IGC Actions- New Glider Class/Microlift

[Gary Osoba]

Tuesday morning of this week, OSTIV President Loek Boermans sent me a
message indicating that the International Gliding Congress assembled
at Lausanne, Switzerland, had voted to accept the OSTIV-proposed
definition and creation of a new class of gliders- MIcrolift.

Professor Boermans introduced the proposal and shared some pertinent
observations and recommendations in this regard from Paul MacCready.
He then introduced Professor Piero Morelli who answered questions and
detailed the proposal.

Professor Morelli was voted to receive the Lilienthal medal- gliding's
highest honor- at the meeting in Madrid, Spain, this coming fall. He
has worked tirelessly for decades in glider development and
certification issues, and is the retired chairman of OSTIV's Sailplane
Dvelopment Panel.

You may download a copy of Morelli's paper "Why MIcrolift Soaring" as
well as another paper by Eric DeBoer detailing possible new types of
competitive venues at:

http://ozreport.com/data/WhyMicroliftSoaring.pdf

Best Regards,
Gary Osoba

[Chris OCallaghan]

Thanks, Gary, for the link to an interesting read. Are the referenced
works you authored currently available online?

OC

[Waduino]

Totally fascinating read.

I'm new to soaring and have to think that playing around in this way could
be a whole lot more fun than trying to make it to some distant point and
then having to get a lift back. Got to find out more.
Thanks.


---


"Gary Osoba" > wrote in message
om...
> Tuesday morning of this week, OSTIV President Loek Boermans sent me a
> message indicating that the International Gliding Congress assembled
> at Lausanne, Switzerland, had voted to accept the OSTIV-proposed
> definition and creation of a new class of gliders- MIcrolift.
>
> Professor Boermans introduced the proposal and shared some pertinent
> observations and recommendations in this regard from Paul MacCready.
> He then introduced Professor Piero Morelli who answered questions and
> detailed the proposal.
>
> Professor Morelli was voted to receive the Lilienthal medal- gliding's
> highest honor- at the meeting in Madrid, Spain, this coming fall. He
> has worked tirelessly for decades in glider development and
> certification issues, and is the retired chairman of OSTIV's Sailplane
> Dvelopment Panel.
>
> You may download a copy of Morelli's paper "Why MIcrolift Soaring" as
> well as another paper by Eric DeBoer detailing possible new types of
> competitive venues at:
>
> http://ozreport.com/data/WhyMicroliftSoaring.pdf
>
> Best Regards,
> Gary Osoba

[Bill Daniels]

Reading Morelli's paper made me think of the times that I thermalled away
from 2 - 300 feet in a 1300 pound glider. (Now, I don't do this often -
just when there is a landing spot handy as when flying over a dry lake.)
I've done it in a TG-3, 2-32, Lark and a Nimbus - not exactly ultralight
gliders. The point is that it doesn't take a Sparrowhawk to do it. (I'm
sure it's EASIER in an ultralight glider though...)

Thermalling away from low altitude is not something that a glider pilot
should look to do - in fact it's probably the result of a mistake and means
wasting a lot of time that would be better spent working the best thermals
and running at high altitude. It's better than landing in a crop, however.

It's also true that microlift starts much earlier than the main thermal day
and lasts later. Back when I started cross country in a 1-26, I tended to
start too early and suffered the consequences. I wasted a lot of personal
energy just trying to stay aloft until the big thermals started. Later, I
learned to wait until I could make a good start and expend my personal
energy reserves on course. Late in the day is not a good time to be
thermaling at 300 feet. You're tired and likely to make a fatal mistake.

Somehow, I think we have always known about microlift but it just didn't fit
the objectives of flying far and fast. Microlift probably looks a lot
better if you live and fly under a 2000 foot inversion with 1 knot thermals.
If you fly at 10-12 pound wing loading in 15 knot thermals at 18000 feet,
it's superfluous.

Still skeptical.

