View Full Version : All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records
Tango Eight
March 13th 17, 01:49 PM
Winter isn't quite over yet, so...
The excerpt quoted below is from an email I received from my state record keeper (who owns two motor gliders). It is an extract from a communication to state record keepers from Bob Faris (who has been collecting records with his motor glider), US B&R Committee Chair.
Our IGC rep (who owns a motor glider -- anyone see a pattern here?) has so far ignored my email on the subject. Thanks a ton, Rick. For the moment, I'll presume that my information is legitimate, however distasteful it might be. 711, can you please go get your scorer a propeller beanie and humiliate him publicly?
Extract follows.
"The new record rules have been posted to the website. Even though the rules date is December 15, 2016, the effective date is March 5, 2017. Any record claimed for a flight prior to March 5 should be processed under the old rules. The record matrices have not been updated yet to reflect the rule changes and the link on those pages is to the old rules. I don't have an estimate of when the matrices will be able to be modified. There are two primary changes to the rules:
1. The term "Youth" has been changed to "Junior" to align with the Sporting Code.
2. The big change is the removal of the separate motorglider classes. These classes are no longer recognized by the Sporting Code. Claims made by a glider carrying a motor can now be made in any applicable class. Note that motorgliders must have a MoP recorder or seals that detect if the engine is used, unless the motor is disabled or removed. The FAI Form D is still required for those claims."
Extract ends.
Motor glider pilots have always had the option of flying for sailplane records. You simply had to disable the propulsion system to do it. Was this really so much to ask? After all, any motor glider pilot will tell you the motor is only about "convenience".
A pox upon the IGC. What a bunch of flaccid, low testosterone ******s. Screw Europe, we should go our own way.
Either that or donate heavily to my ASH-31 fund and I'll show you just how much difference it really makes. I'm prepared to be reasonable about this.
Evan Ludeman / T8
Bruce Hoult
March 13th 17, 02:46 PM
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC+3, Tango Eight wrote:
> Winter isn't quite over yet, so...
>
> The excerpt quoted below is from an email I received from my state record keeper (who owns two motor gliders). It is an extract from a communication to state record keepers from Bob Faris (who has been collecting records with his motor glider), US B&R Committee Chair.
>
> Our IGC rep (who owns a motor glider -- anyone see a pattern here?) has so far ignored my email on the subject. Thanks a ton, Rick. For the moment, I'll presume that my information is legitimate, however distasteful it might be. 711, can you please go get your scorer a propeller beanie and humiliate him publicly?
>
> Extract follows.
>
> "The new record rules have been posted to the website. Even though the rules date is December 15, 2016, the effective date is March 5, 2017. Any record claimed for a flight prior to March 5 should be processed under the old rules. The record matrices have not been updated yet to reflect the rule changes and the link on those pages is to the old rules. I don't have an estimate of when the matrices will be able to be modified. There are two primary changes to the rules:
>
>
> 1. The term "Youth" has been changed to "Junior" to align with the Sporting Code.
>
> 2. The big change is the removal of the separate motorglider classes. These classes are no longer recognized by the Sporting Code. Claims made by a glider carrying a motor can now be made in any applicable class. Note that motorgliders must have a MoP recorder or seals that detect if the engine is used, unless the motor is disabled or removed. The FAI Form D is still required for those claims."
>
> Extract ends.
>
> Motor glider pilots have always had the option of flying for sailplane records. You simply had to disable the propulsion system to do it. Was this really so much to ask? After all, any motor glider pilot will tell you the motor is only about "convenience".
>
> A pox upon the IGC. What a bunch of flaccid, low testosterone ******s. Screw Europe, we should go our own way.
>
> Either that or donate heavily to my ASH-31 fund and I'll show you just how much difference it really makes. I'm prepared to be reasonable about this.
I understand the emotional argument about this. But what does the actual data show?
In the depths of history when the separate category was established motor gliders were clunky low performance things. I'm guessing that for a few decades the motor gliders records were way worse than the pure glider records.
When did that change? I guess around 1980 with the Janus M, Pik20, DG400 all appearing within a couple of years.
How have the records for motor and non-motor compared in recent times? Does either one actually have a demonstrated advantage over the other? Or is it pretty equal?
My impression is no one is attempting extreme long distance flights (2500 - 3000+ km) without an engine. With a limited number of turnpoints allowed, the risk of landing out in some godawful place in the Andes or whatever are just too high without an engine.
But speed records?
Max wing loading should be be if anything higher without a motor, because all else being equal you can put the weight in the wings, not in the fuse. The pure glider also has a lower wing loading after dumping ballast, making it more likely a gliding performance can be saved. Though the current state of performances are such that if you can't complete the flight fully ballasted then you're not going to get the record anyway.
Tony[_5_]
March 13th 17, 02:46 PM
Sort of hard to self launch if the motor is disabled.
Records should be about the soaring performance not the launch method. Records should showcase the greatest possible achievement period, not the greatest possible achievement from an airport with a towplane.
Does it make sense for a Silent or a Russia AC-5M to be competing in the same record category as an EB-29?
World Records must first be certified as National Records. Under the old system it was very possible to fly a world record performance in a motorglider and not be able to claim it, thanks to our rules not aligning with the FAI's.
Tango Eight
March 13th 17, 02:55 PM
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:46:52 AM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
> Sort of hard to self launch if the motor is disabled.
>
> Records should be about the soaring performance not the launch method. Records should showcase the greatest possible achievement period, not the greatest possible achievement from an airport with a towplane.
>
> Does it make sense for a Silent or a Russia AC-5M to be competing in the same record category as an EB-29?
>
> World Records must first be certified as National Records. Under the old system it was very possible to fly a world record performance in a motorglider and not be able to claim it, thanks to our rules not aligning with the FAI's.
You guys are missing the point.
Us pure glider guys don't give a darned what records are kept for motor gliders. Knock yourselves out, have as many MG classes as you want. It's a ***different game***. If you can't see that, please just take my word for it (I am not alone). We want the sailplane records to remain sailplane records, that is all.
best regards,
Evan Ludeman / T8
Bruce Hoult
March 13th 17, 03:21 PM
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC+3, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:46:52 AM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
> > Sort of hard to self launch if the motor is disabled.
> >
> > Records should be about the soaring performance not the launch method. Records should showcase the greatest possible achievement period, not the greatest possible achievement from an airport with a towplane.
> >
> > Does it make sense for a Silent or a Russia AC-5M to be competing in the same record category as an EB-29?
> >
> > World Records must first be certified as National Records. Under the old system it was very possible to fly a world record performance in a motorglider and not be able to claim it, thanks to our rules not aligning with the FAI's.
>
> You guys are missing the point.
>
> Us pure glider guys don't give a darned what records are kept for motor gliders. Knock yourselves out, have as many MG classes as you want. It's a ***different game***. If you can't see that, please just take my word for it (I am not alone). We want the sailplane records to remain sailplane records, that is all.
I understand that you're asserting it's a different game, and you feel in your bones that it's a different game.
My question is: do the existing records show that it is a different game -- and one tipped in favour of motor gliders?
jfitch
March 13th 17, 04:06 PM
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:49:05 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> Winter isn't quite over yet, so...
>
> The excerpt quoted below is from an email I received from my state record keeper (who owns two motor gliders). It is an extract from a communication to state record keepers from Bob Faris (who has been collecting records with his motor glider), US B&R Committee Chair.
>
> Our IGC rep (who owns a motor glider -- anyone see a pattern here?) has so far ignored my email on the subject. Thanks a ton, Rick. For the moment, I'll presume that my information is legitimate, however distasteful it might be. 711, can you please go get your scorer a propeller beanie and humiliate him publicly?
>
> Extract follows.
>
> "The new record rules have been posted to the website. Even though the rules date is December 15, 2016, the effective date is March 5, 2017. Any record claimed for a flight prior to March 5 should be processed under the old rules. The record matrices have not been updated yet to reflect the rule changes and the link on those pages is to the old rules. I don't have an estimate of when the matrices will be able to be modified. There are two primary changes to the rules:
>
>
> 1. The term "Youth" has been changed to "Junior" to align with the Sporting Code.
>
> 2. The big change is the removal of the separate motorglider classes. These classes are no longer recognized by the Sporting Code. Claims made by a glider carrying a motor can now be made in any applicable class. Note that motorgliders must have a MoP recorder or seals that detect if the engine is used, unless the motor is disabled or removed. The FAI Form D is still required for those claims."
>
> Extract ends.
>
> Motor glider pilots have always had the option of flying for sailplane records. You simply had to disable the propulsion system to do it. Was this really so much to ask? After all, any motor glider pilot will tell you the motor is only about "convenience".
>
> A pox upon the IGC. What a bunch of flaccid, low testosterone ******s. Screw Europe, we should go our own way.
>
> Either that or donate heavily to my ASH-31 fund and I'll show you just how much difference it really makes. I'm prepared to be reasonable about this.
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8
I note that people complaining about the advantage of motorgliders are typically people who have not owned one and flown it cross country a lot, and who perceive all advantages and no disadvantages. However, I will go with the sentiment. We also need:
A separate class for tasks flown truly solo (no ground crew).
A separate class for tasks flown with paper maps charts only, no GPS.
A separate class for tasks flown with electronic variometers vs. pellet variometers.
A separate class for tasks flown with no relief tube.
These are after all only expensive conveniences which some claim improve performance. Wing loading makes FAR more difference than any of the above (engine included), yet the record rules are silent on the matter. If a change it warranted, they should speak to this first, before the trivia is addressed.
Tango Eight
March 13th 17, 04:09 PM
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:21:19 AM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC+3, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:46:52 AM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
> > > Sort of hard to self launch if the motor is disabled.
> > >
> > > Records should be about the soaring performance not the launch method.. Records should showcase the greatest possible achievement period, not the greatest possible achievement from an airport with a towplane.
> > >
> > > Does it make sense for a Silent or a Russia AC-5M to be competing in the same record category as an EB-29?
> > >
> > > World Records must first be certified as National Records. Under the old system it was very possible to fly a world record performance in a motorglider and not be able to claim it, thanks to our rules not aligning with the FAI's.
> >
> > You guys are missing the point.
> >
> > Us pure glider guys don't give a darned what records are kept for motor gliders. Knock yourselves out, have as many MG classes as you want. It's a ***different game***. If you can't see that, please just take my word for it (I am not alone). We want the sailplane records to remain sailplane records, that is all.
>
> I understand that you're asserting it's a different game, and you feel in your bones that it's a different game.
>
> My question is: do the existing records show that it is a different game -- and one tipped in favour of motor gliders?
OLC. Someone on here made the point just a couple of weeks ago that a motor glider enabled an extra risk free 100km a day (whether or not they ran the motor) and that "everyone knows this". I haven't tried to make a case that this is true based on real data, nor do I plan to. I'm going on my gut and how I'd change my own tactics given the self retrieve option.
There's no where near enough data in US records to make a meaningful claim.
Anecdotally, there's the spectacular example of Brian Milner, who aero towed to a remote start, promptly fell off the ridge, ran his motor, got back on the ridge a few miles South where the ridge/wind angle was better, and then flew 2000 OLC km, so far the longest OLC flight in the Eastern US (and a virtuoso performance worthy of the highest respect I can muster). A pure sailplane would have been in the valley around 7am.
I know from my own flying that I leave a fair bit of distance on the table, even on record days. I never have a dedicated crew. I do have club mates that are willing to retrieve me in the event I am forced down (I make sure this is a rare circumstance). There are one or two that would probably be happy to come fetch me after an intentional outlanding, but they never seem to be around on the record days!
best,
Evan Ludeman / T8
Tango Eight
March 13th 17, 04:11 PM
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 12:06:13 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:49:05 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> > Winter isn't quite over yet, so...
> >
> > The excerpt quoted below is from an email I received from my state record keeper (who owns two motor gliders). It is an extract from a communication to state record keepers from Bob Faris (who has been collecting records with his motor glider), US B&R Committee Chair.
> >
> > Our IGC rep (who owns a motor glider -- anyone see a pattern here?) has so far ignored my email on the subject. Thanks a ton, Rick. For the moment, I'll presume that my information is legitimate, however distasteful it might be. 711, can you please go get your scorer a propeller beanie and humiliate him publicly?
> >
> > Extract follows.
> >
> > "The new record rules have been posted to the website. Even though the rules date is December 15, 2016, the effective date is March 5, 2017. Any record claimed for a flight prior to March 5 should be processed under the old rules. The record matrices have not been updated yet to reflect the rule changes and the link on those pages is to the old rules. I don't have an estimate of when the matrices will be able to be modified. There are two primary changes to the rules:
> >
> >
> > 1. The term "Youth" has been changed to "Junior" to align with the Sporting Code.
> >
> > 2. The big change is the removal of the separate motorglider classes. These classes are no longer recognized by the Sporting Code. Claims made by a glider carrying a motor can now be made in any applicable class. Note that motorgliders must have a MoP recorder or seals that detect if the engine is used, unless the motor is disabled or removed. The FAI Form D is still required for those claims."
> >
> > Extract ends.
> >
> > Motor glider pilots have always had the option of flying for sailplane records. You simply had to disable the propulsion system to do it. Was this really so much to ask? After all, any motor glider pilot will tell you the motor is only about "convenience".
> >
> > A pox upon the IGC. What a bunch of flaccid, low testosterone ******s. Screw Europe, we should go our own way.
> >
> > Either that or donate heavily to my ASH-31 fund and I'll show you just how much difference it really makes. I'm prepared to be reasonable about this.
> >
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> I note that people complaining about the advantage of motorgliders are typically people who have not owned one and flown it cross country a lot, and who perceive all advantages and no disadvantages. However, I will go with the sentiment. We also need:
>
> A separate class for tasks flown truly solo (no ground crew).
>
> A separate class for tasks flown with paper maps charts only, no GPS.
>
> A separate class for tasks flown with electronic variometers vs. pellet variometers.
>
> A separate class for tasks flown with no relief tube.
>
> These are after all only expensive conveniences which some claim improve performance. Wing loading makes FAR more difference than any of the above (engine included), yet the record rules are silent on the matter. If a change it warranted, they should speak to this first, before the trivia is addressed.
lol. Thanks for proving one of my points.
best,
Evan
Bob Whelan[_3_]
March 13th 17, 04:15 PM
On 3/13/2017 8:55 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:46:52 AM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
>> Sort of hard to self launch if the motor is disabled.
>>
>> Records should be about the soaring performance not the launch method.
>> Records should showcase the greatest possible achievement period, not the
>> greatest possible achievement from an airport with a towplane.
>>
>> Does it make sense for a Silent or a Russia AC-5M to be competing in the
>> same record category as an EB-29?
>>
>> World Records must first be certified as National Records. Under the old
>> system it was very possible to fly a world record performance in a
>> motorglider and not be able to claim it, thanks to our rules not aligning
>> with the FAI's.
>
> You guys are missing the point.
>
> Us pure glider guys don't give a darned what records are kept for motor
> gliders. Knock yourselves out, have as many MG classes as you want. It's
> a ***different game***. If you can't see that, please just take my word
> for it (I am not alone). We want the sailplane records to remain sailplane
> records, that is all.
>
> best regards, Evan Ludeman / T8
>
"What Evan just explicitly said."
Dinosaurs still roam the earth, despite - if this isn't an early April 1 joke
or fake news - IGC's alleged stance. Failing to recognize their presence seems
a pretty good way of helping extinguish them.
Pretending there aren't fundamental (*significant* - e.g.
out-of-pocket/maintenance/etc.) cost(s) to the purchaser, and acting as if all
the other differences between unpowered dinosaurs, and powered and potentially
just-as-endangered soaring-capable dinosaurs - and the nuts holding their
sticks! - is: dismissive; arguably disrespectful to a goodly proportion of
people who make the IGC even possible; a bureaucratic way of "solving" a
self-generated "problem."
IGC needs to reconsider this issue, IMO.
Respectfully,
Bob W.
Evan let me know when you need crew. I'll help you keep the motor fairies out of the record books.
Sean Fidler
March 13th 17, 04:26 PM
#popcorn time on a snowy Monday in Michigan. Thanks Evan!
On the surface, I tend to agree with Evan. Motor-gliders can take slightly (or significantly) more risk. Over many attempts to break a record, this ability to stretch further accumulates and ultimately, IMO, makes a HUGE difference. I can see this in contest soaring more and more. Motorgliders make great sense on a practical level, but they are simply not pure gliders. We should respect that and not "downplay it" or pretend that difference doesn't exist. It does exist, no question about it. Anyone who downplays the advantages motorgliders enjoy on cross country flight (especially contest or record flying) is, simply put, not being honest. The data cannot show this difference, of course, nice try. Regardless, an clear advantage exists for motorgliders and therefore allowing them into the pure glider record category is arguably unfair. It will ultimately hurt record flying (for the foreseeable future) as some pure glider pilots who currently pursue records will choose not to bother as they cannot afford the additional motoglider expense. It also leaves a bad taste in certain cases, which I can understand.
In 20 years most all gliders will be motor-gliders. But that doesn't change the fact that they do have a clear advantage, especially in long record flights. Pure glider records deserve to be highly respected. Motorgliders can disable still their motors easily for record attempts and prove that they have achieved a true "apples to apples" soaring record vs pure gliders. Or they can just have the motorglider record which will become more and more competitive and prestigious over time as motorgliders begin to outnumber pure gliders.
