields south of Soap
Lake, maybe making it in; or could've have landed in the long, flat,
stubble field I chose to start over. At only 10 miles from Ephrata, it
would've been a quick and easy retrieve.

> This inequity will ALWAYS be there as
> long as motorgliders are allowed to compete with pure sailplanes.

My previous posts have detailed the tradeoffs already, so I will
simply point out, in a situation like this, the motor offers a
CONVENIENCE (no retrieve), not a SCORING advantage (better
thermalling).

Frankly, JJ, the biggest inequity in the contest was self-imposed: you
were flying a large, heavy ASH 25, which is difficult to retrieve, and
you were flying with a co-pilot that was handicapped. I admire you for
this, as you pretty much committed yourself to airport-only landings,
and gave up the flexibility that risking a field landing gives you.

> You didn't deny using the IN-FLIGHT RELIGHT, Ever do one of those?
> JJ Sinclair

No.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Dave Nadler \YO\]

Are you aware that an air-restart of the motorglider was out of the question
because of the extreme cold ? It was only for launch convenience. Should
give you additional appreciation for what Ohlmann has accomplished.

Best Regards, Dave


"Ian Forbes" > wrote in message
. za...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:13:30 +0000, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
> > I have given several examples where motorgliders have enjoyed a distinct
> > advantage in cotests. Self-launch so they can motor around until finding
> > a thermal, airborn-relight while pure sailplaned must land, attemting a
> > final glide without sufficient altitude. Oh, but JJ's just WHINING
> > again. JJ Sinclair
>
> Of course motor gliders have many advantages (and some disadvantages) when
> compared to pure gliders. A good illustration of this is Klaus Ohlmann's
> 3000km flight in the Andes. I suspect it would have taken him many more
> seasons to reach this goal if all of his knowledge and experience had to
> be gained flying a pure glider. This may explain why most new gliders
> leaving the factory today, have a motor installed.
>
> Perhaps the way to make to make the sport more 'fair' is to revise the
> definitions of the various FAI classes. We already have Standard, 15m and
> 18m classes which are not separated by major technical features,
> performance ability or price. Many gliders can compete competitively in
> more than one class (given appropriate weather and/or a different set of
> wing tips).
>
>
> How about using the classes to separate the engine issues? For example:
>
> Standard class, no engine permitted.
>
> 15m class. Sustainers permitted, but no self launchers.
>
> 18m. Self launchers permitted (encouraged?).
>
> Open class, no limitations (well it is open class).
>
> The guys with sustainers in their standard class ships could disable (or
> remove) them, or fly 15m class. Same goes for 15m ships with self
> launchers.
>
> Open class pilots have always been faced with the prospect of somebody
> with more money arriving at the flight line with a significantly better
> performing glider. You may be safe for a couple of years if you fly an
> Eta. (Sorry JJ, this won't help make your Nimbus III competitive - but I
> am sure that you will continue to enjoy flying it safely!)
>
> None of these changes would "obsolete" an existing competitive glider but
> it would definitely help distinguish between the the classes in terms of
> cost and performance.
>
>
> Ian
>
> PS: At the same time maybe vertical winglets and (dump-able) tail ballast
> tanks should be banned from standard class. They add to the cost and
> complexity with just a small increase in performance - which was never
> really the intention of 'standard' class.

[Tom Seim]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...
> I don't need to look at your traces, Eric. I saw it and NK saw it also.

JJ, you've lost all touch with reality. Are you REALLY trying to argue
that your sight is to be trusted more than a sealed flight recorder? I
am very interested in hearing how you think that Eric beat the
security features. Get a grip, man, you are slipping over the edge.

Tom

[JJ Sinclair]

Tom wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I
>am very interested in hearing how you think that Eric beat the
>security features. Get a grip, man, you are slipping over the edge.

Thats just the problem Tom. Nobody checked the MG traces, because
self-launching wasn't allowed. This is the kind of trouble we can get into,
even if a waiver is granted, the CD wasn't instructed to check the traces.
Just JJ whining again,
JJ Sinclair

[Tom Seim]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...
> Tom wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I
> >am very interested in hearing how you think that Eric beat the
> >security features. Get a grip, man, you are slipping over the edge.
>
> Thats just the problem Tom. Nobody checked the MG traces, because
> self-launching wasn't allowed. This is the kind of trouble we can get into,
> even if a waiver is granted, the CD wasn't instructed to check the traces.

Wrong again. All flight records of all contestants were checked by the
score keeper. One day he claimed that I used my engine because the
noise level exceeded some preset level in the scoring program. In
fact, the noise was caused by the location of the flight recorder near
the side window and was far less than normal engine noise. They were
convinced that I didn't use my engine when I pointed out I was going
120 kt and descending at 10 kt. All parts of the flight record above
this preset level show up as red and are obvious to the scorer. It is
very obvious, for instance, if a MG restarts in the air, before the
contest start, instead of landing an re-launching. There is really no
fooling the secure flight recorders. AFAIK all MG self-launches were
checked for launch altitude at Region 8. Beyond that, I would welcome
closer scrutiny of all contestant's flight records. Make ALL of the
flight records available to everyone. Furthermore, I think MGs should
be only permitted to enter contests with secure flight recorders with
noise sensors (contest directors ARE allowed to accept unsecure flight
recorders at regionals [6.7.3]).

You basically accused Eric and JN of breaking the rules and refused to
look at any evidence to the contrary. You represented NK as supporting
your accusation, which he refuted in a previous posting. You should
reconsider very carefully before making such unfounded accusations.

Tom

[JJ Sinclair]

Eric wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>You do need
>to see my traces, because you posted your claim for the world to see,
>and you are wrong.