Bill Daniels

"Waduino" > wrote in message
.. .
> Totally fascinating read.
>
> I'm new to soaring and have to think that playing around in this way could
> be a whole lot more fun than trying to make it to some distant point and
> then having to get a lift back. Got to find out more.
> Thanks.
>
>
> ---
>
>
> "Gary Osoba" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Tuesday morning of this week, OSTIV President Loek Boermans sent me a
> > message indicating that the International Gliding Congress assembled
> > at Lausanne, Switzerland, had voted to accept the OSTIV-proposed
> > definition and creation of a new class of gliders- MIcrolift.
> >
> > Professor Boermans introduced the proposal and shared some pertinent
> > observations and recommendations in this regard from Paul MacCready.
> > He then introduced Professor Piero Morelli who answered questions and
> > detailed the proposal.
> >
> > Professor Morelli was voted to receive the Lilienthal medal- gliding's
> > highest honor- at the meeting in Madrid, Spain, this coming fall. He
> > has worked tirelessly for decades in glider development and
> > certification issues, and is the retired chairman of OSTIV's Sailplane
> > Dvelopment Panel.
> >
> > You may download a copy of Morelli's paper "Why MIcrolift Soaring" as
> > well as another paper by Eric DeBoer detailing possible new types of
> > competitive venues at:
> >
> > http://ozreport.com/data/WhyMicroliftSoaring.pdf
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Gary Osoba
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Reading Morelli's paper made me think of the times that I thermalled away
> from 2 - 300 feet in a 1300 pound glider. (Now, I don't do this often -
> just when there is a landing spot handy as when flying over a dry lake.)
> I've done it in a TG-3, 2-32, Lark and a Nimbus - not exactly ultralight
> gliders. The point is that it doesn't take a Sparrowhawk to do it.

You weren't doing it! Those were actual thermals, not the microlift that
Morelli was talking about.

And, the SparrowHawk is not the kind of glider to use what he is talking
about, but the LightHawk is (5 pound wing loading vs 2.5 pounds).

(I'm
> sure it's EASIER in an ultralight glider though...)

THe point seemed to be it's _only_ possible in one. We're talking Carbon
Dragon here.

>
> Thermalling away from low altitude is not something that a glider pilot
> should look to do - in fact it's probably the result of a mistake and means
> wasting a lot of time that would be better spent working the best thermals
> and running at high altitude. It's better than landing in a crop, however.

"Low" is relative to the glider's handling. Take another look at the
comments on the Dragon, such as stall recovery with a 25 foot loss of
altitude. Using altitudes under 500' AGL isn't the result of a mistake,
it's a chosen operating range.

>
> It's also true that microlift starts much earlier than the main thermal day
> and lasts later. Back when I started cross country in a 1-26, I tended to
> start too early and suffered the consequences. I wasted a lot of personal
> energy just trying to stay aloft until the big thermals started. Later, I
> learned to wait until I could make a good start and expend my personal
> energy reserves on course. Late in the day is not a good time to be
> thermaling at 300 feet. You're tired and likely to make a fatal mistake.

In a Ventus, yes; Carbon Dragon, different story. Did you read the part
about "microlandings"?

> Somehow, I think we have always known about microlift but it just didn't fit
> the objectives of flying far and fast.

I think hardly any of us don't know what it is. It's not just lift down
low. Next chance you get, attend a talk by Gary Osoba.

Microlift probably looks a lot
> better if you live and fly under a 2000 foot inversion with 1 knot thermals.
> If you fly at 10-12 pound wing loading in 15 knot thermals at 18000 feet,
> it's superfluous.

We don't do that kind of extreme soaring here in the state of Washington
(or most places I've flown). I suspect there are many days here when
microlift soaring would be a lot fun, in the right glider. These are the
days when it'd be worthless to rig my 18 meter, 8 pound wing loading glider.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Daniels]

Thermals are thermals, some are bigger than others. What you fly and when,
where and how you fly are determined by what you want to do. If you want to
fly high, far and fast, you need a big, heavy glider - and a place to fly it
where big thermals live - like the high deserts of North America.