That said, I also strongly believe that the time for the US having its "own systems for everything" (rules, records, handicaps, etc) is at an end. Each case of the US running its own system has proven to be incredibly inefficient and provides no measurable positive value to our sport. Why do we allow this? Why do we waste our time? In many cases the great effort required to managing our own custom US systems is arguably highly negative. We should simply adopt the FAI systems and participate in the soaring world as all other soaring countries do, rather than standing alone in the far corner of the soaring world with our arms crossed and mumbling about the genius of our (for example) scoring system (like the SSA GOBs force us all to do today).
Let's put an end to all of this US nonsense across the board, shall we?
Sean
Bruce Hoult
March 13th 17, 05:43 PM
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 7:09:12 PM UTC+3, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:21:19 AM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC+3, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:46:52 AM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
> > > > Sort of hard to self launch if the motor is disabled.
> > > >
> > > > Records should be about the soaring performance not the launch method. Records should showcase the greatest possible achievement period, not the greatest possible achievement from an airport with a towplane.
> > > >
> > > > Does it make sense for a Silent or a Russia AC-5M to be competing in the same record category as an EB-29?
> > > >
> > > > World Records must first be certified as National Records. Under the old system it was very possible to fly a world record performance in a motorglider and not be able to claim it, thanks to our rules not aligning with the FAI's.
> > >
> > > You guys are missing the point.
> > >
> > > Us pure glider guys don't give a darned what records are kept for motor gliders. Knock yourselves out, have as many MG classes as you want. It's a ***different game***. If you can't see that, please just take my word for it (I am not alone). We want the sailplane records to remain sailplane records, that is all.
> >
> > I understand that you're asserting it's a different game, and you feel in your bones that it's a different game.
> >
> > My question is: do the existing records show that it is a different game -- and one tipped in favour of motor gliders?
>
> OLC. Someone on here made the point just a couple of weeks ago that a motor glider enabled an extra risk free 100km a day (whether or not they ran the motor) and that "everyone knows this". I haven't tried to make a case that this is true based on real data, nor do I plan to. I'm going on my gut and how I'd change my own tactics given the self retrieve option.
>
> There's no where near enough data in US records to make a meaningful claim.
>
> Anecdotally, there's the spectacular example of Brian Milner, who aero towed to a remote start, promptly fell off the ridge, ran his motor, got back on the ridge a few miles South where the ridge/wind angle was better, and then flew 2000 OLC km, so far the longest OLC flight in the Eastern US (and a virtuoso performance worthy of the highest respect I can muster). A pure sailplane would have been in the valley around 7am.
>
> I know from my own flying that I leave a fair bit of distance on the table, even on record days. I never have a dedicated crew. I do have club mates that are willing to retrieve me in the event I am forced down (I make sure this is a rare circumstance). There are one or two that would probably be happy to come fetch me after an intentional outlanding, but they never seem to be around on the record days!
I think OLC is more about average days than record days, and for sure a motor helps then.
When I look at the dozens of times Terry Delore got up before dawn, prepared everything, and took a hella expensive tow from Wigram to the Southern Alps .. until he finally bagged that world record official first 2000 km flight [1]. Just wow. What dedication. What expense. How much easier it would have been if he could have motored into the wave himself...
[1] Ray Lynskey of course made a non-record 2000 km flight a couple of years earlier.
krasw
March 13th 17, 05:56 PM
Well if it's any consolation, every motorglider pilot know that real gliding is done without engine behind back, and most of them wouldn't dare to go anywhere if there was a slightest chance for outlanding. Chicken.
Tango Eight
March 13th 17, 06:02 PM
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 1:43:45 PM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 7:09:12 PM UTC+3, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:21:19 AM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC+3, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:46:52 AM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
> > > > > Sort of hard to self launch if the motor is disabled.
> > > > >
> > > > > Records should be about the soaring performance not the launch method. Records should showcase the greatest possible achievement period, not the greatest possible achievement from an airport with a towplane.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does it make sense for a Silent or a Russia AC-5M to be competing in the same record category as an EB-29?
> > > > >
> > > > > World Records must first be certified as National Records. Under the old system it was very possible to fly a world record performance in a motorglider and not be able to claim it, thanks to our rules not aligning with the FAI's.
> > > >
> > > > You guys are missing the point.
> > > >
> > > > Us pure glider guys don't give a darned what records are kept for motor gliders. Knock yourselves out, have as many MG classes as you want. It's a ***different game***. If you can't see that, please just take my word for it (I am not alone). We want the sailplane records to remain sailplane records, that is all.
> > >
> > > I understand that you're asserting it's a different game, and you feel in your bones that it's a different game.
> > >
> > > My question is: do the existing records show that it is a different game -- and one tipped in favour of motor gliders?
> >
> > OLC. Someone on here made the point just a couple of weeks ago that a motor glider enabled an extra risk free 100km a day (whether or not they ran the motor) and that "everyone knows this". I haven't tried to make a case that this is true based on real data, nor do I plan to. I'm going on my gut and how I'd change my own tactics given the self retrieve option.
> >
> > There's no where near enough data in US records to make a meaningful claim.
> >
> > Anecdotally, there's the spectacular example of Brian Milner, who aero towed to a remote start, promptly fell off the ridge, ran his motor, got back on the ridge a few miles South where the ridge/wind angle was better, and then flew 2000 OLC km, so far the longest OLC flight in the Eastern US (and a virtuoso performance worthy of the highest respect I can muster). A pure sailplane would have been in the valley around 7am.
> >
> > I know from my own flying that I leave a fair bit of distance on the table, even on record days. I never have a dedicated crew. I do have club mates that are willing to retrieve me in the event I am forced down (I make sure this is a rare circumstance). There are one or two that would probably be happy to come fetch me after an intentional outlanding, but they never seem to be around on the record days!
>
> I think OLC is more about average days than record days, and for sure a motor helps then.
>
> When I look at the dozens of times Terry Delore got up before dawn, prepared everything, and took a hella expensive tow from Wigram to the Southern Alps .. until he finally bagged that world record official first 2000 km flight [1]. Just wow. What dedication. What expense. How much easier it would have been if he could have motored into the wave himself...
>
> [1] Ray Lynskey of course made a non-record 2000 km flight a couple of years earlier.
I should probably clarify that when I am talking about attacking records without a crew, I am talking about back water state records in VT and NH. The bar isn't that high (but still good fun). US National records are of a different magnitude and not only suggest a crew, but (for most of us) a lengthy drive to a suitable location for the attempt. I haven't yet fired up for that mission... but I have at least thought about how I might go after a couple of those records.
Having a self launcher to poke around for wave seems like it would be a) a great deal of fun and b) a huge advantage over non-motorized guys.
best,
Evan Ludeman / Dinosaur Rider
jfitch
March 13th 17, 06:40 PM
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9:26:19 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> #popcorn time on a snowy Monday in Michigan. Thanks Evan!
>
> On the surface, I tend to agree with Evan. Motor-gliders can take slightly (or significantly) more risk. Over many attempts to break a record, this ability to stretch further accumulates and ultimately, IMO, makes a HUGE difference. I can see this in contest soaring more and more. Motorgliders make great sense on a practical level, but they are simply not pure gliders. We should respect that and not "downplay it" or pretend that difference doesn't exist. It does exist, no question about it. Anyone who downplays the advantages motorgliders enjoy on cross country flight (especially contest or record flying) is, simply put, not being honest. The data cannot show this difference, of course, nice try. Regardless, an clear advantage exists for motorgliders and therefore allowing them into the pure glider record category is arguably unfair. It will ultimately hurt record flying (for the foreseeable future) as some pure glider pilots who currently pursue records will choose not to bother as they cannot afford the additional motoglider expense. It also leaves a bad taste in certain cases, which I can understand.
>
> In 20 years most all gliders will be motor-gliders. But that doesn't change the fact that they do have a clear advantage, especially in long record flights. Pure glider records deserve to be highly respected. Motorgliders can disable still their motors easily for record attempts and prove that they have achieved a true "apples to apples" soaring record vs pure gliders.. Or they can just have the motorglider record which will become more and more competitive and prestigious over time as motorgliders begin to outnumber pure gliders.
>
> That said, I also strongly believe that the time for the US having its "own systems for everything" (rules, records, handicaps, etc) is at an end. Each case of the US running its own system has proven to be incredibly inefficient and provides no measurable positive value to our sport. Why do we allow this? Why do we waste our time? In many cases the great effort required to managing our own custom US systems is arguably highly negative. We should simply adopt the FAI systems and participate in the soaring world as all other soaring countries do, rather than standing alone in the far corner of the soaring world with our arms crossed and mumbling about the genius of our (for example) scoring system (like the SSA GOBs force us all to do today).
>
> Let's put an end to all of this US nonsense across the board, shall we?
>
> Sean
<snip>The data cannot show this difference, of course</snip>
Of course. The difference is an alternative fact.
There may be some motorglider pilots that fly too low into unlandable terrain. This is an advantage, but a self correcting problem. Other than that, the motor saves the inconvenience and cost of a retrieve, nothing more. The cost is questionable, as the price of the motor is far more than either a lifetime of air retrieves or a paid help crew. The convenience is undeniable.. Should there be a separate record for people who have paid for the convenience of a one man rigging outfit? Should there be a separate record for the convenience of a glider with automatic connecting controls? Should motorgliders get a speed bonus, due to the inconvenient extra maintenance and expense required?
I have no problem with a separate "pure" glider record in the US. Given that worldwide 80% of new gliders have motors, this will become an increasingly esoteric corner of soaring. We still keep 1-26 records right? But along with that I demand categories separated by wing loading, which has a far greater affect on speed and distance.
Imagine if, in sailing, there were separate records for racing yachts with no engine. No one has ever even considered such a foolish idea. Yet at one time, they were all engineless.
Jonathan St. Cloud
March 13th 17, 09:14 PM
A distinct disadvantage motor gliders have is the motor. What I mean is, you are flying a ballasted ship all the time. When the weather is strong, you do not need the engine, but it doesn't hurt, when the weather is weak, the motor glider pilot is on the ground sooner as flying with a wing loading somewhere between ½ and full ballast is not an advantage. Six of one half a dozen of the other each has their own advantages and disadvantages.. Having owned and flown gliders, Motor gliders, and sustainer gliders generally the pure glider has more flexibility of conditions and can fly longer into the dying day. Also, the motor glider even if they push safety, needs to stop soaring much higher and try to get the smoke pot lit. In Europe ⅔ of the new gliders sold have at least a sustainer so the momentum is heading toward more of the fleet to have an engine.
As for the records motor glider vs. pure glider records, I have no contributions in either direction.
Tango Eight
March 14th 17, 12:42 AM
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:14:50 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> A distinct disadvantage motor gliders have is the motor.
This is about rules, not any specific technology.
Could be Jets.
Could be FES.
Could be Electro-gravitics some day! (I'm from New Boston, lol: http://www.newbostonhistoricalsociety.com/gravity.html)
Think ahead a little.
But even with current technology, an ASG-29es is only about 1 lb / sq ft heavier than a dry ASG-29 and the difference in climb (if you can see it at all) just isn't going to be a factor on a record day.
best,
Evan
BobW
March 14th 17, 01:01 AM
On 3/13/2017 12:40 PM, jfitch wrote:
<Snip...>
> There may be some motorglider pilots that fly too low into unlandable
> terrain. This is an advantage, but a self correcting problem. Other than
> that, the motor saves the inconvenience and cost of a retrieve, nothing
> more. The cost is questionable, as the price of the motor is far more than
> either a lifetime of air retrieves or a paid help crew. The convenience is
> undeniable. Should there be a separate record for people who have paid for
> the convenience of a one man rigging outfit? Should there be a separate
> record for the convenience of a glider with automatic connecting controls?
> Should motorgliders get a speed bonus, due to the inconvenient extra
> maintenance and expense required?
Hmmm...and trying to reiterate a point I sought to make in an earlier post...
Extracting a quote (since I raised cost as a very real distinguishing issue
between engineless and powered sailplanes to many 'Joe Average' glider types
[e.g. me] in an earlier post): "The cost is questionable, as the price of the
motor is far more than either a lifetime of air retrieves or a paid help
crew." Maybe I missed it when I used to work in various businesses requiring
engineering support (the 'excess salary' they threw my direction therefrom
supporting my glidering), but both the business and myself accounted
distinctly differently between large capital expenses (e.g. my glider) and
running costs. So what if in the long run the total cash outlay happens to
come out 'relatively even?' (I've never sought to check.) It's meaningless to
the guy paying the bill (whether from future company profits, or saved 'excess
salary'). What matters is, "Can I afford/risk it given today's cashflow?"
And to go from ignoring capital cost as a seriously distinguishing difference
between "pure" and "auxiliary-powered" sailplanes, to "reductio ad absurdum"
rhetorical questions, doesn't change the fact that equating pure/powered
categories by no longer distinguishing between the categories is - in a
record-keeping sense - to bureaucratically pretend apples and oranges are
equivalent. It simply ain't so...
> I have no problem with a separate "pure" glider record in the US. Given
> that worldwide 80% of new gliders have motors, this will become an
> increasingly esoteric corner of soaring. We still keep 1-26 records right?
> But along with that I demand categories separated by wing loading, which
> has a far greater affect on speed and distance.
Have at it. Maybe IGC will listen, since they would appear ready to entertain
at least one other spurious category.
Respectfully,
Bob W.
Dan Marotta
March 14th 17, 01:41 AM
I got all of my badges before I got an engine... Sounds like you're
jealous.
And yes, I've landed out several times, but I don't have to any more...
On 3/13/2017 11:56 AM, krasw wrote:
> Well if it's any consolation, every motorglider pilot know that real gliding is done without engine behind back, and most of them wouldn't dare to go anywhere if there was a slightest chance for outlanding. Chicken.
--
Dan, 5J
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
March 14th 17, 03:24 AM
krasw wrote on 3/13/2017 10:56 AM:
> Well if it's any consolation, every motorglider pilot know that real gliding is done without engine behind back, and most of them wouldn't dare to go anywhere if there was a slightest chance for outlanding. Chicken.
Not so. Many MG pilots will routinely accept the risk of an outlanding if the
motor doesn't start, because always flying within reach of an airport can often be
very limiting. Occasionally, these pilots land in a field somewhere, and the extra
170 pounds in the fuselage does not ease the retrieve!
There are, of course, many pilots without a motor that "wouldn't dare to go
anywhere if there was a slightest chance for outlanding".
I've flown thousands of hours in unpowered gliders, and thousands in motorgliders.
Every minute seemed like real gliding, once the engine disappeared into the
fuselage, and the engine allowed me to have wonderful flights over the many places
in North America that do not have a tow plane. Motorglider, motorhome, and a wife
able and willing to drive the latter while pulling the empty trailer for the
former - priceless!
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf
Jonathan St. Cloud
March 14th 17, 03:51 AM
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:42:20 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> But even with current technology, an ASG-29es is only about 1 lb / sq ft heavier than a dry ASG-29 and the difference in climb (if you can see it at all) just isn't going to be a factor on a record day.
>
> best,
> Evan
Your information on the ASG-29Es is just plain and simply WRONG! The ASG-29Es's I am familiar with are flying with min wing loading around 8.8 pounds.
krasw
March 14th 17, 05:45 AM
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 05:24:10 UTC+2, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Not so. Many MG pilots will routinely accept the risk of an outlanding if the
> motor doesn't start, because always flying within reach of an airport can often be
> very limiting. Occasionally, these pilots land in a field somewhere, and the extra
> 170 pounds in the fuselage does not ease the retrieve!
>
That's like saying I routinely take a chance of having flat tire while driving car. Doesn't really stop me driving anywhere I want.
Tango Whisky
March 14th 17, 12:01 PM
How about having a separate class for retired guys who don't have to show up for a job on the next day, do not miss a single booming day during the season and have a retrieve crew standing by?
Get yourself a life.
Bert
Ventus cM "TW"
Pete[_9_]
March 14th 17, 12:43 PM
I believe having the ability to self retrieve gives a distinct advantage. Thinking forward to FES where a low altitude save via starting your nose motor offers zero risk to the pilot means that pilot can push significantly harder over less forgiving terrain than the pilot that does not have the option.
I'm surprised people are in denial of this distinct mental advantage.
Tango Eight
March 14th 17, 12:51 PM
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:42:20 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
>
> > But even with current technology, an ASG-29es is only about 1 lb / sq ft heavier than a dry ASG-29 and the difference in climb (if you can see it at all) just isn't going to be a factor on a record day.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan
>
> Your information on the ASG-29Es is just plain and simply WRONG! The ASG-29Es's I am familiar with are flying with min wing loading around 8.8 pounds.
Have you somehow missed the fact that modern gliders climb *really* well at high wing loading? An ASG-29 can spot at ASW-20 (itself no slouch, as I try to demonstrate) about 2 # in wing loading and still climb at parity. This is the aspect of modern ships that tries to pry my wallet open.
Since you called me out on the numbers... My "1 psf" came from a guy known for fuzzy numbers (unless a dollar sign was involved). Fair enough, let's check.
So: https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/flugzeuge/asg-29/
For non-electric start version, empty mass according to Schleicher goes up 99 lbs on 113 square feet of wing (18m span) or 99 sq feet (15m). Numbers aren't published on the 29es page, but will obviously be a bit higher. Enough higher to get your caps lock key involved! With a parachute and land out kit, I'd be right around 9# at 15m(!) span. While higher than I would prefer for a survival day, that's a sweet spot wing loading for a moderate day... and what was this thread about, again?