On the day in question, 5 July, 2002, NK and I were the only ships in the
release area right after tow. There was no lift. I saw 2 long wings flashing
way up on the hill and assumed it must be 6A and JN. Eric has sent me his trace
for that day and it shows he shut down in the release area, at the release
altitude. I apologize for accusing him of motoring up to the thermal in
question. I would say in my defense, that MG pilots in that contest, have told
me they prefer to self-launch, because it allows them to search around for a
thermal, but Eric wasn't one of them.

>I don't know what the reasoning was behind the rules change, but
>Ephrata did get a waiver to allow self-launching after the change,
>Getting a waiver is "following the rules", and we aren't the only
>contest to get waivers for various reasons. At some point they got
>sloppy, and stopped requesting the waiver. Shame on them.

It goes way beyond, "Shame on them", Eric. When we follow the rules and have
ALL LAUNCHES made by AERO-TOW only, the tow planes are instructed to plan their
routes, so as to be in the release area at 2000 AGL As you know, Guy Buyer's
outstanding scoring program looks at Time, Position and Altitude for Start,
Finish and all Turn Points. It does NOT look at self-launches for Position and
Altitude. Somebody, usually the CD, must check this.

>Wrong. An unpowered ASH 26 (no E, no engine) pilot (6.7 wing loading
>instead of 8.2) would either have been able to climb high enough in
>the weak thermal I found; taken the 1700' agl over the airport (10 sm
>out; 30:1) and pressed on over the even better fields south of Soap
>Lake, maybe making it in;

If you don't like the performance of the ASH-26, then get another ship, but
don't use its capabilities to safely get you to a point where you use its
engine and then turn on it and blame it for not being able to dump the engine
and climb higher. You can't have it both ways, Eric.

Frankly, JJ, the biggest inequity in the contest was self-imposed: you
>were flying a large, heavy ASH 25, which is difficult to retrieve, and
>you were flying with a co-pilot that was handicapped. I admire you for
>this, as you pretty much committed yourself to airport-only landings,
>and gave up the flexibility that risking a field landing gives you

Wrong, We were flying the ASH-25 at about 8.25 pounds per square foot wing
loading. It climbs quite well, even in a 1 knot thermal. If you think I'm
limited to airfields only, you should ask Patricia about carrying it out of a
plowed field at the Avenal contest last year.
JJ Sinclair

[Ian Forbes]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 01:27:50 +0000, Dave Nadler "YO" wrote:

> Are you aware that an air-restart of the motorglider was out of the
> question because of the extreme cold ? It was only for launch
> convenience. Should give you additional appreciation for what Ohlmann
> has accomplished.
>
> Best Regards, Dave

Yes I was aware of that. His achievements are impressive.

I gather some of his flights ended with a landing at an away airfield. The
motor allowed him to fly back to base the following day.

I know of a number of other pilots who have used motorgliders while
stretching the envelope of achievement in our sport. The late Klaus
Holighaus flew a series of large distance tasks (typically over 1200km) in
the middle 1990's from Gariep Dam in South Africa. Many of the
unsuccessful tasks covered the declared distance but they were completed
by climbing under motor power to final glide hight at sunset and then
gliding back to base after dark.

Which brings me back to my point. Competitive open class gliders need to
have motors, but gliders flying in the 'standard class' should not be
permitted to have them.


Ian

[JJ Sinclair]

Tom,
The scoring program will *Flag* for possible penalty, any airborne use of the
engine. The scorer must evaluate each flagged item. At Ephrata 2003, the
program would flag:

1. Self-launch of motorgliders in sports class. Scorers action; OK, they are
self-launching, Not allowed by the rules, but OK, here.

2. Motor use in the local area. Scorers action; OK, if below 1000 feet and
within 1 mile of Ephrata, Not in the rules, but OK, here. (Airborne- Relight)

3. Motor use on course. Scorers action; call in the pilot and discuss. This may
terminate the flight, see if pilot declared a constructive landout in order to
get credit to the point of engine use.

You were called in for a possible type 3, use of the engine. Are you sure the
scorer checked all MG traces to see if they shut down in the release area and
not above 2000 feet? Oh, I forgot, 2300 feet, not in the rules, but OK here.
JJ Sinclair

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> >Wrong. An unpowered ASH 26 (no E, no engine) pilot (6.7 wing loading
> >instead of 8.2) would either have been able to climb high enough in
> >the weak thermal I found; taken the 1700' agl over the airport (10 sm
> >out; 30:1) and pressed on over the even better fields south of Soap
> >Lake, maybe making it in;
>
> If you don't like the performance of the ASH-26, then get another ship, but
> don't use its capabilities to safely get you to a point where you use its
> engine and then turn on it and blame it for not being able to dump the engine
> and climb higher. You can't have it both ways, Eric.

I was attempting to explain how a pilot flying the same model glider
without the motor could've handled the same situation, and gotten a
better score. This was to answer your claim that the motor was what
would make it possible for me to maybe get home when a motorless
glider won't.

I don't blame the glider for anything. I'm just too lazy to take the
motor out, put in another set of bags, and find a crew that wants to
come get me if I land out.

>
> Frankly, JJ, the biggest inequity in the contest was self-imposed: you
> >were flying a large, heavy ASH 25, which is difficult to retrieve, and
> >you were flying with a co-pilot that was handicapped. I admire you for
> >this, as you pretty much committed yourself to airport-only landings,
> >and gave up the flexibility that risking a field landing gives you
>
> Wrong, We were flying the ASH-25 at about 8.25 pounds per square foot wing
> loading. It climbs quite well, even in a 1 knot thermal. If you think I'm
> limited to airfields only, you should ask Patricia about carrying it out of a
> plowed field at the Avenal contest last year.

OK, I still admire you for having a handicapped pilot with you, but
not as much as before.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)