If all you want to do is play around the gliderport, then any glider will
do.

An excellent pilot like Gary Osoba can so wonderful things in any glider.

I once did Silver Distance at altitudes under 500 feet AGL in a 1-26. It
took me five hours. I don't ever want to do that again. (I really wanted
that Silver C)

I'm sure these ultralight gliders are wonderful machines but they are aimed
at something I don't want to do anymore. Very low altitude (Under 300')
dynamic soaring works - I've done it in several gliders. Just glide down
wind and as you get lower, chandelle back up into the higher wind speeds to
regain energy. Fine, if you are over a dry lake, want to go downwind and
make no mistakes - I'm not about to do that out of range of a landing spot.

The "Mini-glider" idea has been bubbling just under the surface for as long
as I have been around soaring. I remember Irv Prue's 215 and others like it
that were built in the 1950's. Oh sure, today they can be built lighter and
smoother out of advanced composites - but so can big gliders. Both benefit
about as much.

I expect that ultralight sailplanes will succeed but I don't see them as a
paradigm shift in soaring. It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually find
that we are kidding ourselves about microlift.

Ask yourself this; if you had dumped ballast to get home in weak conditions,
would you also trade your 20 meter wing for a 12 meter at the same time? I
doubt it.

Bill Daniels

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> > Reading Morelli's paper made me think of the times that I thermalled
away
> > from 2 - 300 feet in a 1300 pound glider. (Now, I don't do this often -
> > just when there is a landing spot handy as when flying over a dry lake.)
> > I've done it in a TG-3, 2-32, Lark and a Nimbus - not exactly ultralight
> > gliders. The point is that it doesn't take a Sparrowhawk to do it.
>
> You weren't doing it! Those were actual thermals, not the microlift that
> Morelli was talking about.
>
> And, the SparrowHawk is not the kind of glider to use what he is talking
> about, but the LightHawk is (5 pound wing loading vs 2.5 pounds).
>
> (I'm
> > sure it's EASIER in an ultralight glider though...)
>
> THe point seemed to be it's _only_ possible in one. We're talking Carbon
> Dragon here.
>
> >
> > Thermalling away from low altitude is not something that a glider pilot
> > should look to do - in fact it's probably the result of a mistake and
means
> > wasting a lot of time that would be better spent working the best
thermals
> > and running at high altitude. It's better than landing in a crop,
however.
>
> "Low" is relative to the glider's handling. Take another look at the
> comments on the Dragon, such as stall recovery with a 25 foot loss of
> altitude. Using altitudes under 500' AGL isn't the result of a mistake,
> it's a chosen operating range.
>
> >
> > It's also true that microlift starts much earlier than the main thermal
day
> > and lasts later. Back when I started cross country in a 1-26, I tended
to
> > start too early and suffered the consequences. I wasted a lot of
personal
> > energy just trying to stay aloft until the big thermals started. Later,
I
> > learned to wait until I could make a good start and expend my personal
> > energy reserves on course. Late in the day is not a good time to be
> > thermaling at 300 feet. You're tired and likely to make a fatal
mistake.
>
> In a Ventus, yes; Carbon Dragon, different story. Did you read the part
> about "microlandings"?
>
> > Somehow, I think we have always known about microlift but it just didn't
fit
> > the objectives of flying far and fast.
>
> I think hardly any of us don't know what it is. It's not just lift down
> low. Next chance you get, attend a talk by Gary Osoba.
>
> Microlift probably looks a lot
> > better if you live and fly under a 2000 foot inversion with 1 knot
thermals.
> > If you fly at 10-12 pound wing loading in 15 knot thermals at 18000
feet,
> > it's superfluous.
>
> We don't do that kind of extreme soaring here in the state of Washington
> (or most places I've flown). I suspect there are many days here when
> microlift soaring would be a lot fun, in the right glider. These are the
> days when it'd be worthless to rig my 18 meter, 8 pound wing loading
glider.
>
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Thermals are thermals, some are bigger than others. What you fly and when,
> where and how you fly are determined by what you want to do. If you want to
> fly high, far and fast, you need a big, heavy glider - and a place to fly it
> where big thermals live - like the high deserts of North America.