Sorry, Error #404, alibi not found.
best regards,
Evan Ludeman / Dino-man
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:42:20 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
>
> > But even with current technology, an ASG-29es is only about 1 lb / sq ft heavier than a dry ASG-29 and the difference in climb (if you can see it at all) just isn't going to be a factor on a record day.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan
>
> Your information on the ASG-29Es is just plain and simply WRONG! The ASG-29Es's I am familiar with are flying with min wing loading around 8.8 pounds.
I'm flying my '29 dry at 8.0 lb/sq ft and I'm not skinny. I don't think Evan is all that far off with his 1 lb ballpark estimate.
My '24E is 1.1 lb/sq ft heavier than my 24 was.
2 data points
UH
Roy B.
March 14th 17, 02:03 PM
Well it's snowing out and I am bored - so I'll join the fray. Except, Evan has already said what I would say (except the part about "flaccid, low testosterone ******s"). I would have said something more direct.
Let's not conflate the convenience of self launching with the mental confidence of having an engine behind you when you are low or far away and pushing for the last turnpoint with doubts about getting back. They are very different impacts on your gliding. If there was a way to self launch, lock the engine, and throw the key out the vent window, then we would all be doing what Evan does well (and I try to do).
True - the self launch and sustainer people acquire problems that the pure glider pilots don't have (cost, weight, and need to give up earlier) and I have pulled a few sustainer gliders out of farm fields in my time (3 no starts and one taped over fuel tank vent hole) but Pete is right - it's a mental sport and the presence of an engine of any type impacts your mindset. Especially if you fly like Evan and push to use 100% of the day.
But Evan, look on the bright side - The pure gliders are getting cheaper since the ******s don't want them.
ROY (fellow pterosaur)
jfitch
March 14th 17, 04:09 PM
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 7:03:45 AM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
> Well it's snowing out and I am bored - so I'll join the fray. Except, Evan has already said what I would say (except the part about "flaccid, low testosterone ******s"). I would have said something more direct.
>
> Let's not conflate the convenience of self launching with the mental confidence of having an engine behind you when you are low or far away and pushing for the last turnpoint with doubts about getting back. They are very different impacts on your gliding. If there was a way to self launch, lock the engine, and throw the key out the vent window, then we would all be doing what Evan does well (and I try to do).
>
> True - the self launch and sustainer people acquire problems that the pure glider pilots don't have (cost, weight, and need to give up earlier) and I have pulled a few sustainer gliders out of farm fields in my time (3 no starts and one taped over fuel tank vent hole) but Pete is right - it's a mental sport and the presence of an engine of any type impacts your mindset. Especially if you fly like Evan and push to use 100% of the day.
>
> But Evan, look on the bright side - The pure gliders are getting cheaper since the ******s don't want them.
>
> ROY (fellow pterosaur)
Your mental problem is one of your own making. It can be shown that paying someone to chase you for the retrieve is cheaper than purchasing an engine (and yes, I fully understand capital and operating costs, and also that they are interchangeable in this context). Your mental problem is you have chosen not to spend the money to get the best performance out of the day. As in most speed sports, speed is largely a matter of money - how fast can you afford to go?
An engine has drawbacks compared to the traditional crew: it won't bring you are beer after landing and help you take your glider apart, and sex with it is unfulfilling.
I don't know all of you personally, but the local pilots with the same views universally have never owned and flown a motorglider cross country. Nearly all motorglider pilots have owned and flown cross country engineless gliders. So 'fess up - all of you who think there is a performance advantage in having a motor, have you owned and extensively flown cross country in a motorglider? No? Perhaps you don't know what you are talking about.....
The idea of flying your FES glider into the ground and then firing it up is simply Russian Roulette. I quote the Schleicher Operation manual: "One must always be prepared for the possibility that the engine will not provide the hoped for propulsion...."
Dan Marotta
March 14th 17, 04:11 PM
You are correct (at least from my viewpoint). Though since becoming a
"self launcher" my land out options have actually decreased (paved
runways only), I find myself pushing further knowing the Rotax 914 is
way more reliable that the chain saw engines on most sustainers. Still,
I never go beyond gliding distance from an actual airport. This is my
self-imposed limit.
On 3/14/2017 8:03 AM, Roy B. wrote:
> Well it's snowing out and I am bored - so I'll join the fray. Except, Evan has already said what I would say (except the part about "flaccid, low testosterone ******s"). I would have said something more direct.
>
> Let's not conflate the convenience of self launching with the mental confidence of having an engine behind you when you are low or far away and pushing for the last turnpoint with doubts about getting back. They are very different impacts on your gliding. If there was a way to self launch, lock the engine, and throw the key out the vent window, then we would all be doing what Evan does well (and I try to do).
>
> True - the self launch and sustainer people acquire problems that the pure glider pilots don't have (cost, weight, and need to give up earlier) and I have pulled a few sustainer gliders out of farm fields in my time (3 no starts and one taped over fuel tank vent hole) but Pete is right - it's a mental sport and the presence of an engine of any type impacts your mindset. Especially if you fly like Evan and push to use 100% of the day.
>
> But Evan, look on the bright side - The pure gliders are getting cheaper since the ******s don't want them.
>
> ROY (fellow pterosaur)
--
Dan, 5J
krasw
March 14th 17, 06:02 PM
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 18:09:05 UTC+2, jfitch wrote:
> I don't know all of you personally, but the local pilots with the same views universally have never owned and flown a motorglider cross country. Nearly all motorglider pilots have owned and flown cross country engineless gliders. So 'fess up - all of you who think there is a performance advantage in having a motor, have you owned and extensively flown cross country in a motorglider? No? Perhaps you don't know what you are talking about.....
>
I've flown selflaunchers and sustainers. Having engine is every bit as game-changing as one can imagine. It is totally different sport, arguing about that pretty useless. Of course there is no category for pure glider records anymore as virtually no gliders are made without engine of some sort anymore (excluding 2-seat trainers), they are bound to extinct.
Jonathan St. Cloud
March 14th 17, 06:31 PM
I guess we need to know the reference point, Hank is that at 15 meters or 18 meters? 8.6-9.0 lbs would be the min wing loading on 18m ASG-29Es depending on pilot weight, and how the glider is equipped.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:42:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:42:20 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> >
> > > But even with current technology, an ASG-29es is only about 1 lb / sq ft heavier than a dry ASG-29 and the difference in climb (if you can see it at all) just isn't going to be a factor on a record day.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Evan
> >
> > Your information on the ASG-29Es is just plain and simply WRONG! The ASG-29Es's I am familiar with are flying with min wing loading around 8.8 pounds.
>
> I'm flying my '29 dry at 8.0 lb/sq ft and I'm not skinny. I don't think Evan is all that far off with his 1 lb ballpark estimate.
> My '24E is 1.1 lb/sq ft heavier than my 24 was.
> 2 data points
> UH
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 18:09:05 UTC+2, jfitch wrote:
> > I don't know all of you personally, but the local pilots with the same views universally have never owned and flown a motorglider cross country. Nearly all motorglider pilots have owned and flown cross country engineless gliders. So 'fess up - all of you who think there is a performance advantage in having a motor, have you owned and extensively flown cross country in a motorglider? No? Perhaps you don't know what you are talking about.....
> >
>
> I've flown selflaunchers and sustainers. Having engine is every bit as game-changing as one can imagine. It is totally different sport, arguing about that pretty useless. Of course there is no category for pure glider records anymore as virtually no gliders are made without engine of some sort anymore (excluding 2-seat trainers), they are bound to extinct.
What is the barrier to maintaining two different sets of records again? One for motor and one without? Is there a shortage of server space to keep them -:)
Dennis
DC
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 2:31:23 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> I guess we need to know the reference point, Hank is that at 15 meters or 18 meters? 8.6-9.0 lbs would be the min wing loading on 18m ASG-29Es depending on pilot weight, and how the glider is equipped.
>
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:42:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:42:20 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> > >
> > > > But even with current technology, an ASG-29es is only about 1 lb / sq ft heavier than a dry ASG-29 and the difference in climb (if you can see it at all) just isn't going to be a factor on a record day.
> > > >
> > > > best,
> > > > Evan
> > >
> > > Your information on the ASG-29Es is just plain and simply WRONG! The ASG-29Es's I am familiar with are flying with min wing loading around 8.8 pounds.
> >
> > I'm flying my '29 dry at 8.0 lb/sq ft and I'm not skinny. I don't think Evan is all that far off with his 1 lb ballpark estimate.
> > My '24E is 1.1 lb/sq ft heavier than my 24 was.
> > 2 data points
> > UH
18 meters
UH
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
March 14th 17, 09:26 PM
"It's not how IGC does it, the US should do what the IGC does in all things".
Quotes are basically what this thread, as well as some campaigning from others regarding "contest rules", want/are suggesting.
In this case (records), sounds like it's a done deal, changing US contest rules to match IGC rules has thus far only generated lots of posts and gnashing of teeth.
RickH
March 14th 17, 10:06 PM
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 2:31:23 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
I guess we need to know the reference point, Hank is that at 15 meters or 18 meters? 8.6-9.0 lbs would be the min wing loading on 18m ASG-29Es depending on pilot weight, and how the glider is equipped.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:42:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:42:20 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
But even with current technology, an ASG-29es is only about 1 lb / sq ft heavier than a dry ASG-29 and the difference in climb (if you can see it at all) just isn't going to be a factor on a record day.
best,
Evan
Your information on the ASG-29Es is just plain and simply WRONG! The ASG-29Es's I am familiar with are flying with min wing loading around 8.8 pounds.
I'm flying my '29 dry at 8.0 lb/sq ft and I'm not skinny. I don't think Evan is all that far off with his 1 lb ballpark estimate.
My '24E is 1.1 lb/sq ft heavier than my 24 was.
2 data points
UH
18 meters
UH
My ASG-29, no engine, in 18-m config was 7.64 lbs no ballast. Pilot and chute account for 199 lbs of the total weight.
Rick
NR
RR
March 15th 17, 01:00 AM
Just to roll this back to the issue at hand, does this "advance of technology" justify somehow creating/maintaining separate categories. I believe the feeling expressed by Evan is, that it is unfair to have this new technology compete with the old. There is no question that technology marches on, and the records advance as it does. Do we keep the old categories as it goes forward, no. We don't have "wooden glider 300k speed triangle". That time is past. That said, the records do show the equipment used (at least the glider used) and when you look back in time, you can be impressed with the performance in relation to the equipment. In the past we had open primaries, then enclosed wood and fabric, then metal, then first, then second, then ..., generation glass and carbon. At the moment, nearly all the new production gliders have some form of auxiliary. The records advance with the accepted technoligy. While there are many advantages to self-launch and self-retrieve, they do not add up to the performance gain of gen one glass vs a modern glider.
Evan pointed to a record that was saved by the use of the motor before the start. This is true, but the record was the result of the pilot's performance after the motor shut down. That was all pilot skill, and a record day was not wasted.
So Evan, the good news is that as long as you resist your temptation to trade in your testosterone reserves, and come over to the darkside, your 15m glider is not likely to be in contention with self-launch gliders, as most of those will start with larger spans, for a while...
RR
Roy B.
March 15th 17, 01:48 AM
RR, respectfully, I think you've got the original point wrong. It's not about resisting "advance of technology"at all. It's about the different mindset of having a motor and not having a motor when you are really pushing the day for a record. For example, during a good record week if you are trying a big triangle you are always wondering if you've picked the last turnpoint too far and you are not going to get back before the lift quits. You ask yourself on the second half of the second leg "Maybe I should bail here so I can be sure to get back?" With a motor in back it's no big deal - you go for that far turnpoint and if you're right you make it and if not you will crank out the motor, do a little sawtooth and get back in time for the beer. Without a motor, you may go for it but if you're wrong you wind up in the dirt with a midnight retrieve and the next day you're cleaning mud and cow pies out of the gear, wishing you had slept more hours than you drove while the motor guy is well rested and flying for a record again that next day. Every motor guy I've flown long distances against (and there are many) has said the same thing: "It's a different game". It's different because at the big decision point (do I go for it or not?) the motor gives security that the pure glider does not have. That's why the records should stay different - motor and no motor are different sports when you try flying 100 to 110% of the day.
ROY
RR
March 15th 17, 02:27 AM
I understand the difference in the mental game, and the additional pressure it places on you. It is one of the reasons that I bought this new toy. I have some records I would like to go for this year. To mount these attempt I would need to arrange for early morning launches, have a crew on standby, etc. All posable, not all that expencive, but asking a lot of other support people. With a motor glider, I can provide all of that myself. In that these will be wave flights, I may face the possibility of an airport landout, to warm the motor back up, but I will be able to self retreve. But assuming all goes well, I can do that without inconvenience to others.
So now we circle back to the advantage of "convenience". It does not seem appropriate to have diferent category based on convenience.
I could have all the piece of mind, and comfort if I had a ground crew following me on an attempt. And I might note for the price of a new motor glider that crew could be paid and bring the drinks and dancing girls in the back of the chase limo. We might look down on such a well funded record attempt but should it require a new category?
RR
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:48:35 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
> ...but if you're wrong you wind up in the dirt with a midnight retrieve and the next
> day you're cleaning mud and cow pies out of the gear, wishing you had slept more hours than you drove while the motor guy is well
> rested and flying for a record again that next day.
And what if you happened to own two gliders, a towplane, a helicopter and the staff to maintain and operate all said equipment.
Land out in the boonies, and within minutes the helicopter shows up to take you back to the airport (since the crew has anticipated a possible landout, so headed out some time ago) while leaving someone behind to wait for the ground crew to show up. Next day, you fly the same ship if the crew get it back in time, or fly the spare.
No engine, no problem. Just a few more $$ spent.
I flew a ASH-26E for 15 years and loved it. It gave me the confidence to stretch the day knowing that if I did "land out", the engine *might* start and get me home without a late retrieve. My wife worked long hard hours, so constantly asking her to risk a long retrieval and late night was not nice.. We could afford the self launcher, so I had it.
I mostly took aero tows, and occasionally avoided a relight by using the engine. I can literally count the number of engine "saves" on one hand in the 1500+ hours I flew. Some day, I'll have to go through my logbook to confirm.
My wife is now retired, and I will be as well in a few years. So last year I traded the '26E for a ASW-27b which is much less expensive to own and a lot easier to handle on the ground. I will now continue to fly exactly the same way as I have for the last 15 years knowing that I won't be burdening my wife with a long, late retrieve. We'll just treat it as an adventure and take our time getting home. No worries about needing to be rested for work.
Yes, the motor is a convenience, but so is time and money.
At a contest, I would typically commit myself for a landing, since the engine start really needs to happen early on the downwind leg to a *large* safe landing place. Leaving the engine retracted allowed me to for a potentially smaller field and maybe a low save from base leg.
An interesting anecdote is starting the engine and immediately hitting a nice thermal. Been there, done that several times - the engine ran for less than a minute before I stowed it.
So yes, the engine changes my mindset, but not about the soaring performance. Just the convenience it affords if I don't have the money or time to stay "pure". Am I repeating myself? :-)
Just my $0.02
5Z
Bruce Hoult
March 15th 17, 04:30 AM
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 6:02:15 AM UTC+3, wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:48:35 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
> > ...but if you're wrong you wind up in the dirt with a midnight retrieve and the next
> > day you're cleaning mud and cow pies out of the gear, wishing you had slept more hours than you drove while the motor guy is well
> > rested and flying for a record again that next day.
>
> And what if you happened to own two gliders, a towplane, a helicopter and the staff to maintain and operate all said equipment.
>
> Land out in the boonies, and within minutes the helicopter shows up to take you back to the airport (since the crew has anticipated a possible landout, so headed out some time ago) while leaving someone behind to wait for the ground crew to show up. Next day, you fly the same ship if the crew get it back in time, or fly the spare.
If it's big enough to land in, it's big enough for a decent chopper to give you a relight. Those things accelerate faster than any towplane, and the chopper doesn't even need solid ground under it.
Martin Gregorie[_5_]
March 15th 17, 09:49 AM
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:00:40 -0700, RR wrote:
> Just to roll this back to the issue at hand, does this "advance of
> technology" justify somehow creating/maintaining separate categories.
>
Of course it does!
Many commentards have pointed out the terrible drag penalties that result
from a folded FES propeller. Since everybody knows that the wisdom of the
crowds can't be wrong, obviously we need a separate FES record category
and we need it NOW!
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
Tango Eight
March 15th 17, 12:00 PM
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 5:52:49 AM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> commentards
The sun has well and truly set on the British empire. So sad, so sad....
:-)
-Evan
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:27:55 PM UTC-4, RR wrote:
> I understand the difference in the mental game, and the additional pressure it places on you. It is one of the reasons that I bought this new toy. I have some records I would like to go for this year. To mount these attempt I would need to arrange for early morning launches, have a crew on standby, etc. All posable, not all that expencive, but asking a lot of other support people. With a motor glider, I can provide all of that myself. In that these will be wave flights, I may face the possibility of an airport landout, to warm the motor back up, but I will be able to self retreve. But assuming all goes well, I can do that without inconvenience to others.
>
> So now we circle back to the advantage of "convenience". It does not seem appropriate to have diferent category based on convenience.
>
> I could have all the piece of mind, and comfort if I had a ground crew following me on an attempt. And I might note for the price of a new motor glider that crew could be paid and bring the drinks and dancing girls in the back of the chase limo. We might look down on such a well funded record attempt but should it require a new category?
>
>
> RR
Doesn't an engine and the having the additional "arrow in your quiver" allow you a bit more ability to take risk?
Dennis DC
jfitch
March 15th 17, 03:47 PM
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 6:29:43 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:27:55 PM UTC-4, RR wrote:
> > I understand the difference in the mental game, and the additional pressure it places on you. It is one of the reasons that I bought this new toy.. I have some records I would like to go for this year. To mount these attempt I would need to arrange for early morning launches, have a crew on standby, etc. All posable, not all that expencive, but asking a lot of other support people. With a motor glider, I can provide all of that myself. In that these will be wave flights, I may face the possibility of an airport landout, to warm the motor back up, but I will be able to self retreve. But assuming all goes well, I can do that without inconvenience to others.
> >
> > So now we circle back to the advantage of "convenience". It does not seem appropriate to have diferent category based on convenience.
> >
> > I could have all the piece of mind, and comfort if I had a ground crew following me on an attempt. And I might note for the price of a new motor glider that crew could be paid and bring the drinks and dancing girls in the back of the chase limo. We might look down on such a well funded record attempt but should it require a new category?
> >
> >
> > RR
>
> Doesn't an engine and the having the additional "arrow in your quiver" allow you a bit more ability to take risk?
>
> Dennis DC
No it does not. Without the engine, I would continue looking for thermals down to 1000 ft. (in the West, some in the East would say 200 ft). With the engine, 2000 ft. You need to get it out, go through the start up routine, warm it a little (on cold/high days), then when it DOESN'T start, put it away again and line up for your landing.
Yes there are people who don't do this - the NTSA accident database is rife with them. Statistics argue that the engine makes the glider more dangerous, not safer. But more convenient - when it starts - and the safety is subject to the full control of the operator by showing some restraint.
A second drawback so far unmentioned is the pilot workload that the engine contributes to, at a very inconvenient time (you are are low). Should I start the engine? What if it doesn't start? Will the 50% degradation in performance once the engine is out preclude the landing area I chose? Do I remember the exact sequence? Should I have started it 5 minutes ago? That extra bit of distraction, just when you are near overload, is a significant factor in the prudent decision to give up earlier.
The reason the mindset is different with an engine is that it is sunk cost, so in the middle of the day I will go further, knowing that 9 out of 10 times the engine will start if it is needed, and the inconvenient retrieve is reduced to 10% of the consideration it might have been. The money has already been spent, whether I use it or not. In my engineless glider, in the middle of the day, I am thinking, "do I really want another 50 miles if it is going to cost me $300?" and often the answer was no. I hadn't yet spent the money, and there was the opportunity to save it. This has nothing at all to do with performance. My suggestion to those without an engine, who want the extra 50 miles on a day with landout risk, is to hand $300 to your ground crew, Uber driver, or whoever before you take off. Now go fly. They will come get you if you land out. You don't get the money back in any case. Now you can have the same mindset, along with the satisfaction of knowing you can do that at least 10 times a year and still be paying less than the cost of an engine.
Motor gliders? Aren't those called "airplanes"?
I truly pity those who can't see the difference.
Tango Eight
March 17th 17, 10:31 AM
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 6:29:43 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:27:55 PM UTC-4, RR wrote:
> > > I understand the difference in the mental game, and the additional pressure it places on you. It is one of the reasons that I bought this new toy. I have some records I would like to go for this year. To mount these attempt I would need to arrange for early morning launches, have a crew on standby, etc. All posable, not all that expencive, but asking a lot of other support people. With a motor glider, I can provide all of that myself. In that these will be wave flights, I may face the possibility of an airport landout, to warm the motor back up, but I will be able to self retreve. But assuming all goes well, I can do that without inconvenience to others.
> > >
> > > So now we circle back to the advantage of "convenience". It does not seem appropriate to have diferent category based on convenience.
> > >
> > > I could have all the piece of mind, and comfort if I had a ground crew following me on an attempt. And I might note for the price of a new motor glider that crew could be paid and bring the drinks and dancing girls in the back of the chase limo. We might look down on such a well funded record attempt but should it require a new category?
> > >
> > >
> > > RR
> >
> > Doesn't an engine and the having the additional "arrow in your quiver" allow you a bit more ability to take risk?
> >
> > Dennis DC
>
> No it does not. Without the engine, I would continue looking for thermals down to 1000 ft. (in the West, some in the East would say 200 ft). With the engine, 2000 ft. You need to get it out, go through the start up routine, warm it a little (on cold/high days), then when it DOESN'T start, put it away again and line up for your landing.
>
> Yes there are people who don't do this - the NTSA accident database is rife with them. Statistics argue that the engine makes the glider more dangerous, not safer. But more convenient - when it starts - and the safety is subject to the full control of the operator by showing some restraint.
>
> A second drawback so far unmentioned is the pilot workload that the engine contributes to, at a very inconvenient time (you are are low). Should I start the engine? What if it doesn't start? Will the 50% degradation in performance once the engine is out preclude the landing area I chose? Do I remember the exact sequence? Should I have started it 5 minutes ago? That extra bit of distraction, just when you are near overload, is a significant factor in the prudent decision to give up earlier.
>
> The reason the mindset is different with an engine is that it is sunk cost, so in the middle of the day I will go further, knowing that 9 out of 10 times the engine will start if it is needed, and the inconvenient retrieve is reduced to 10% of the consideration it might have been. The money has already been spent, whether I use it or not. In my engineless glider, in the middle of the day, I am thinking, "do I really want another 50 miles if it is going to cost me $300?" and often the answer was no. I hadn't yet spent the money, and there was the opportunity to save it. This has nothing at all to do with performance. My suggestion to those without an engine, who want the extra 50 miles on a day with landout risk, is to hand $300 to your ground crew, Uber driver, or whoever before you take off. Now go fly. They will come get you if you land out. You don't get the money back in any case. Now you can have the same mindset, along with the satisfaction of knowing you can do that at least 10 times a year and still be paying less than the cost of an engine.
Back to records. The ability to be able to selectively end your soaring performance at will, in the air, is a significant benefit to the pilot. All this huffing and puffing about the prudent use of TODAY's technology is relevant to precisely nothing as far as the *rules* go. As the technology improves, I expect to see MG pilots do even dumber stuff, and mostly get away with it as they do now.
Now off to wax my xc skis.... (on ST Patty's day? argh).
Evan Ludeman / T8
BobW
March 17th 17, 02:44 PM
On 3/17/2017 4:31 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 6:29:43 AM UTC-7,
>> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:27:55 PM UTC-4, RR wrote:
>>>> I understand the difference in the mental game, and the additional
>>>> pressure it places on you. It is one of the reasons that I bought
>>>> this new toy. I have some records I would like to go for this year.
>>>> To mount these attempt I would need to arrange for early morning
>>>> launches, have a crew on standby, etc. All posable, not all that
>>>> expencive, but asking a lot of other support people. With a motor
>>>> glider, I can provide all of that myself. In that these will be wave
>>>> flights, I may face the possibility of an airport landout, to warm
>>>> the motor back up, but I will be able to self retreve. But assuming
>>>> all goes well, I can do that without inconvenience to others.
>>>>
>>>> So now we circle back to the advantage of "convenience". It does not
>>>> seem appropriate to have diferent category based on convenience.
>>>>
>>>> I could have all the piece of mind, and comfort if I had a ground
>>>> crew following me on an attempt. And I might note for the price of a
>>>> new motor glider that crew could be paid and bring the drinks and
>>>> dancing girls in the back of the chase limo. We might look down on
>>>> such a well funded record attempt but should it require a new
>>>> category?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RR
>>>
>>> Doesn't an engine and the having the additional "arrow in your quiver"
>>> allow you a bit more ability to take risk?
>>>
>>> Dennis DC
>>
>> No it does not. Without the engine, I would continue looking for thermals
>> down to 1000 ft. (in the West, some in the East would say 200 ft). With
>> the engine, 2000 ft. You need to get it out, go through the start up
>> routine, warm it a little (on cold/high days), then when it DOESN'T
>> start, put it away again and line up for your landing.
>>
>> Yes there are people who don't do this - the NTSA accident database is
>> rife with them. Statistics argue that the engine makes the glider more
>> dangerous, not safer. But more convenient - when it starts - and the
>> safety is subject to the full control of the operator by showing some
>> restraint.
>>
>> A second drawback so far unmentioned is the pilot workload that the
>> engine contributes to, at a very inconvenient time (you are are low).
>> Should I start the engine? What if it doesn't start? Will the 50%
>> degradation in performance once the engine is out preclude the landing
>> area I chose? Do I remember the exact sequence? Should I have started it
>> 5 minutes ago? That extra bit of distraction, just when you are near
>> overload, is a significant factor in the prudent decision to give up
>> earlier.
>>
>> The reason the mindset is different with an engine is that it is sunk
>> cost, so in the middle of the day I will go further, knowing that 9 out
>> of 10 times the engine will start if it is needed, and the inconvenient
>> retrieve is reduced to 10% of the consideration it might have been. The
>> money has already been spent, whether I use it or not. In my engineless
>> glider, in the middle of the day, I am thinking, "do I really want
>> another 50 miles if it is going to cost me $300?" and often the answer
>> was no. I hadn't yet spent the money, and there was the opportunity to
>> save it. This has nothing at all to do with performance. My suggestion to
>> those without an engine, who want the extra 50 miles on a day with
>> landout risk, is to hand $300 to your ground crew, Uber driver, or
>> whoever before you take off. Now go fly. They will come get you if you
>> land out. You don't get the money back in any case. Now you can have the
>> same mindset, along with the satisfaction of knowing you can do that at
>> least 10 times a year and still be paying less than the cost of an
>> engine.
>
> Back to records. The ability to be able to selectively end your soaring
> performance at will, in the air, is a significant benefit to the pilot.
> All this huffing and puffing about the prudent use of TODAY's technology is
> relevant to precisely nothing as far as the *rules* go. As the technology
> improves, I expect to see MG pilots do even dumber stuff, and mostly get
> away with it as they do now.
>
> Now off to wax my xc skis.... (on ST Pa[dd]y's day? argh).
Heh..."huffing and puffing" indeed. For those unable to distinguish some
fundamental differences between engineless sailplanes and
sailplanes-cum-engine (of any sort), and who are also comfortable being told
how they should spend their disposable cash (Tangentially: I can point to a
lot of governments around the world only-too-eager for help in that
bureaucratic area!), I humbly suggest purchasing donkeys rather than any form
of horse. You'll hardly notice the differences. :)
Respectfully,
Bob W.
P.S. Don't drink green snow!
jfitch
March 17th 17, 03:47 PM
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 3:32:02 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 6:29:43 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:27:55 PM UTC-4, RR wrote:
> > > > I understand the difference in the mental game, and the additional pressure it places on you. It is one of the reasons that I bought this new toy. I have some records I would like to go for this year. To mount these attempt I would need to arrange for early morning launches, have a crew on standby, etc. All posable, not all that expencive, but asking a lot of other support people. With a motor glider, I can provide all of that myself.. In that these will be wave flights, I may face the possibility of an airport landout, to warm the motor back up, but I will be able to self retreve.. But assuming all goes well, I can do that without inconvenience to others.
> > > >
> > > > So now we circle back to the advantage of "convenience". It does not seem appropriate to have diferent category based on convenience.
> > > >
> > > > I could have all the piece of mind, and comfort if I had a ground crew following me on an attempt. And I might note for the price of a new motor glider that crew could be paid and bring the drinks and dancing girls in the back of the chase limo. We might look down on such a well funded record attempt but should it require a new category?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > RR
> > >
> > > Doesn't an engine and the having the additional "arrow in your quiver" allow you a bit more ability to take risk?
> > >
> > > Dennis DC
> >
> > No it does not. Without the engine, I would continue looking for thermals down to 1000 ft. (in the West, some in the East would say 200 ft). With the engine, 2000 ft. You need to get it out, go through the start up routine, warm it a little (on cold/high days), then when it DOESN'T start, put it away again and line up for your landing.
> >
> > Yes there are people who don't do this - the NTSA accident database is rife with them. Statistics argue that the engine makes the glider more dangerous, not safer. But more convenient - when it starts - and the safety is subject to the full control of the operator by showing some restraint.
> >
> > A second drawback so far unmentioned is the pilot workload that the engine contributes to, at a very inconvenient time (you are are low). Should I start the engine? What if it doesn't start? Will the 50% degradation in performance once the engine is out preclude the landing area I chose? Do I remember the exact sequence? Should I have started it 5 minutes ago? That extra bit of distraction, just when you are near overload, is a significant factor in the prudent decision to give up earlier.
> >
> > The reason the mindset is different with an engine is that it is sunk cost, so in the middle of the day I will go further, knowing that 9 out of 10 times the engine will start if it is needed, and the inconvenient retrieve is reduced to 10% of the consideration it might have been. The money has already been spent, whether I use it or not. In my engineless glider, in the middle of the day, I am thinking, "do I really want another 50 miles if it is going to cost me $300?" and often the answer was no. I hadn't yet spent the money, and there was the opportunity to save it. This has nothing at all to do with performance. My suggestion to those without an engine, who want the extra 50 miles on a day with landout risk, is to hand $300 to your ground crew, Uber driver, or whoever before you take off. Now go fly. They will come get you if you land out. You don't get the money back in any case.. Now you can have the same mindset, along with the satisfaction of knowing you can do that at least 10 times a year and still be paying less than the cost of an engine.
>
> Back to records. The ability to be able to selectively end your soaring performance at will, in the air, is a significant benefit to the pilot. All this huffing and puffing about the prudent use of TODAY's technology is relevant to precisely nothing as far as the *rules* go. As the technology improves, I expect to see MG pilots do even dumber stuff, and mostly get away with it as they do now.
>
> Now off to wax my xc skis.... (on ST Patty's day? argh).
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8
<snip>The ability to be able to selectively end your soaring performance at will, in the air, is a significant benefit to the pilot.</snip>
What - exactly - is preventing you from doing this in your engineless glider? (Nothing at all?)
Have you even taken a motorglider cross country? (No?)
The soaring day ends when you are over a landing site and too low to continue. Engine or no. Once again, the endless whinging seems to be from people with no experience in motorgliders, who perceive the grass must be greener over there. Buy one and fly it for awhile, then report back. You will find that the "benefit to the pilot" is convenience, not performance. Penalizing convenience in the record rules is a steep and slippery slope with almost no bottom.
Performance is increased by convenience. Let's flip this round why are motor-packers against separate records?
Dan Marotta
March 17th 17, 04:40 PM
Me too! My Stemme is way more complicated than any C-172 and I only
need a glider rating to fly it! Call it what you will, it is not an
airplane, though being an airplane pilot, too, made the transition super
simple.
On 3/16/2017 11:55 PM, wrote:
> Motor gliders? Aren't those called "airplanes"?
> I truly pity those who can't see the difference.
--
Dan, 5J
jfitch
March 17th 17, 05:23 PM
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:11:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Performance is increased by convenience. Let's flip this round why are motor-packers against separate records?
I've already said I'm all for it - as long as all other conveniences similarly have their own category.
Do you own a trailer for your glider? That is a great (and expensive) convenience when flying cross country with the possibility of a landout. It makes your mindset entirely different and changes the way you fly. We need a separate record category for those with trailers.
Do carry hull insurance? That is expensive, but brings piece of mind in case of a landout, and changes your mindset, allowing you to take more risk and go further. Separate record category for insurance.
Do you have a radio? Not required by law or rules, expensive, but a great convenience in communicating with ground crew for a potential retrieve. You would definitely fly differently without it, different mindset. Separate category.
Do you have a GPS system? A great convenience, knowing exactly where I am, where the landing sites are, if I can make them or not. Definitely changes mindset and risk. Some people cannot afford them, not fair. Separate category.
Do you have a relief tube? While not expensive, it is a great convenience, changing both mindset and pilot performance. Another category.
I could go on, but you get the idea: when you begin to penalize convenience, you step off a cliff, and the bottom is a long way down.
The performance gain from extra wingspan is convenient. Is it justifiable to keep records by wingspan? Let's go full on and have one open open class for records. $ame as a motor. No money excuses. Buy the widest, newest glider if you want a record.
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 1:23:47 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:11:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Performance is increased by convenience. Let's flip this round why are motor-packers against separate records?
>
> I've already said I'm all for it - as long as all other conveniences similarly have their own category.
>
> Do you own a trailer for your glider? That is a great (and expensive) convenience when flying cross country with the possibility of a landout. It makes your mindset entirely different and changes the way you fly. We need a separate record category for those with trailers.
>
> Do carry hull insurance? That is expensive, but brings piece of mind in case of a landout, and changes your mindset, allowing you to take more risk and go further. Separate record category for insurance.
>
> Do you have a radio? Not required by law or rules, expensive, but a great convenience in communicating with ground crew for a potential retrieve. You would definitely fly differently without it, different mindset. Separate category.
>
> Do you have a GPS system? A great convenience, knowing exactly where I am, where the landing sites are, if I can make them or not. Definitely changes mindset and risk. Some people cannot afford them, not fair. Separate category.
>
> Do you have a relief tube? While not expensive, it is a great convenience, changing both mindset and pilot performance. Another category.