You really, really should go listen to Gary the next chance you get.
Thermals are thermals, but they aren't microlift.

>
> If all you want to do is play around the gliderport, then any glider will
> do.

Microlift ISN"T just about playing around the gliderport; it is also
about going cross country when the heavy gliders can't. I'm beginning to
think you didn't read the article.

> An excellent pilot like Gary Osoba can so wonderful things in any glider.

He can't do microlift in a Sigma - ask him when you see him next!

>
> I once did Silver Distance at altitudes under 500 feet AGL in a 1-26. It
> took me five hours. I don't ever want to do that again. (I really wanted
> that Silver C)
>
> I'm sure these ultralight gliders are wonderful machines but they are aimed
> at something I don't want to do anymore. Very low altitude (Under 300')
> dynamic soaring works - I've done it in several gliders. Just glide down
> wind and as you get lower, chandelle back up into the higher wind speeds to
> regain energy.

Microlift isn't dynamic soaring, though dynamic soaring can be part of
using it.

Fine, if you are over a dry lake, want to go downwind and
> make no mistakes - I'm not about to do that out of range of a landing spot.

Read the part about "microlandings". I think you missed it. A Carbon
Dragon isn't as hard to land as your Nimbus!
>
> The "Mini-glider" idea has been bubbling just under the surface for as long
> as I have been around soaring. I remember Irv Prue's 215 and others like it
> that were built in the 1950's. Oh sure, today they can be built lighter and
> smoother out of advanced composites - but so can big gliders. Both benefit
> about as much.

With 6 pound wing loading, the 215 doesn't even come close to being an
ultralight glider. It's just a smaller conventional glider, and inferior
to the even smaller SparrowHawk of today. No one claims the SparrowHawk
is an "ultralight" in concept, only in category. Take a look at the
LightHawk, and you will see what I mean about a different glider,
designed for microlift.

http://www.glidersport.net/default.htm
Glidersport.net - Home of the LightHawk Ultralight 15m glider

>
> I expect that ultralight sailplanes will succeed but I don't see them as a
> paradigm shift in soaring. It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually find
> that we are kidding ourselves about microlift.
>
> Ask yourself this; if you had dumped ballast to get home in weak conditions,
> would you also trade your 20 meter wing for a 12 meter at the same time? I
> doubt it.

If I were at 500 feet without a thermal, I'd trade my 18 meter wing for
the 15 meter wing of the LightHawk (and it's 2.5 pound wing loading).
And were did the 12 meters come from? Even the Carbon Dragon is 13.7 m.
Microlift isn't about small sailplanes, it's about light wing loading.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Daniels]

Eric, I've read them all. I even test flew a < 3 pound wing loading glider
at El Mirage - in 1968.

The Lighthawk is supposed to have an L/D of 35 - but at what speed? 35
Knots? A min sink of 60FPM at 25Kts? What can it do against a 20 knot
headwind? 18:1? What's the L/D at 100Kts?

The Nimbus 2C (a 1980 20M glider) has a min sink of .5 M/S (98FPM) at 40
knots, 49:1 at 62Kts and 35:1 at 100 Kts. Against a 20 knot headwind,
flying at 100Kts. IAS, it can do 27:1 while making 80 Kts ground speed. The
2C's touchdown speed, in ground effect, is 30 knots and it stops darn fast.

The Nimbus 2C is a quarter century older than the Lighthawk. Is this
progress?

When I get beat by a Lighthawk flying in the conditions I like to fly in,
I'll be less skeptical.