>
> I could go on, but you get the idea: when you begin to penalize convenience, you step off a cliff, and the bottom is a long way down.
John Carlyle
March 17th 17, 06:12 PM
Easy solution - use handicaps. (ducking and running)
-John, Q3
Bruce Hoult
March 17th 17, 06:13 PM
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:50:49 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> The performance gain from extra wingspan is convenient. Is it justifiable to keep records by wingspan? Let's go full on and have one open open class for records. $ame as a motor. No money excuses. Buy the widest, newest glider if you want a record.
I'll just note that there appear to be world records with a higher "performance" by 15m gliders than by Open Class gliders. Span isn't always an advantage.
jfitch
March 17th 17, 06:19 PM
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 10:50:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> The performance gain from extra wingspan is convenient. Is it justifiable to keep records by wingspan? Let's go full on and have one open open class for records. $ame as a motor. No money excuses. Buy the widest, newest glider if you want a record.
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 1:23:47 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:11:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > Performance is increased by convenience. Let's flip this round why are motor-packers against separate records?
> >
> > I've already said I'm all for it - as long as all other conveniences similarly have their own category.
> >
> > Do you own a trailer for your glider? That is a great (and expensive) convenience when flying cross country with the possibility of a landout. It makes your mindset entirely different and changes the way you fly. We need a separate record category for those with trailers.
> >
> > Do carry hull insurance? That is expensive, but brings piece of mind in case of a landout, and changes your mindset, allowing you to take more risk and go further. Separate record category for insurance.
> >
> > Do you have a radio? Not required by law or rules, expensive, but a great convenience in communicating with ground crew for a potential retrieve. You would definitely fly differently without it, different mindset. Separate category.
> >
> > Do you have a GPS system? A great convenience, knowing exactly where I am, where the landing sites are, if I can make them or not. Definitely changes mindset and risk. Some people cannot afford them, not fair. Separate category.
> >
> > Do you have a relief tube? While not expensive, it is a great convenience, changing both mindset and pilot performance. Another category.
> >
> > I could go on, but you get the idea: when you begin to penalize convenience, you step off a cliff, and the bottom is a long way down.
The performance increase from extra wingspan is objective performance during the flight. Not mindset, not attitude. Yes it is also convenient. The extra performance is used throughout the flight, not just afterward for the retrieve.
I assume you do not want a penalty for your trailer because you already own one, but want to penalize an auxiliary engine because you don't own one. Neither are used to increase objective performance during the flight, both are used after the flight is over for the convenience of the retrieve. Plenty of people have (and continue) to fly cross country without a trailer. They must change their mindset and stay within gliding distance to an airport allowing an air retrieve. Yes, that affects the distance and speed and record achieved. The availability of the trailer makes it possible to consider continuing to off airport landing sites, extending distance and speed. Exactly like an auxiliary engine - the two are quite analogous. I can see no theory by which you can rationally penalize one and not the other. If you have such a theory, please advance it for our consideration.
jfitch
March 17th 17, 06:30 PM
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 11:12:25 AM UTC-7, John Carlyle wrote:
> Easy solution - use handicaps. (ducking and running)
>
> -John, Q3
John, since the argument against auxiliary engines is at its base one against cost (or perhaps aesthetics), what you propose is not unreasonable, except that no handicapping system exists that everyone agrees is fair in all conditions.
I propose that records should be categorized by glider value. This would be enforced the way the drag racers do, by a "claiming" rule. You claim your glider is worth $20,000, and fly a record in the $20,000 category. You are obliged to sell that glider for $20,000 to anyone who wants it. This is not only an effective measure against cheating (by flying an EB29 in the $20K class), but also tends to drive the costs even lower as there is incentive to set records in the $20K class with a glider only worth $15K - so no one will claim it.
Now be both have to run for cover....:)
Jonathan St. Cloud
March 17th 17, 08:22 PM
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 11:13:47 AM UTC-7, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> I'll just note that there appear to be world records with a higher "performance" by 15m gliders than by Open Class gliders. Span isn't always an advantage.
Sacrilege, you should be drawn and quartered, never to have such blasphemy shared in public again!!
Former N4 driver,
Jon
Sierra Whiskey
March 17th 17, 10:03 PM
"Yes there are people who don't do this - the NTSA accident database is rife with them."
This is the issue with Motor Gliders right here. The fact that some people (not all) will assume the risk to catch that one last thermal to get to the finish point. The mentality that someone "could" fly over upland able terrain and risk having to start the motor, but making that thermal that a pure glider cannot reach. The psychology of having an alternate option 3 feet behind your head is a factor in the minds of some. Being able to assume that the motor is there and will start is a whole different game. The database shows the accident that happened, but how about the ones that were successful and didn't result in an accident.
The argument of extra weight makes me chuckle. More weight is good on strong days typically. When was the last time a record was broken on a weak day? I am sorry but the assumption that more weight is a bad thing when making a record attempt is poorly represented.
Motor Gliders are not Pure Gliders and they have no place on the same record sheet. This is a horrible move for the Sport of soaring and will further increase the required investment in order to be competitive and break records.
jfitch
March 18th 17, 01:19 AM
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 3:03:39 PM UTC-7, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> "Yes there are people who don't do this - the NTSA accident database is rife with them."
>
> This is the issue with Motor Gliders right here. The fact that some people (not all) will assume the risk to catch that one last thermal to get to the finish point. The mentality that someone "could" fly over upland able terrain and risk having to start the motor, but making that thermal that a pure glider cannot reach. The psychology of having an alternate option 3 feet behind your head is a factor in the minds of some. Being able to assume that the motor is there and will start is a whole different game. The database shows the accident that happened, but how about the ones that were successful and didn't result in an accident.
>
> The argument of extra weight makes me chuckle. More weight is good on strong days typically. When was the last time a record was broken on a weak day? I am sorry but the assumption that more weight is a bad thing when making a record attempt is poorly represented.
>
>
> Motor Gliders are not Pure Gliders and they have no place on the same record sheet. This is a horrible move for the Sport of soaring and will further increase the required investment in order to be competitive and break records.
<snip> The fact that some people (not all) will assume the risk to catch that one last thermal to get to the finish point. </snip>
While true, it is objectively provable (and therefore also disprovable) that this is relevant in record attempts. Since every recent record attempt has associated with it a publicly accessible secure log, these logs can be checked to see how many currently held records were the result of a motorglider that flew dangerously low over unlandable terrain in order to complete the record. Also compare that to those records held by pure gliders doing the same thing. If there is a significant difference in percentage, then you have a good argument.
Those making the extraordinary claim that motorgliders are doing this often and unfairly claiming records need to provide some evidence that the problem actually exists. Otherwise we may cast it into the same rubbish heap as claims of wiretaps of Trump Tower. I doubt you will find many instances of this actually occurring, if you do I will be the first to change my position. Prove it.
It is quite easy to peruse the (motorglider) record flights of Mitch Polinsky or Jim Payne for example, who own all (but 1) of the national distance records where one is most likely find this sort of behavior. They are all posted on OLC for anyone to view. There are no low saves or anything even approaching a low save. Nor are there in any other motorglider national distance record. The motor played no part in the performance of these records. Yet they are harmed in their ability to claim international records due the the baroque US regulations, different from the rest of the world.
As an aside, you have misrepresented the weight argument. Motorgliders cannot dump all the ballast (motor) at the end of a dying day to their disadvantage - exactly the situation in which they are claimed to have an advantage by executing a low save. But as you say, most records are broken on strong days - when neither minimum wing loading, nor low saves are an issue.
The cost argument is specious - a paid retrieve crew is cheaper than an engine.
Sierra Whiskey
March 18th 17, 02:32 AM
To my point, if a retrieve Crew is far cheaper than being a glider equipped with a landing prevention option, then why do pI lots make the investment. Psychologically they are more comfortable flying with that extra option!
Proving that bad decisions are made by certain motor gliders is equally difficult to qualify as proving that they are not taking more risks. The fact of the matter is, the availability of the motor Psychologically changes the way a pilot interprets the risks associated with pushing further.
This argument is just sad in my opinion. If you want to go fly a powered aircraft, go for it, but don't claim that having an engine is equal in all ways to flying a pure glider. Two different classes all together.
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-7, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> To my point, if a retrieve Crew is far cheaper than being a glider equipped with a
> landing prevention option, then why do pI lots make the investment. Psychologically
> they are more comfortable flying with that extra option!
That's at the end of the day...
A motorglider also provided me the ability to take a tow early and if it didn't work yet, I'd start the engine over the airport and make another try. Had I landed to take another tow, I'd be in line behind several others. Of course, I could also buy myself a towplane and always be first in line. Oh wait, there's a towplane a couple feet behind my head.
Once on course, I pretty much never gave the motor a thought.
After 15 years flying the ASH-26E, I now have an ASW-27b. The gliders have pretty much equal performance so it will be interesting to see if my flights are any different now that I don't have an engine.
5Z
jfitch
March 18th 17, 05:05 AM
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-7, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> To my point, if a retrieve Crew is far cheaper than being a glider equipped with a landing prevention option, then why do pI lots make the investment. Psychologically they are more comfortable flying with that extra option!
>
> Proving that bad decisions are made by certain motor gliders is equally difficult to qualify as proving that they are not taking more risks. The fact of the matter is, the availability of the motor Psychologically changes the way a pilot interprets the risks associated with pushing further.
>
> This argument is just sad in my opinion. If you want to go fly a powered aircraft, go for it, but don't claim that having an engine is equal in all ways to flying a pure glider. Two different classes all together.
SW, have you flown a lot of miles cross country in an auxiliary motorglider?
If not, how do you know what changes in psychological thoughts and risk assessment the pilot is having? Without having flown one, how do you know they are "two different classes all together"?
I fly the same places on the same days as many friends without engines. A couple of them are willing to go much lower, much further into unlandable terrain than I will, engine or not. I have a lower (self) retrieve rate than most of them. The engine does not turn a pilot instantly into a risk taking madman.
Once again the arguments comparing the two and concluding that they are quite different, are coming almost exclusively from those who have experience in only one and are ignorant of the other. And that is sad.
Sierra Whiskey
March 18th 17, 05:40 AM
No, I have flown many miles in a "real" pure glider. In fact, I have flown records and record attempts in a pure glider. And it is embarrassing to think that my records and attempts in a pure glider will be overtake by someone that carried a landout field in their back pocket.
Don't get me wrong, Motor gliders can set records, but they are Not Pure Gliders, and they should not be treated the same. The bigger issue comes when outrageous records are set by expensive motor gliders and the pure gliders no longer have a chance to compete against them. In a sport, and rating that has been suffering a negative trend in growth, this is a negative factor towards proliferation of the sport. This is bad! I want to see this sport survive to my retirement MANY years away, but with the slowing trends in race appeal, and now a narrowing field of competitive gliders for record attempts, the sport is going to cease recruiting new and young blood on the pure fact that motor gliders will increase in value and pure gliders will decrease in competitive factors and subsequently financial value.
Someone already pointed this out, but I will echo, are we running out of enough server space to keep these records separate? If that is the case we might as well collapse the rest of the records and only have an Open Class because wingspan can be beneficial but it also causes more drag and limits the landouts options. The argument that a pure glider and a motor glider are the same is wrong in the same way a SZD-59 and a Yak-54 are the same in an aerobatic contest. The psychology, the strategy, and the execution are two different games no matter how much attempt at rationalization is put forward.
BobW
March 18th 17, 01:18 PM
On 3/17/2017 9:47 AM, jfitch wrote:
> <snip>The ability to be able to selectively end your soaring performance at
> will, in the air, is a significant benefit to the pilot.</snip>
>
> What - exactly - is preventing you from doing this in your engineless
> glider? (Nothing at all?)
>
> Have you even taken a motorglider cross country? (No?)
>
> The soaring day ends when you are over a landing site and too low to
> continue. Engine or no. Once again, the endless whinging seems to be from
> people with no experience in motorgliders, who perceive the grass must be
> greener over there. Buy one and fly it for awhile, then report back. You
> will find that the "benefit to the pilot" is convenience, not performance.
> Penalizing convenience in the record rules is a steep and slippery slope
> with almost no bottom.
>
Clearly there are differing, strongly held, opinions regarding the question of
whether or not there are fundamental differences between engined/engineless
sailplanes...and more to the point of this thread, of whether or not IGC ought
to recognize the reality (or not) of those differences.
If it isn't already obvious, put me in the camp of "We hold these truths
(differences) to be self-evident..."
I readily admit ignorance of any nuances that do (or do not) result from how
IGC allegedly proposes to bureaucratically "unrecognize" the reality of those
differences, but since I *think* I was the one who originally mentioned the
capital acquisition cost increment as one difference (I haven't bothered to go
back and check), and 'jfitch' (used merely an identifier; no disrespect
intended) is evidently in the camp believing 'the cost argument is specious,'
I submit that it is not, to the extent that it us useful as a means of shining
light on one of those differences. To argue that in sum there IS no actual
cost increment misses several points (acquisition cost, maintenance costs,
etc., ad nauseum).
Further, to reason that this difference (and others) does not exist (as IGC
apparently has chosen to do) says more about IGC thought process than it does
about the very real differences...even if today the *performance* differences
are far smaller than they were (say) in the time before the PIK-20E (which
most people would accept as the first engined sailplane without 'an obvious
engine-related-performance hit').
Now Joe Average Citizen's response to this particular argument likely is
something along the line of: So what? BFD. Surpassing indifference. Etc.
Clearly not so to Sailplane drivers...who as a group can be presumed to
recognize some of the finer nuances contained within this uplifting, if
arcane, sporting activity. As a member of that group, I would hope and expect
IGC as a sub-group with a (self-selected?) charter to (among other items)
create/support/help-recognize sailplane-related sporting endeavor, would
understand that some of those nuances unimportant to Joe Average Citizen are
quite important to various members of the sailplane fraternity. If - within -
their own rules and ship-related-categories - perceived inequities have crept
into existence at the world record level, by all means address those
inequities in some manner. But to ostensibly pretend that there *are* no
fundamental differences between engined/engineless sailplanes is, to me, a sad
- fatuous, even - method, with perhaps unintended negative consequences for
the sport, when to *recognize* the reality of the differences is arguably more
beneficial for the sport.
Now if IGC wants to go down the slippery slope decried by 'jfitch' it has
every right to do so...and should rightly (in my view) expect to be excoriated
for so doing, because to do so would arguably be to be 'disrespecting' the
sport through trivialization.
Not all ideas are of equal merit, and the idea of forcing bureaucratic
equality between engined/engineless sailplanes by in-future 'de-accrediting'
record attempts of engineless ones lacks any merit obvious to me. I write that
as 'a soaring nut' with no aspirations of ever making a record flight, at any
level of the sport.
Respectfully,
Bob W.
RR
March 18th 17, 01:56 PM
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 1:40:34 AM UTC-4, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> And it is embarrassing to think that my records and attempts in a pure glider will be overtake by someone that carried a landout field in their back pocket.
Again, "a land out field in their back pocket" is exactly NOT what a motorglider has. I am (very) new to the game, but it is more and more apparent that when it comes to pushing harder into a dicey situation the motor glider has no advantage. I was flying my "real" glider this spring, wave sink conspired with the silly season and put me in a squeaker of a final glide. As I dropped the gear over the threshold to land, it was abundantly clear that had I been in my turbo duo, there would have been no opportunity to deploy and start. In a marginal final glide, the last thing you are going to do is extend a huge dive brake on the hopes that it will start. Even if all goes well, there is a significant loss of height for a start. So this perception that the motor is a land out field in your back pocket is a bad and very dangerous notion.
Having no intention of low starts, I realized there is another issue that is not immediately clear even for "high" starts. If you think the day has died, you are in gliding range of an airport (say a fat glide of 25 to one in a high-performance motor glider) but it is farther from home. You would be tempted to try to start, cut the corner so to speak, and head home. After all you are in "easy glide" of an airport. But you need to plan for getting the engine out, having the motor not start, and now can't put it away. Your fat glide is now gone. So to be safe, you need to have a fat "engine up, and not turning" glide to safety. This is where the FES will shine, or perhaps to a lesser degree, a jet sustainer.
No one is saying there is no advantage to a motor glider, but again, the advantage is BEFORE or AFTER the flight performance. If the argument is the improved state of mine from the ease of stress, that can be mitigated by a chase crew for much less money, and I assume no one would argue for a record category with our without chase crew.
If you hold to the the idea that you have a landout field in your back pocket, it may well get you killed...
RR
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 12:11:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Performance is increased by convenience. Let's flip this round why are motor-packers against separate records?
That is the exact question ...why not keep two sets of records and be done with it....
Dennis
DC
I've owned a PIK20E for about 350 hrs of flying. The engine definitely changes the way you fly and think. The biggest advantage (when good landing fields are available) I would move on for better lift when moderately low, in the motor glider. In pure gliders, I will usually accept weak lift when below my working band of altitude, so possibly wasting lot's time when a good lift is ahead on course. Of course the MG climbs worse or not at all in weak lift, where as the Libelle I fly now will climb in very weak lift. I used the motor many time for avoiding landing out. Yes, you better give up at a higher altitude with a MG, the motor got me into a few dicey situations I now know were risky, and looking at the traces of MG flights on OLC of pilots some take serious risks getting low. You better expect the motor to fail at any time! The PIK was a complex airplane to fly lot's of ways to screw up (I think I found a lot of them), a lot more to worry about. I learned a huge amount about flying XC in the MG that I wouldn't in pure gliders.. Mainly stay on course when getting low, don't dart all around desperately looking for lift, move on from lift when it gets weak. I was able to launch earlier and fly later in the day, knowing if the lift isn't there the motor will probably prevent a landout. So, yes both have advantages and disadvantages. As far as being in the same category for record flights, no way the motor really changes the equation.
Sierra Whiskey
March 18th 17, 03:28 PM
If you assume the landout spot in your back pocket is there and the motor doesn't start, then you may get killed.
If you assume the landout spot in your back pocket is there and the motor starts, then you make it home.
Worst case scenario, if you assume the land out spot in your back pocket is there, and push to that thermal in the middle of "break your glider country", hook the thermal and secure the record, you are a record holder.
The third option is one that will become more popular as the reliability and efficiency of FES systems increase. The "dive break" penalty of deploying an engine is being reduced to a negligible argument, and again we have a scenario where a pilot could assume a calculated risk in search of a record completion.
A pure glider does not have those same options and thus the game is different for some pilots who may chose to make the risky decision to push on. From a safety standpoint I think this kind of rule will encourage hazardous behaviors. It only takes one person to be successful to motivate others to follow suit.
One rule that has always bothered me was the airfield bonus in contests and the way it is calculated for motor gliders. If a motor glider wants an air filed bonus, then put your tire on the pavement at that airfield just like a pure glider has to. It is another way that motor gliders are treated differently, and with additional options that pure gliders do not share.
So once all of the records are eaten up by motor gliders that have been set by risk takers and the pure glider concept is a thing of the past in performance and decision making, what will we use to motivate new members into the sport. We can argue safety, and we can disagree on the psychology difference, but no one seems to be addressing the fact that this new rule is raising the "competitive" benchmark with respect to the cost.
In the US we are killing "Club Class" by putting an LS-8 in the same category as a Standard Cirrus, and worse in the US we allow Motor Gliders to compete in Club Class. You won't find motor gliders on the FAI Club Class list (yet) but still in the US we seem to have this need to allow motor gliders into that class. What is "club class" about that?
Preserve the sport of pure soaring before we harm our already weakening community size.
Dan Marotta
March 18th 17, 03:28 PM
So Tom, you're another one of those weak dicks that can't make a decent
flight without an engine to bolster your courage, eh?
Oh, wait! Didn't you fly a 1,000 km triangle in your ASW-20 quite some
time ago? 8-)
On 3/17/2017 9:04 PM, wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-7, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
>> To my point, if a retrieve Crew is far cheaper than being a glider equipped with a
>> landing prevention option, then why do pI lots make the investment. Psychologically
>> they are more comfortable flying with that extra option!
> That's at the end of the day...
>
> A motorglider also provided me the ability to take a tow early and if it didn't work yet, I'd start the engine over the airport and make another try. Had I landed to take another tow, I'd be in line behind several others. Of course, I could also buy myself a towplane and always be first in line. Oh wait, there's a towplane a couple feet behind my head.
>
> Once on course, I pretty much never gave the motor a thought.
>
> After 15 years flying the ASH-26E, I now have an ASW-27b. The gliders have pretty much equal performance so it will be interesting to see if my flights are any different now that I don't have an engine.
>
> 5Z
--
Dan, 5J
jfitch
March 18th 17, 05:02 PM
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 6:18:06 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> On 3/17/2017 9:47 AM, jfitch wrote:
>
> > <snip>The ability to be able to selectively end your soaring performance at
> > will, in the air, is a significant benefit to the pilot.</snip>
> >
> > What - exactly - is preventing you from doing this in your engineless
> > glider? (Nothing at all?)
> >
> > Have you even taken a motorglider cross country? (No?)
> >
> > The soaring day ends when you are over a landing site and too low to
> > continue. Engine or no. Once again, the endless whinging seems to be from
> > people with no experience in motorgliders, who perceive the grass must be
> > greener over there. Buy one and fly it for awhile, then report back. You
> > will find that the "benefit to the pilot" is convenience, not performance.
> > Penalizing convenience in the record rules is a steep and slippery slope
> > with almost no bottom.
> >
> Clearly there are differing, strongly held, opinions regarding the question of
> whether or not there are fundamental differences between engined/engineless
> sailplanes...and more to the point of this thread, of whether or not IGC ought
> to recognize the reality (or not) of those differences.
>
> If it isn't already obvious, put me in the camp of "We hold these truths
> (differences) to be self-evident..."
>
> I readily admit ignorance of any nuances that do (or do not) result from how
> IGC allegedly proposes to bureaucratically "unrecognize" the reality of those
> differences, but since I *think* I was the one who originally mentioned the
> capital acquisition cost increment as one difference (I haven't bothered to go
> back and check), and 'jfitch' (used merely an identifier; no disrespect
> intended) is evidently in the camp believing 'the cost argument is specious,'
> I submit that it is not, to the extent that it us useful as a means of shining
> light on one of those differences. To argue that in sum there IS no actual
> cost increment misses several points (acquisition cost, maintenance costs,
> etc., ad nauseum).
>
> Further, to reason that this difference (and others) does not exist (as IGC
> apparently has chosen to do) says more about IGC thought process than it does
> about the very real differences...even if today the *performance* differences
> are far smaller than they were (say) in the time before the PIK-20E (which
> most people would accept as the first engined sailplane without 'an obvious
> engine-related-performance hit').
>
> Now Joe Average Citizen's response to this particular argument likely is
> something along the line of: So what? BFD. Surpassing indifference. Etc.
> Clearly not so to Sailplane drivers...who as a group can be presumed to
> recognize some of the finer nuances contained within this uplifting, if
> arcane, sporting activity. As a member of that group, I would hope and expect
> IGC as a sub-group with a (self-selected?) charter to (among other items)
> create/support/help-recognize sailplane-related sporting endeavor, would
> understand that some of those nuances unimportant to Joe Average Citizen are
> quite important to various members of the sailplane fraternity. If - within -
> their own rules and ship-related-categories - perceived inequities have crept
> into existence at the world record level, by all means address those
> inequities in some manner. But to ostensibly pretend that there *are* no
> fundamental differences between engined/engineless sailplanes is, to me, a sad
> - fatuous, even - method, with perhaps unintended negative consequences for
> the sport, when to *recognize* the reality of the differences is arguably more
> beneficial for the sport.
>
> Now if IGC wants to go down the slippery slope decried by 'jfitch' it has
> every right to do so...and should rightly (in my view) expect to be excoriated
> for so doing, because to do so would arguably be to be 'disrespecting' the
> sport through trivialization.
>
> Not all ideas are of equal merit, and the idea of forcing bureaucratic
> equality between engined/engineless sailplanes by in-future 'de-accrediting'
> record attempts of engineless ones lacks any merit obvious to me. I write that
> as 'a soaring nut' with no aspirations of ever making a record flight, at any
> level of the sport.
>
> Respectfully,
> Bob W.
No one has yet been able to articulate the distinction between owning a trailer and a motor. Both are an expensive convenience for a retrieve, with some ancillary benefits. If you can prevail upon the IGC to separate motor and non motor gliders, perhaps they can also separate records set with access to a trailer from those who don't.
If the $35K for an engine is put into a 6% annuity, it will pay over $500 each month on a 6 month soaring season, for 20 years. That is not counting maintenance, add another $100/month. How many retrieves do you do? The 'pure' glider is at a distinct cost advantage by paying only for those retrieves needed. Pay for them in advance, if it changes your mindset.
There are a few people here (who have no experience in motorgliders and are therefore speaking from ignorance) claiming that it is "self evident" that motor and motorless gliders are entirely different, and are stealing national records by depending on the engine. This is presented on faith, without even the weakest of evidence. Show me, in any existing national motorglider record, the point where they were low and in danger of needing the engine to survive. You cannot, because it does not happen. All of these records are set in the Great Basin on booming days when the ground clearance is typically 10,000 ft or more. You are making an extraordinary claim. You need to provide extraordinary proof - or any evidence at all. Look at the flight logs. What you say is happening, isn't, as an observable fact.
In perusing the national records, another thing becomes evident: no one (or very few) 'pure' gliders are making record attempts, even with separate records kept. An example illustrative of this is the single place open class triangle speed records vs. single place motorglider: the average age of the current record in non motorglider is 22 years, the average for motorgliders is 2 years. This difference is typical of all record categories and it is an astonishing difference. Many of the 'pure' glider records date from the 1980's. No wonder the SSA wants to collapse this inactive category. You'all are complaining a lot more that you are flying, apparently. If anything, this is evidence that 'pure' gliders are causing soaring to die, not motorgliders.
Sierra Whiskey
March 18th 17, 05:41 PM
So wait, are you saying that motor glider owners don't have trailers? I am not really sure what the Trailer Versus Motor argument is here.
And if you are spending $1200 per year to maintain your motor (isolate motor cost, not airframe maintenance), something is wrong with your motor. For your own safety please stay within safe glide of a suitable landing field.
I already said you cannot prove that the bad decisions have not been made by motor glider pilots. I am not saying they all make the decision, however the option is there for someone to take the risk. It is about options, not about "have you" or "have I".
The point of consolidation still alludes me. By the logic presented here, eliminate the distinction between general, female, and junior records because there is no apparent difference in performance capability between the groups, and very few female and junior record attempts are being made. I hope we can agree to keep these categories as they contain records that have been set, and they allow for a broader range of goals to be set, calculated, and measured by more pilots.
Tango Eight
March 18th 17, 07:16 PM
(ten degrees F this morning. grumble)
I could link a couple of flight logs, created by friends of mine, to stir the pot some more. I'm not going to do this, but I will describe them.
One shows a motor start at a quasi reasonable height AGL... except that there isn't a landable field within even a 60:1 glide slope. This pilot has been flying up and down the this particular valley for over three decades, this wasn't an "oops", it was a decision to fly a dying ridge over a completely unlandable valley in the hopes that it might work and he'd be the hero (else he'd just flip the switch and wait for the noise, which is all the modern ship requires). That was at a regional contest, on a crappy day, not even really worth fighting over (the pure sailplane pilots didn't fight, they made the sensible decision, gave up the task and landed at the airport). The second flight log shows an engine start at 300 agl with no place to crash. Pilot is over an industrial park and the parking lots are full of obstacles. He over flew more or less landable fields at (iirc) 1200 - 1500, just kept going. It was a run of the mill OLC flight, not even an especially good day. Not an oops, another decision. Both of these guys are *vastly* experienced, top notch pilots. Well, except as noted.
However, the advantage to motorgliders in record flying has nothing to do with being able to do stupid stuff like this. The advantage comes from conservation of energy (on the part of the pilot and crew, if any) and potentially enormous savings in time getting reloaded and ready for the next attempt (maybe the following day is a good one too -- it happens).
Furthermore, the scenario I have in mind has nothing to do with finishing off a flight at day's end. We can presume that would-be record setters will have a good enough sense of what they can pull off and enough sense of self preservation to avoid pressing a hopeless mission on a day that just isn't good enough. So the scenario of a pure sailplane pilot running the day to the ragged end and then landing 200 miles from home an hour before sunset isn't a common one at all.
What actually happens is you get blocked by thunderstorms. Or you get wave suppression on a ridge. Or you get squashed on one of the miles long transitions you have to make from ridge to ridge before thermals have started, or you get clobbered on a side jaunt off the ridge system for a triangle task because while the wind is tearing bark off the trees at the top of the mountain, it just isn't a very darned good thermal day in Stuart's Draft, VA (I'm recalling a specific story that some of you will recognize). A chase crew is infeasible for obvious reasons. A pre positioned remote crew isn't feasible, either, since the flight plan often isn't nailed down until the previous evening or even dawn on the day of the flight.
So a sailplane pilot can (and has) ended up in a field hundreds of miles from home, crew and trailer. A motor scooter in same situation can take a short motor run back to the ridge and soar home. That's a matter of convenience in the same sort of way that Gettysburg was a vigorous exchange of views.
No, Mr. Fitch, I don't have any XC time in motor gliders. I don't have anything against them, either, they make lovely toys and if I were as good at making money as many of my friends, I'd probably own one (but I'd keep my ASW-20 too :-)). Your arguments as regards 20 year old technology are just that. There's better out there *now*, never mind the potential for future developments, and the perceived reliability is such that guys evidently think it's good enough to bet life and health on.
I've tried to answer where I think the real advantages are w.r.t. record flying and why the IGC did a disservice to pure glider flyers, record holders and would-be record setters. Our B&R guys were in an awkward spot and the only fault I lay there is that I think they should have sought input from current record holders and active record seekers (mostly the same guys) before changing the rules as they have done.
best,
Evan Ludeman / T8
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 2:13:47 PM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:50:49 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> > The performance gain from extra wingspan is convenient. Is it justifiable to keep records by wingspan? Let's go full on and have one open open class for records. $ame as a motor. No money excuses. Buy the widest, newest glider if you want a record.
>
> I'll just note that there appear to be world records with a higher "performance" by 15m gliders than by Open Class gliders. Span isn't always an advantage.
Short ones are faster. Right on. All the more reason to stop using span as a record category. Advantage of a single open open class, beyond saving server space, is we'd know what the fastest glider really is.
jfitch
March 18th 17, 08:52 PM
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 10:41:26 AM UTC-7, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> So wait, are you saying that motor glider owners don't have trailers? I am not really sure what the Trailer Versus Motor argument is here.
>
> And if you are spending $1200 per year to maintain your motor (isolate motor cost, not airframe maintenance), something is wrong with your motor. For your own safety please stay within safe glide of a suitable landing field..
>
> I already said you cannot prove that the bad decisions have not been made by motor glider pilots. I am not saying they all make the decision, however the option is there for someone to take the risk. It is about options, not about "have you" or "have I".
>
> The point of consolidation still alludes me. By the logic presented here, eliminate the distinction between general, female, and junior records because there is no apparent difference in performance capability between the groups, and very few female and junior record attempts are being made. I hope we can agree to keep these categories as they contain records that have been set, and they allow for a broader range of goals to be set, calculated, and measured by more pilots.
SW, having the ability to cheat is not the same as cheating. For example, you do not accuse all men of rape merely because they have the equipment to perform the act. The option to take the risk of continuing on too low exists for 'pure' gliders as well. But the fact is, low saves are not a part of any recent record, so the "option" did not come into play.
I will argue against female records on the same basis. Are you suggesting that females are inferior in some way, and cannot routinely achieve the same soaring skills as males? Juniors is a different thing: it encourages a novice group, whose eligibility automatically ends. If you want to fracture records into age groups, that might make more sense - but there is little enough participation even to fill the categories we already have.
jfitch
March 18th 17, 09:35 PM
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 12:16:38 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> (ten degrees F this morning. grumble)
>
> I could link a couple of flight logs, created by friends of mine, to stir the pot some more. I'm not going to do this, but I will describe them.
>
> One shows a motor start at a quasi reasonable height AGL... except that there isn't a landable field within even a 60:1 glide slope. This pilot has been flying up and down the this particular valley for over three decades, this wasn't an "oops", it was a decision to fly a dying ridge over a completely unlandable valley in the hopes that it might work and he'd be the hero (else he'd just flip the switch and wait for the noise, which is all the modern ship requires). That was at a regional contest, on a crappy day, not even really worth fighting over (the pure sailplane pilots didn't fight, they made the sensible decision, gave up the task and landed at the airport). The second flight log shows an engine start at 300 agl with no place to crash. Pilot is over an industrial park and the parking lots are full of obstacles. He over flew more or less landable fields at (iirc) 1200 - 1500, just kept going. It was a run of the mill OLC flight, not even an especially good day. Not an oops, another decision. Both of these guys are *vastly* experienced, top notch pilots. Well, except as noted.
>
> However, the advantage to motorgliders in record flying has nothing to do with being able to do stupid stuff like this. The advantage comes from conservation of energy (on the part of the pilot and crew, if any) and potentially enormous savings in time getting reloaded and ready for the next attempt (maybe the following day is a good one too -- it happens).
>
> Furthermore, the scenario I have in mind has nothing to do with finishing off a flight at day's end. We can presume that would-be record setters will have a good enough sense of what they can pull off and enough sense of self preservation to avoid pressing a hopeless mission on a day that just isn't good enough. So the scenario of a pure sailplane pilot running the day to the ragged end and then landing 200 miles from home an hour before sunset isn't a common one at all.
>
> What actually happens is you get blocked by thunderstorms. Or you get wave suppression on a ridge. Or you get squashed on one of the miles long transitions you have to make from ridge to ridge before thermals have started, or you get clobbered on a side jaunt off the ridge system for a triangle task because while the wind is tearing bark off the trees at the top of the mountain, it just isn't a very darned good thermal day in Stuart's Draft, VA (I'm recalling a specific story that some of you will recognize). A chase crew is infeasible for obvious reasons. A pre positioned remote crew isn't feasible, either, since the flight plan often isn't nailed down until the previous evening or even dawn on the day of the flight.
>
> So a sailplane pilot can (and has) ended up in a field hundreds of miles from home, crew and trailer. A motor scooter in same situation can take a short motor run back to the ridge and soar home. That's a matter of convenience in the same sort of way that Gettysburg was a vigorous exchange of views.
>
> No, Mr. Fitch, I don't have any XC time in motor gliders. I don't have anything against them, either, they make lovely toys and if I were as good at making money as many of my friends, I'd probably own one (but I'd keep my ASW-20 too :-)). Your arguments as regards 20 year old technology are just that. There's better out there *now*, never mind the potential for future developments, and the perceived reliability is such that guys evidently think it's good enough to bet life and health on.