Bill Daniels


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> > Thermals are thermals, some are bigger than others. What you fly and
when,
> > where and how you fly are determined by what you want to do. If you
want to
> > fly high, far and fast, you need a big, heavy glider - and a place to
fly it
> > where big thermals live - like the high deserts of North America.
>
> You really, really should go listen to Gary the next chance you get.
> Thermals are thermals, but they aren't microlift.
>
> >
> > If all you want to do is play around the gliderport, then any glider
will
> > do.
>
> Microlift ISN"T just about playing around the gliderport; it is also
> about going cross country when the heavy gliders can't. I'm beginning to
> think you didn't read the article.
>
> > An excellent pilot like Gary Osoba can so wonderful things in any
glider.
>
> He can't do microlift in a Sigma - ask him when you see him next!
>
> >
> > I once did Silver Distance at altitudes under 500 feet AGL in a 1-26.
It
> > took me five hours. I don't ever want to do that again. (I really
wanted
> > that Silver C)
> >
> > I'm sure these ultralight gliders are wonderful machines but they are
aimed
> > at something I don't want to do anymore. Very low altitude (Under 300')
> > dynamic soaring works - I've done it in several gliders. Just glide
down
> > wind and as you get lower, chandelle back up into the higher wind speeds
to
> > regain energy.
>
> Microlift isn't dynamic soaring, though dynamic soaring can be part of
> using it.
>
> Fine, if you are over a dry lake, want to go downwind and
> > make no mistakes - I'm not about to do that out of range of a landing
spot.
>
> Read the part about "microlandings". I think you missed it. A Carbon
> Dragon isn't as hard to land as your Nimbus!
> >
> > The "Mini-glider" idea has been bubbling just under the surface for as
long
> > as I have been around soaring. I remember Irv Prue's 215 and others
like it
> > that were built in the 1950's. Oh sure, today they can be built lighter
and
> > smoother out of advanced composites - but so can big gliders. Both
benefit
> > about as much.
>
> With 6 pound wing loading, the 215 doesn't even come close to being an
> ultralight glider. It's just a smaller conventional glider, and inferior
> to the even smaller SparrowHawk of today. No one claims the SparrowHawk
> is an "ultralight" in concept, only in category. Take a look at the
> LightHawk, and you will see what I mean about a different glider,
> designed for microlift.
>
> http://www.glidersport.net/default.htm
> Glidersport.net - Home of the LightHawk Ultralight 15m glider
>
> >
> > I expect that ultralight sailplanes will succeed but I don't see them as
a
> > paradigm shift in soaring. It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually
find
> > that we are kidding ourselves about microlift.
> >
> > Ask yourself this; if you had dumped ballast to get home in weak
conditions,
> > would you also trade your 20 meter wing for a 12 meter at the same time?
I
> > doubt it.
>
> If I were at 500 feet without a thermal, I'd trade my 18 meter wing for
> the 15 meter wing of the LightHawk (and it's 2.5 pound wing loading).
> And were did the 12 meters come from? Even the Carbon Dragon is 13.7 m.
> Microlift isn't about small sailplanes, it's about light wing loading.
>
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> Eric, I've read them all. I even test flew a < 3 pound wing loading glider
> at El Mirage - in 1968.
>
> The Lighthawk is supposed to have an L/D of 35 - but at what speed? 35
> Knots? A min sink of 60FPM at 25Kts? What can it do against a 20 knot
> headwind? 18:1? What's the L/D at 100Kts?
>
> The Nimbus 2C (a 1980 20M glider) has a min sink of .5 M/S (98FPM) at 40
> knots, 49:1 at 62Kts and 35:1 at 100 Kts. Against a 20 knot headwind,
> flying at 100Kts. IAS, it can do 27:1 while making 80 Kts ground speed. The
> 2C's touchdown speed, in ground effect, is 30 knots and it stops darn fast.
>
> The Nimbus 2C is a quarter century older than the Lighthawk. Is this
> progress?
>
> When I get beat by a Lighthawk flying in the conditions I like to fly in,
> I'll be less skeptical.

Maybe, if you flew a LightHawk in the conditions it was designed for,
you'd also be less skeptical. I'd like to give it a try.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Gary Osoba]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> If you fly at 10-12 pound wing loading in 15 knot thermals at 18000 feet,
> it's superfluous.

Hello Bill:

You are correct, a glider designed to optimize Microlift conditions
would not be as well suited to cruising in these conditions. I, too,
enjoy flying very heavy wing loadings in the strongest reasonable
conditions. I am presently woking closely with Dr. Marsden on an
experimental 15m racer which will ballast to 13 psf normally, and have
designed a special system which would allow for 15 psf. This type of
flying is very exciting, and a worthwhile area to explore and push the
envelope. It is also ideally suited to pitch-based dynamic soaring
with high inertias, something that mostly captivates my attention
these days.

However, there are other fields of endeavor which are also worthwhile.
Have you ever stood on the ground in a 20 knot wind, and watched a
vulture fly from horizon to horizon at an altitude of 200' - never
once circling- against the wind? Ever wondered where is he getting
this energy? Or which of the lateral movements he is constantly making
are reactive and which ones are harvesting energy from random
turbulence? Some of us find this simple scenario at least as
interesting and exciting as the former one. At the very least, we
would like to understand it better and at the most, emulate or even
exceed it. This is one (and only one) of the things that Microlift
optimized designs are capable of doing which higher W/S approaches do
not. As it turns out, there are not simply quantitative differences
which are taking place at lower altitudes in the convecttive
environment but qualitative ones as well. The near-earth environment
does not simply contain thermal plumes which are lower than those
normally encountered in soaring flight at higher altitudes. There are
structural differences between the super-adiabatic layer, the next
mixed layer, and the higher normal soaring environment. Scale is
important here. The size of less organized structures which are not
yet thermal plumes in these lower environments is not well suited to a
12 psf W/S glider, or even a 6 spf one. Likewise, the magnitude of
stochastic but often widespread gusting and turbulence may comprise a
large fraction of the total flight energy of a low inertia glider,
whereas its nothing more than an annoyance in higher inertia systems.
With proper coordination and flight maneuvering, these smaller
turbulent events can impart repeating and substantial amounts of
energy to flight systems. However, the systems used must be matched to
the environment and it is not simply a function of wing loading. The
entrained air mass of the flying system, which is a function of not
only W/Sbut also mac and other factors must be considered.
Manueverability is very important, particularly rolling responses.

Until you have experienced this, it his hard to appreciate how it
could be as exciting as cruising at redline and 18k north of Tonopah,
while still 5k *under* cloudbase. However, I find it to be at least as
exciting. Not as high. Not as fast. But somehow just as amazing.

Not better. Not worse. Different, Bill. Something new to explore,
which is very, very old.

I guess it could be stated another way. I have never had the
opportunity to watch the launch of the Space Shuttle. I would like to.
However, if I had unlimited opportunity I suppose I would tire of it
after enough times.

I don't beilieve I will ever tire of watching vultures, or sea gulls,
or even butterflies doing their thing.

> Still skeptical.

That's your prerogative. I would prescribe a little more time for
direct observation of the natural world, and a little less time trying
to view it as it rapidly recedes in your high speed rear-view mirror.

Best Regards,
Gary Osoba

[Gary Osoba]

(Chris OCallaghan) wrote in message >...

> Thanks, Gary, for the link to an interesting read. Are the referenced
> works you authored currently available online?
>

You might find a couple of them at Jim Hendrix's oxaero.com web site
under catalogue or publications. You'll also find several other very
interesting things there.

Best Regards,
Gary Osoba

[Bill Daniels]

Gary and Eric, please don't get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for
both of you and the effort to understand the "superadiabatic layer". This
is just a academic debate among friends.

Just to set some credentials, 30 years ago I spent a lot of energy trying to
solve the same problem. My approach was a 50 pound, 13 meter, 35:1
inflatable flying wing made of Kevlar reinforced Mylar that could be foot
launched. The high pressure inflatable structure would have produced a
highly accurate airfoil. I still think it would work, but the materials and
construction techniques weren't available then. My legs are too old to even
think of it now.