>
> I've tried to answer where I think the real advantages are w.r.t. record flying and why the IGC did a disservice to pure glider flyers, record holders and would-be record setters. Our B&R guys were in an awkward spot and the only fault I lay there is that I think they should have sought input from current record holders and active record seekers (mostly the same guys) before changing the rules as they have done.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8
Evan, thank you for making a reasoned argument (even if it is flawed :) ).
I have no experience flying in east coast conditions, but I imagine the temptation for a low engine start there is greater. Heck there are whole contests flown there were nobody ever got up to what I would consider a safe engine start altitude. In the west, I start the engine at 2000 AGL, over an airport. Most off-airport landings in the western desert involve damage. I have done this 7 times in 17 years of motorglider ownership and around 30,000 cross country miles. Had I not owned an engine (or the engine not start) I would land and call a tow plane. There was no difference in the flight otherwise.
But almost all national records set in the last 10 years are flown in the west, where conditions are much more favorable, and in the west, 5000 AGL is low.
Your point about the effort advantage of a motorglider retrieve vs. a trailer retrieve is valid, and is the primary reason why record attempts in the west are almost all flown in motorgliders (it has nothing at all to do with decision making during the flight). A long retrieve can take two days out here. Nevertheless, this has been a constantly changing problem: the Wright brothers had their crew physically return the glider to the start by carrying it on their backs. Then we progressed to air retrieves and trailer retrieves. Motorglider retrieves are easier still. Yet you wish to freeze the sport at a particular moment in time, that happens to coincide with the equipment you own. If there is to be a 'A' for effort, even in an objectively inferior performance, where do we draw the line? You want to draw it at a motor, suppose I want to draw it at GPS usage? You cannot be right while I am wrong. Effort based scoring is an invitation to chaos.
It makes much more sense to me to separate a "legacy" class for national records. This could contain 3rd generation glass gliders with no motors, if you like. There are a lot of them around, from PIK20 up to ASW24 say, and in the 15 and standard classes. This is a far more logical separation than grouping a PIK20-E with a JS1-J, and an ASW20 with a JS3 or V3 or ASG29. And it does not penalize US pilots flying for international records.
20 years from now the distinction will be lost, as all gliders will have motors. It has already happened in Europe. Which is probably why the IGC has done what it did.
Sierra Whiskey
March 18th 17, 10:23 PM
But the option DOES come in to play. If the motor glider is successful in hooking that thermal in non-landable terrain, the record is claimed. In general records are not claimed if the glider got low, and no records are claimed where the engine was required to start on course. The concept of there being recordable data of the unsuccessful attempts is just not valid.
I am NOT saying that one group is inferior to another, which is why I said the logic stands that if we are going to collapse the record list we should get rid of these classes too because there is no measurable difference between a male, female, or junior pilot in terms of capability, performance, or handicap. But we choose to keep these records as they are instead of taking away opportunities to set a diverse variety of records.
Other sports do have age group records such as weightlifting. I would not expect an 80+ year old weightlifter to compete for records against the 22 year old Olympic Record holder. But maybe there is no measurable difference for that to matter either since the older lifter has had longer to train or some other obscure logic that one comes up with.
We can try to rationalize some outlandish equivalency between motor gliders and real gliders, or we can just agree that the system should be (have been) left alone with separate classes for the two. Motor gliders deserve to hold records too, but in their own class. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The system wasn't broken until they went and added this ridiculous modification.
Sierra Whiskey
March 18th 17, 10:34 PM
"Most off-airport landings in the western desert involve damage."
Sorry but this is just false... unless it was done without a "suitable landing option within glide". This is what I am worried that motor glider pilots may start forgetting.
jfitch
March 19th 17, 05:53 PM
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 3:23:24 PM UTC-7, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> But the option DOES come in to play. If the motor glider is successful in hooking that thermal in non-landable terrain, the record is claimed. In general records are not claimed if the glider got low, and no records are claimed where the engine was required to start on course. The concept of there being recordable data of the unsuccessful attempts is just not valid.
>
> I am NOT saying that one group is inferior to another, which is why I said the logic stands that if we are going to collapse the record list we should get rid of these classes too because there is no measurable difference between a male, female, or junior pilot in terms of capability, performance, or handicap. But we choose to keep these records as they are instead of taking away opportunities to set a diverse variety of records.
>
> Other sports do have age group records such as weightlifting. I would not expect an 80+ year old weightlifter to compete for records against the 22 year old Olympic Record holder. But maybe there is no measurable difference for that to matter either since the older lifter has had longer to train or some other obscure logic that one comes up with.
>
> We can try to rationalize some outlandish equivalency between motor gliders and real gliders, or we can just agree that the system should be (have been) left alone with separate classes for the two. Motor gliders deserve to hold records too, but in their own class. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The system wasn't broken until they went and added this ridiculous modification.
<snip> If the motor glider is successful in hooking that thermal in non-landable terrain, the record is claimed.</snip> Show me a single instance in a national record. Furthermore, look at the traces of all the non claimed record attempts flown the same year. They are all posted for you to see. Show me the low saves over unlandable terrain. You claim this is rampant, yet cannot provide a single example, even though all of these flight logs are available to anyone in seconds. Your claims are simply false, without merit, unsupported by evidence of any kind. Are they based on "alternative facts"? You allege thoughts, motives, and actions to record holding motorglider pilots without either knowledge or experience. That is deplorable. I do not doubt that there are motorglider pilots who engage in engine start low saves over unlandable terrain - its a big world with a lot of different people in it. These pilots are not record setting pilots though.
I encourage everyone to look for themselves. Sign into OLC, pick a record holding pilot like Mitch Polinsky or Jim Payne, pick a year that the record was claimed. In the flight book, scroll down the flights that month. Hover the cursor over each flight and you will see the altitude trace including ground clearance. Engine runs are shown in yellow and subsequent trace in grey. This will take you 5 minutes time. Record attempts are not made out here on weak days. The working band on the strong days is generally 13,000 - 18,000 feet, over terrain that is roughly 5000 ft. At 50:1 you have 75 miles glide once you get "low". For all of 2016 (in which many records were set) Mitch Polinsky's log files shows 1 inflight engine start (directly over Ely airport on 7/15) for the entire year. In 2014 (another record year) I count 5 engine starts in 34 flights, 4 in the immediate vicinity of airports, one within glide of an airstrip. All of the potential landing sites air and car retrievable. In 2015, 3 times, all in the immediate vicinity of airports/airstrips.
In the Great Basin, where almost all of the currently held records where flown, there are very, very few "suitable landing sites" that are not airports or airstrips. What looks like flat desert is rock strewn, sagebrush covered, glider breaking rough and tumble desert range. What looks like a dry lake is an alkali swamp. This isn't Kansas, there aren't any plowed corn fields.
I get it. You don't like motorgliders, they offend your sense of what a "pure" or "real" glider is (your terms). That is a personal belief that you hold, not shared by a lot of the world. But pretending that they have an advantage during the performance of a record attempt is provably without merit. During any of those record attempts listed above, you could have flown right alongside in a V2c or 29, with exactly the same options and safety (and a little more performance, too).
Sierra Whiskey
March 19th 17, 07:17 PM
Not the first time my opinions have been thought of as "Deplorable" but I am okay with that. ;)
We are getting closer to the root of the problem. There is a distinct difference between a "Low Save" and pushing into unlandable territory. I am not saying record setting flights involve low saves. In fact I have said that a number of times. The "danger" aspect is flying in an area where a safe glide cannot be made to a suitable landing option. Flying in Arizona, there are many places where I can be flying at 8,000 feet AGL, and not be able to reach a place to land. (Break your glider country) This concept cannot be derived from any flight logs unless we had an analytic tool to determine where every suitable landing option is. For all I know someone could be at 14,000 feet over the desert and have no where to safely land within glide. Well, unless you had a motor with Plenty of altitude to get it started.
Your "Alternative Fact" that "Most off-airport landings in the western desert involve damage" is disproved by the MANY landouts I have had while soaring in the Arizona and New Mexico desert. And trust me, I land out a Lot! I have not broken a glider (Knock on Wood), but I have met many land owners! It is due to planning and always having options. An option I don't have in a pure glider is motoring out.
I invite you to tape your engine shut and see if the way you fly changes at all. Even a hint of a thought that "the motor is back there" while flying changes the game and the way you fly. Sailing a boat with a motor changes where you sail your boat. (Wouldn't want to get stuck out in the open water without favorable winds?)
I get it that you are offended that I view your motor glider as a non-pure glider, but that is a personal belief that you hold, not shared by a lot of the world. (Paraphrased) But pretending that they do not have a distinct advantage during the performance of a record attempt equally lacks merit. Particularly I don't see comments from many Motor-Glider record holders showing up here to defend their position.
All I am saying is that Motor Gliders are not Pure Gliders, and thus treating them the same on the record sheet when they have been treated separately for so many years makes no sense. Why the consolidation? Was there a complaint by motor glider pilots that they couldn't claim pure glider records, or was this a knee jerk (good idea fairy) action that had no development or reason other than to simplify the record sheets? Where is the supporting data used to implement the change?
Bruce Hoult
March 19th 17, 09:24 PM
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 10:17:43 PM UTC+3, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> Not the first time my opinions have been thought of as "Deplorable" but I am okay with that. ;)
>
> We are getting closer to the root of the problem. There is a distinct difference between a "Low Save" and pushing into unlandable territory. I am not saying record setting flights involve low saves. In fact I have said that a number of times. The "danger" aspect is flying in an area where a safe glide cannot be made to a suitable landing option. Flying in Arizona, there are many places where I can be flying at 8,000 feet AGL, and not be able to reach a place to land. (Break your glider country) This concept cannot be derived from any flight logs unless we had an analytic tool to determine where every suitable landing option is. For all I know someone could be at 14,000 feet over the desert and have no where to safely land within glide. Well, unless you had a motor with Plenty of altitude to get it started.
>
> Your "Alternative Fact" that "Most off-airport landings in the western desert involve damage" is disproved by the MANY landouts I have had while soaring in the Arizona and New Mexico desert. And trust me, I land out a Lot! I have not broken a glider (Knock on Wood), but I have met many land owners! It is due to planning and always having options. An option I don't have in a pure glider is motoring out.
>
> I invite you to tape your engine shut and see if the way you fly changes at all. Even a hint of a thought that "the motor is back there" while flying changes the game and the way you fly. Sailing a boat with a motor changes where you sail your boat. (Wouldn't want to get stuck out in the open water without favorable winds?)
>
> I get it that you are offended that I view your motor glider as a non-pure glider, but that is a personal belief that you hold, not shared by a lot of the world. (Paraphrased) But pretending that they do not have a distinct advantage during the performance of a record attempt equally lacks merit. Particularly I don't see comments from many Motor-Glider record holders showing up here to defend their position.
>
> All I am saying is that Motor Gliders are not Pure Gliders, and thus treating them the same on the record sheet when they have been treated separately for so many years makes no sense. Why the consolidation? Was there a complaint by motor glider pilots that they couldn't claim pure glider records, or was this a knee jerk (good idea fairy) action that had no development or reason other than to simplify the record sheets? Where is the supporting data used to implement the change?
Why the consolidation? That's easy.
The record books have two types of records:
1) the "real" ones. The best performances.
2) consolation ones, to encourage participation by those who might not otherwise do so because they have little chance of getting a real record because of their disadvantaged circumstances, to wit: natural disadvantages such as a) young age; b) lack of a penis; or carrying around extra useless weight in the form of c) a second pilot; or d) a motor.
NB: I'm not saying this is how *I* think!! This is how the people who set up the categories in the 1920s or 1950s or whenever it was thought.
If and when the disadvantages resulting in formation of the consolation categories are rendered no longer a disadvantage they can participate in the real records.
jfitch
March 20th 17, 04:46 AM
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 12:17:43 PM UTC-7, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> Not the first time my opinions have been thought of as "Deplorable" but I am okay with that. ;)
>
> We are getting closer to the root of the problem. There is a distinct difference between a "Low Save" and pushing into unlandable territory. I am not saying record setting flights involve low saves. In fact I have said that a number of times. The "danger" aspect is flying in an area where a safe glide cannot be made to a suitable landing option. Flying in Arizona, there are many places where I can be flying at 8,000 feet AGL, and not be able to reach a place to land. (Break your glider country) This concept cannot be derived from any flight logs unless we had an analytic tool to determine where every suitable landing option is. For all I know someone could be at 14,000 feet over the desert and have no where to safely land within glide. Well, unless you had a motor with Plenty of altitude to get it started.
>
> Your "Alternative Fact" that "Most off-airport landings in the western desert involve damage" is disproved by the MANY landouts I have had while soaring in the Arizona and New Mexico desert. And trust me, I land out a Lot! I have not broken a glider (Knock on Wood), but I have met many land owners! It is due to planning and always having options. An option I don't have in a pure glider is motoring out.
>
> I invite you to tape your engine shut and see if the way you fly changes at all. Even a hint of a thought that "the motor is back there" while flying changes the game and the way you fly. Sailing a boat with a motor changes where you sail your boat. (Wouldn't want to get stuck out in the open water without favorable winds?)
>
> I get it that you are offended that I view your motor glider as a non-pure glider, but that is a personal belief that you hold, not shared by a lot of the world. (Paraphrased) But pretending that they do not have a distinct advantage during the performance of a record attempt equally lacks merit. Particularly I don't see comments from many Motor-Glider record holders showing up here to defend their position.
>
> All I am saying is that Motor Gliders are not Pure Gliders, and thus treating them the same on the record sheet when they have been treated separately for so many years makes no sense. Why the consolidation? Was there a complaint by motor glider pilots that they couldn't claim pure glider records, or was this a knee jerk (good idea fairy) action that had no development or reason other than to simplify the record sheets? Where is the supporting data used to implement the change?
"Was there a complaint by motor glider pilots that they couldn't claim pure glider records..." no, much worse: they couldn't claim ANY record. Go back and read the third post. The IGC does not recognize the distinction, and yet you must get the national body to certify the record first, effectively eliminating US based international record attempts. It is my understanding that is the reason for the change - to allow US pilots to compete with the rest of the world. Otherwise it wouldn't matter.
Come up with some (any!) evidence for your theory and we'll have a discussion. Supposition and speculation by someone unfamiliar with the type is not persuasive. Your position is one of Faith. I like Ambrose Bierce's definition of the term: "The belief without question, if people who speak without knowledge, of things without parallel." None of these records are held by people pushing into unlandable territory, whether or not they have a motor. Had you taken my suggestion and looked at the traces you would see that, but the Faithful don't look for facts. I haven't soared in Arizona, but I have soared the Great Basin for 20 years and there are not many experienced open glider pilots looking for off airport outlandings. It happens, and you can get away with it sometimes in a 15m - that's about as optimistic as it gets.
As far a consolidation, since the average age of non-motorglider records is around 22 years, I think we can call the category effectively dead. The historical reason for a motorglider category is that they used to be much lower performance than open class gliders. There are now almost no open class gliders without motors, and there is no performance difference with or without, therefore no longer a reason for the category. 15m and standard category still exist and are effectively motor free - but no one is making record attempts in them either.
krasw
March 20th 17, 07:29 AM
On Monday, 20 March 2017 06:46:06 UTC+2, jfitch wrote:
> 15m and standard category still exist and are effectively motor free - but no one is making record attempts in them either.
Virtually all 15m class world records are flown by 18m motorgliders that have been installed with 15m wingtips (I bet record flight attempt is only instance these gliders have been flown with short tips). But as I said before, very long record flight attemps are possible only with motorgliders. There is no way to get up in the wave, probably to some remote start point, and still have option to motor back for another start attempt if first fails. Without engine you are sitting on the outlanding field after first glide and thinking of switching hobbies to golf.
I sit on the B&R Committee and while I can tell you this wasn't my axe to grind my recollection is this was done to bring the SSA's records into compliance with the IGC recognized classes of gliders. We had been going it alone on this for many years. Having said that, I am sympathetic to the gliding purists and those (like myself) who cannot afford the latest and greatest self-launcher but might like to take a crack at a record or two. I wish we had put out a poll on this.
Interestingly enough I am told many have outright quit pursuing national record flights because of the bureaucracy and fees associated with FAI & NAA record certification.
I personally want to do what's best, or should I say whatever the most "customer centric" thing to do is, for SSA members and for promoting the sport. Your feedback is appreciated.
Thank you,
Chris Schrader, Director, SSA Region 6
Soarin Again[_2_]
March 20th 17, 01:52 PM
On the last day for the 94-95 Hilton Cup Dan Matzke flew a big triangle
out of California City in his DG400 motor-glider. Well after dark (not
sunset) he radioed that he was low over the Honda track (10nm North of Cal
City) and asked if there was a way to get the lights turned on. We replied
we can turn the lights on at Cal City airport but there were no lights on
the Honda track itself. He paused and replied that there was a bit of lift
and maybe he could make it. After a bit he reported that he had glider
home. So I walked out to midfield and stood beside the runway, perfectly
quiet and pitch black except for the runway lights. I couldn't see him,
but eventually I heard a chirp when his wheel touched asphalt. Later he
would admit that he would not have put himself in that position without the
motor to fall back on.
Those of us who witnessed that event, were left with little doubt that a
motor glider has a distinct advantage available over a non motor-glider.
This latest change to records will undoubtedly lead to a loss of interest
in record attempts by non-motor gliders. So it's a bit hard to see that as
a having a positive impact on the slow steady decline in U.S. soaring. But
maybe bringing the more affluent in our society into soaring will be a good
thing.
M Eiler
jfitch
March 20th 17, 04:08 PM
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 12:29:25 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> On Monday, 20 March 2017 06:46:06 UTC+2, jfitch wrote:
> > 15m and standard category still exist and are effectively motor free - but no one is making record attempts in them either.
>
>
> Virtually all 15m class world records are flown by 18m motorgliders that have been installed with 15m wingtips (I bet record flight attempt is only instance these gliders have been flown with short tips). But as I said before, very long record flight attemps are possible only with motorgliders. There is no way to get up in the wave, probably to some remote start point, and still have option to motor back for another start attempt if first fails.. Without engine you are sitting on the outlanding field after first glide and thinking of switching hobbies to golf.
Up until now, you have had separate categories for non motorgliders, yet almost no records have been set in them for decades. Of what use is keeping these categories, if no one attempts records in it? If you love the category, why aren't you out there attempting records? Far from reducing participation, the consolidation will increase it, since now those you are actually flying records (rather than whinging on about technicalities) can also apply for a world record.
Anecdotes from non record attempt flights 22 years ago are entertaining, but shed little light on what is happening now. I can bore you with countless stories of "pure" gliders getting low and digging out, landing after dark, flying low over rocks, etc. Ridiculously risky piloting examples exist in all types and makes. Pull your head out of the sand and look at the actual record attempts being made in the last few years (most are not set in wave so that argument is also specious).
Sierra Whiskey
March 20th 17, 05:41 PM
So wait... A prime example of the dynamics of psychology in play between having a motor is presented and your argument is that this was years ago so it doesn't matter? I am sorry to say but it is you that seems to have his head in the sand sir. This is the exact mentality that I have been "making up", and yet here it is. As stated in one of my previous posts, it only takes one to start a negative trend in this. Is this not an example of what I have been saying?
2KA
March 20th 17, 06:02 PM
One problem I see here is that this policy is being applied to both US national and state records. US state records are more of a "for fun" thing to encourage pilots to increase their achievement level. Since they already have no direct analog in the international community, I'm not sure why it was deemed necessary to implement this policy with regard to state records. All it does is eliminate opportunities for aspiring pilots to be recognized at the state level.
I'm the Utah State record keeper. In 2016, I approved 10 records for non-motorgliders, and 3 for motorgliders. This ratio has been more or less 3 or 4 to one in favor of non-motorgliders for years. The assertion that non-motorglider records are no longer being actively pursued just isn't true at the state record level.
By the way, in 2016, the successful applicant in the motorglider class would have had no chance if forced to compete in the open class. Had it been implemented in 2016, this policy would have only had the effect of eliminating recognition for the motorglider pilot.
On Monday, 13 March 2017 07:49:05 UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> Winter isn't quite over yet, so...
>
> The excerpt quoted below is from an email I received from my state record keeper (who owns two motor gliders). It is an extract from a communication to state record keepers from Bob Faris (who has been collecting records with his motor glider), US B&R Committee Chair.
>
> Our IGC rep (who owns a motor glider -- anyone see a pattern here?) has so far ignored my email on the subject. Thanks a ton, Rick. For the moment, I'll presume that my information is legitimate, however distasteful it might be. 711, can you please go get your scorer a propeller beanie and humiliate him publicly?
>
> Extract follows.
>
> "The new record rules have been posted to the website. Even though the rules date is December 15, 2016, the effective date is March 5, 2017. Any record claimed for a flight prior to March 5 should be processed under the old rules. The record matrices have not been updated yet to reflect the rule changes and the link on those pages is to the old rules. I don't have an estimate of when the matrices will be able to be modified. There are two primary changes to the rules:
>
>
> 1. The term "Youth" has been changed to "Junior" to align with the Sporting Code.
>
> 2. The big change is the removal of the separate motorglider classes. These classes are no longer recognized by the Sporting Code. Claims made by a glider carrying a motor can now be made in any applicable class. Note that motorgliders must have a MoP recorder or seals that detect if the engine is used, unless the motor is disabled or removed. The FAI Form D is still required for those claims."
>
> Extract ends.
>
> Motor glider pilots have always had the option of flying for sailplane records. You simply had to disable the propulsion system to do it. Was this really so much to ask? After all, any motor glider pilot will tell you the motor is only about "convenience".
>
> A pox upon the IGC. What a bunch of flaccid, low testosterone ******s. Screw Europe, we should go our own way.
>
> Either that or donate heavily to my ASH-31 fund and I'll show you just how much difference it really makes. I'm prepared to be reasonable about this.
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8
The FAI has succeeded in making a mockery of soaring records. This is just the latest in a series of arrogant and ignorant defacements of the achievements of many famous pilots.
Don’t believe me? Just go the FAI website and try to find out what the World Record is for a category. Chances are there is no record. The previous FAI record has been “retired by changes of the sporting code”.
http://www.fai.org/record-gliding
What a mess.
R5
Sierra Whiskey
March 21st 17, 01:20 AM
Yep, looks like this change has no benefit to the greater sport of soaring.
krasw
March 21st 17, 06:22 AM
On Monday, 20 March 2017 18:08:18 UTC+2, jfitch wrote:
>
> Up until now, you have had separate categories for non motorgliders, yet almost no records have been set in them for decades. Of what use is keeping these categories, if no one attempts records in it? If you love the category, why aren't you out there attempting records?
In my country there are only categories for open and 15m class records (incl. motorgliders). My last record flight was 2 years ago, and I flew pure glider.
jfitch
March 21st 17, 06:27 AM
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 10:41:24 AM UTC-7, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> So wait... A prime example of the dynamics of psychology in play between having a motor is presented and your argument is that this was years ago so it doesn't matter? I am sorry to say but it is you that seems to have his head in the sand sir. This is the exact mentality that I have been "making up", and yet here it is. As stated in one of my previous posts, it only takes one to start a negative trend in this. Is this not an example of what I have been saying?
Really? So a single example of an idiot from 22 years ago proves that every motorglider pilot flies unsafely? There are countless examples of "pure" gliders flying low into unlandable terrain. We know this because there are nearly countless examples of them crashing there. From this, using your logic, we should eliminate "pure" gliders from the record books since there is obviously a temptation to fly them unsafely in pursuit of records. It only takes one...
I repeat once again, you have yet to produce a single example of a record flight or record attempt showing either a low save or low flight into unlandable terrain, by any current record holder. This should be quite easy for you to do, if such behavior is rampant. The flight logs and tools are readily available. If all you have is an idiot, flying 22 years ago, on a non-record attempt, you are grasping at straws.
It's really kind of a moot point, since 20 years on you will have a hard time finding a still flying "pure" glider for a record attempt - that is the unmistakable trend. Just as there is difficulty today finding a glider without electronic instruments, GPS navigation, water ballast, composite laminate flow airfoils and all the rest of the things decried when they were introduced as the ruination of the sport. I think you might be happiest buying a 1-26 and setting records in it. That's as good as any point in time to freeze.
waremark
March 21st 17, 10:48 AM
In my club, as people who used to be most sceptical about gliders with motors update their gliders, they generally buy ones with motors (if able to afford to buy new or nearly new).
jfitch
March 21st 17, 04:03 PM
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 3:48:16 AM UTC-7, waremark wrote:
> In my club, as people who used to be most sceptical about gliders with motors update their gliders, they generally buy ones with motors (if able to afford to buy new or nearly new).
It is interesting that the umbrage directed at auxiliary power is not similarly directed at GPS. The change of "mindset" or aggressiveness at cross country flying is affected far more by GPS (at least here in the west) than a motor. Prior to GPS, you guessed where you were, what the wind was, where the landing sites might be, whether you could make them or not. In the cockpit you juggled a huge chart with a bunch of marks on it, a ruler, a funny little circular slide rule - and worried a lot. Now you know exactly were you are, exactly where the landing sites are, the wind to a high degree of confidence, and your arrival height at any landing site with a high degree of confidence. All calculated continuously without the slightest effort or knowledge.
If you held a contest in the west with long tasks called, and gave the choice of either leaving the GPS behind or disabling the motor, every motorglider pilot I know would disable the motor and keep the GPS. If the contest were between motorgliders with no GPS and "pure" gliders with GPS, my money would be on the "pure" gliders, all in. GPS changed this type of flying much more than motors.
Yet the visceral reaction to motors is not applied to GPS. Yeah, there was some hand wringing about their use in racing for a short time, but now everyone flies with GPS. All records are set with GPS. It's even 'outside assistance' if a $20B satellite constellation counts. No one says a thing about it. Why the double standard?
Tango Whisky
March 21st 17, 06:17 PM
Funny line of thinking, but I don't think that you are wrong.
TW
Le mardi 21 mars 2017 17:03:32 UTC+1, jfitch a écrit*:
> On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 3:48:16 AM UTC-7, waremark wrote:
> > In my club, as people who used to be most sceptical about gliders with motors update their gliders, they generally buy ones with motors (if able to afford to buy new or nearly new).
>
> It is interesting that the umbrage directed at auxiliary power is not similarly directed at GPS. The change of "mindset" or aggressiveness at cross country flying is affected far more by GPS (at least here in the west) than a motor. Prior to GPS, you guessed where you were, what the wind was, where the landing sites might be, whether you could make them or not. In the cockpit you juggled a huge chart with a bunch of marks on it, a ruler, a funny little circular slide rule - and worried a lot. Now you know exactly were you are, exactly where the landing sites are, the wind to a high degree of confidence, and your arrival height at any landing site with a high degree of confidence. All calculated continuously without the slightest effort or knowledge.
>
> If you held a contest in the west with long tasks called, and gave the choice of either leaving the GPS behind or disabling the motor, every motorglider pilot I know would disable the motor and keep the GPS. If the contest were between motorgliders with no GPS and "pure" gliders with GPS, my money would be on the "pure" gliders, all in. GPS changed this type of flying much more than motors.
>
> Yet the visceral reaction to motors is not applied to GPS. Yeah, there was some hand wringing about their use in racing for a short time, but now everyone flies with GPS. All records are set with GPS. It's even 'outside assistance' if a $20B satellite constellation counts. No one says a thing about it. Why the double standard?
Paul Villinski
March 22nd 17, 03:16 AM
This has been a fascinating discussion. From my perspective as a weekend warrior flying a 32-year-old DG-400 just for fun, I have a couple of thoughts.. The idea that the high price of self-launching, open class ships capable of setting new national records is damaging the growth of our sport is specious. With or without a powerplant, the cost of these ships is well out of reach for the vast majority. National records are set by the very best pilots flying the very best equipment. People contemplating learning to soar don't say "Damn, that $200,000 top-end sailplane is too pricey, so I won't be able to set a new National record, so I guess I won't bother learning how to fly in the first place."
My first ship was an SGS 1-35, and I started flying cross-country in it. I had so many land-outs and retrieves in one season that folks suggested that rather than buy my tireless retrieve crews dinner, I simply pay for the whole club's annual holiday dinner party! This gave rise to the dream of a glider with "self-retrieve" capability. With the "iron thermal" behind my seat, I very rarely have to inconvenience anyone now, although it does happen.
In my experience, not flying for records, but attempting Diamond and personal best flights, I have made a very conscious decision to go below my "hard floor" for an in-air restart while trying to scratch out from a low point -- and I've landed out instead of starting the motor. My point being that if I'm pushing hard to make or continue a flight, I'm going to forget about using the engine for anything but the launch.
For an in-air re-start with the "infernal combustion" engine self-launcher, I will be on downwind for a suitable field, with the wheel down and the landing checklist complete, before I raise the engine. I plan to land, and if the engine starts (it has yet to fail) I am able to fly home. The soaring performance ends at that landing spot, just as it used to in my 1-35. To set records, (or, with my more humble aspirations, notch a 500K flight,) I can't let the soaring performance end, therefore I will fight gravity until it's far too late to use the engine and I must capitulate and land. However, I'm no Mitch Polinsky. Experts like this don't use their engines for a different reason -- they just don't get low in the first place, which is clear in reading his accounts of his record flights.
There are probably a dozen reasons why I prefer to have an older, self-launcher rather than a comparably priced, higher performance, more modern, non-self-launching glider. That's a topic for another thread.
JS
March 22nd 17, 05:52 AM
There are US records available for the new 13.5m class, but no 20m two-seater or 18m records. Is there no difference between a Duo and an EB28?
Meanwhile, 15m span has two sets of records. The only difference is flaps.
Crazy stuff.
Jim
Pat Russell[_2_]
March 22nd 17, 10:54 AM
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9:49:05 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
....
> A pox upon the IGC. What a bunch of flaccid, low testosterone ******s. Screw Europe, we should go our own way.
Evan, you seem to be upset about a decision IGC made to discontinue motorglider records - 20 years ago.
There are good reasons to preserve motorglider records at the national level. Your beef is with SSA, not IGC.
-Pat
P.S. Have you heard that they also got rid of cameras and barographs?
Tango Eight
March 22nd 17, 12:48 PM
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:03:32 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 3:48:16 AM UTC-7, waremark wrote:
> > In my club, as people who used to be most sceptical about gliders with motors update their gliders, they generally buy ones with motors (if able to afford to buy new or nearly new).
>
> It is interesting that the umbrage directed at auxiliary power is not similarly directed at GPS. The change of "mindset" or aggressiveness at cross country flying is affected far more by GPS (at least here in the west) than a motor. Prior to GPS, you guessed where you were, what the wind was, where the landing sites might be, whether you could make them or not. In the cockpit you juggled a huge chart with a bunch of marks on it, a ruler, a funny little circular slide rule - and worried a lot. Now you know exactly were you are, exactly where the landing sites are, the wind to a high degree of confidence, and your arrival height at any landing site with a high degree of confidence. All calculated continuously without the slightest effort or knowledge.
>
> If you held a contest in the west with long tasks called, and gave the choice of either leaving the GPS behind or disabling the motor, every motorglider pilot I know would disable the motor and keep the GPS. If the contest were between motorgliders with no GPS and "pure" gliders with GPS, my money would be on the "pure" gliders, all in. GPS changed this type of flying much more than motors.
>
> Yet the visceral reaction to motors is not applied to GPS. Yeah, there was some hand wringing about their use in racing for a short time, but now everyone flies with GPS. All records are set with GPS. It's even 'outside assistance' if a $20B satellite constellation counts. No one says a thing about it. Why the double standard?
GPS transformed racing. It's a 10+mph advantage, all day long.
It's not as big a deal on record missions. a) records are flown on good days(about which more in a moment), all that computer aided contingency planning is a much larger benefit on weak scratchy days, b) the record route is usually much better planned and studied (using Google Earth, another transformative change) than one has the chance to do for a contest task, making visual navigation much easier, c) turn point rules are simple, and the turnpoints few for a record task. My state record and various badge tasks have all been flown largely on eyeballs and memory. GPS saves me the trouble of getting into position to take a picture and the nervous process of trying to convince a photo processor not to cut the film.
It's certainly nice having all the info that GPS based systems can provide and that is a performance enhancer, no doubt. However, that battle was fought 25 years ago. I'm glad I "grew up" on map, compass, eyeball and flew the final glides on my first contests with circles on a chart (to zero height finish lines). It was hard. It was fun. It was a quarter century ago.
The objection to GPS in competition at the time was simple: it was extravagantly expensive. IIRC a full on GPS system -- simple as they were initially -- was half again what I had in my HP-18 + instruments + trailer. And as soon as GPS was permitted, you were doomed to be a permanent back marker. Really extensive local knowledge could mitigate this, but that wasn't a factor for a newcomer like me.
Today, we are all used to GPS. It's cheap (on the reception end). It's in your phone. There would be no earthly way to prevent its use in the cockpit.
The technology change that's had a far larger impact on my long distance flying than GPS is better weather forecasting. Better tools, accessible to all, make it a much less hit/miss affair to match up an ambitious task to a strong day. When new records are set, I think this is the biggest advantage modern pilots have over their predecessors.
The visceral reaction is because many of us view MGs as a fundamentally different different classification of aircraft. You can belittle that view all you like (and do seem to like!), it's a logical, discernible difference: these aircraft have engines, these others do not. Many of us think that allowing engines where no engines were previously allowed is a big logical change and at least merited a comment and discussion period. This thread is evidence for that.
best,
Evan Ludeman / T8
Tango Eight
March 22nd 17, 12:54 PM
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:54:22 AM UTC-4, Pat Russell wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9:49:05 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> ...
> > A pox upon the IGC. What a bunch of flaccid, low testosterone ******s. Screw Europe, we should go our own way.
>
> Evan, you seem to be upset about a decision IGC made to discontinue motorglider records - 20 years ago.
>
> There are good reasons to preserve motorglider records at the national level. Your beef is with SSA, not IGC.
>
> -Pat
>
> P.S. Have you heard that they also got rid of cameras and barographs?
Goodness. No, that's not it. If in fact you've misunderstood my objection, my previous response should clarify. If you are simply poking fun, yeah, I get it :-).
There are issues at both the IGC and SSA level.
best,
Evan
Kevin Brooker
March 23rd 17, 12:07 PM
It has/is an interesting discussion. Thanks for the education entertainment.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.