Yes, Gary, I have seen vultures working boundary layer turbulence - it's fun
to watch. I also noted that they don't make much progress against a 20 knot
wind and that they posses an amazing landing and re-launch system if their
microlift soaring efforts don't pay off.

Low wing loading gliders working the same environment have the same problem
moving upwind as the birds but lack the land and re-launch capability. At
200', it's easy to get out of range of a suitable landing spot. The low
wing loading buys you the option of working microlift but it requires that
you operate in a hostile environment where options are limited. At 200 feet
with approximately one foot per second sink rate, you are three minutes from
a forced landing if microlift fails.

If I find myself in that situation, my most fervent wish is to get out of
it - ASAP. Once out of it, I want a big, heavy glider to take advantage of
better sources of energy found at higher altitudes.

On the other hand, I strongly suspect that similar soaring possibilities
exist at much higher altitudes and on a much larger scale. One problem in
exploiting that energy is that a TE vario can't tell the difference between
a thermal and a gust - plus it has a 2-3 second lag and a terrible
signal-to-noise ratio. Develop an instrument that has instantaneous
response plus the ability to resolve energy vectors in 3D and we may find
there are many overlooked soaring possibilities that all gliders can use.

Bill Daniels




"Gary Osoba" > wrote in message
om...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> > If you fly at 10-12 pound wing loading in 15 knot thermals at 18000
feet,
> > it's superfluous.
>
> Hello Bill:
>
> You are correct, a glider designed to optimize Microlift conditions
> would not be as well suited to cruising in these conditions. I, too,
> enjoy flying very heavy wing loadings in the strongest reasonable
> conditions. I am presently woking closely with Dr. Marsden on an
> experimental 15m racer which will ballast to 13 psf normally, and have
> designed a special system which would allow for 15 psf. This type of
> flying is very exciting, and a worthwhile area to explore and push the
> envelope. It is also ideally suited to pitch-based dynamic soaring
> with high inertias, something that mostly captivates my attention
> these days.
>
> However, there are other fields of endeavor which are also worthwhile.
> Have you ever stood on the ground in a 20 knot wind, and watched a
> vulture fly from horizon to horizon at an altitude of 200' - never
> once circling- against the wind? Ever wondered where is he getting
> this energy? Or which of the lateral movements he is constantly making
> are reactive and which ones are harvesting energy from random
> turbulence? Some of us find this simple scenario at least as
> interesting and exciting as the former one. At the very least, we
> would like to understand it better and at the most, emulate or even
> exceed it. This is one (and only one) of the things that Microlift
> optimized designs are capable of doing which higher W/S approaches do
> not. As it turns out, there are not simply quantitative differences
> which are taking place at lower altitudes in the convecttive
> environment but qualitative ones as well. The near-earth environment
> does not simply contain thermal plumes which are lower than those
> normally encountered in soaring flight at higher altitudes. There are
> structural differences between the super-adiabatic layer, the next
> mixed layer, and the higher normal soaring environment. Scale is
> important here. The size of less organized structures which are not
> yet thermal plumes in these lower environments is not well suited to a
> 12 psf W/S glider, or even a 6 spf one. Likewise, the magnitude of
> stochastic but often widespread gusting and turbulence may comprise a
> large fraction of the total flight energy of a low inertia glider,
> whereas its nothing more than an annoyance in higher inertia systems.
> With proper coordination and flight maneuvering, these smaller
> turbulent events can impart repeating and substantial amounts of
> energy to flight systems. However, the systems used must be matched to
> the environment and it is not simply a function of wing loading. The
> entrained air mass of the flying system, which is a function of not
> only W/Sbut also mac and other factors must be considered.
> Manueverability is very important, particularly rolling responses.
>
> Until you have experienced this, it his hard to appreciate how it
> could be as exciting as cruising at redline and 18k north of Tonopah,
> while still 5k *under* cloudbase. However, I find it to be at least as
> exciting. Not as high. Not as fast. But somehow just as amazing.
>
> Not better. Not worse. Different, Bill. Something new to explore,
> which is very, very old.
>
> I guess it could be stated another way. I have never had the
> opportunity to watch the launch of the Space Shuttle. I would like to.
> However, if I had unlimited opportunity I suppose I would tire of it
> after enough times.
>
> I don't beilieve I will ever tire of watching vultures, or sea gulls,
> or even butterflies doing their thing.
>
> > Still skeptical.
>
> That's your prerogative. I would prescribe a little more time for
> direct observation of the natural world, and a little less time trying
> to view it as it rapidly recedes in your high speed rear-view mirror.
>
> Best Regards,
> Gary Osoba

[Kirk Stant]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...

> Maybe, if you flew a LightHawk in the conditions it was designed for,
> you'd also be less skeptical. I'd like to give it a try.

I'm kinda with Bill on this. Microlift sounds like fun, a good way to
fly on days that won't support heavier gliders - but the thought of
going crosscountry at low altitudes and low speeds, even if you can
land in anyone's backyard, just doesn't appeal to me very much. If it
did, I would be flying a hang glider or paraglider.

And microlift soaring is going to be a pretty intense activity - not
much time to relax and cruise along when you are low most of the time,
or your L/D at higher speeds is going to put you low again soon.
Nothing wrong with that (as the success of the 1-26 proves) but not
everybody's cup of tea.

The problem I see is that the cost of a high tech microlift glider is
going to be very close to a "conventional lift" glider, but the
utility will be a lot less - in that the range I can cover in
available time is a lot less. And how is that low wingloading going to
handle those fun windy. booming days? When the cloud steets are
kicking up 10 knots, and you are looking at a 30 knot headwind for
your 70 mile final glide...I think I want to have my nice heavy
wingloading, thankyou.

So if you want to see the same ground from up close, then go for it.
I think I prefer to see more ground from up high!

Another problem I see is in enticing people to go XC in microlift
gliders - sure a confident pilot will set off at 1000ft expecting to
find more microlift to keep going, out of range of any airfield, in
his $30k+ Microhawk; but your average Twirlybird is scared to death of
getting out of 10/1 from the home gliderport - he is never going to
push out at those altitudes - it's just too scary for him!

Anyway, keep up the good work - you guys are essentially filling the
gap between hang/paragliders and heavy gliders, and that is a good
thing, since in some areas (and for some pilots) that is exactly what
is needed.

Kirk

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> Low wing loading gliders working the same environment have the same problem
> moving upwind as the birds but lack the land and re-launch capability. At
> 200', it's easy to get out of range of a suitable landing spot.

THis is very dependent on where you fly. How about Kansas? Or here in
Eastern Washington State, were the fields are a mile square, half of
them fallow, half of the other half in low crops, and cover hundreds of
square miles at a stretch. They are prolific producers of low lift on
many days.

> The low
> wing loading buys you the option of working microlift but it requires that
> you operate in a hostile environment where options are limited.

Not! See above.

> At 200 feet
> with approximately one foot per second sink rate, you are three minutes from
> a forced landing if microlift fails.

I think you grab should hold of this microlift idea because the gliders
are ideal candidates for one of your preferred launch methods: winch
launching. THese gliders require only a small, low powered winch, and to
low altitudes (500', say). An airport isn't required.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark Navarre]

When Microlift conditions go bad, is the lift then called microsoft?
-
Mark Navarre
ASW-20 OD
California, USA
-

[tango4]

"Mark Navarre" > wrote in message
...
> When Microlift conditions go bad, is the lift then called microsoft?
> -
> Mark Navarre
> ASW-20 OD
> California, USA
> -

Oh no! Gates will now patent and copyright microlift and each of us will
have to pay a licence fee per thermal. Every 2 years the thermals will get
an upgrade and will cost more, the hardware required to exploit them will
need to be more and more sophisticated but wont actually do anything new.

:-)

Ian

[Gary Boggs]

The thermals might be restored by opening and closing the windows.

--
Gary Boggs
3650 Airport Dr.
Hood River, Oregon, USA
97031-9613
"tango4" > wrote in message
...

"Mark Navarre" > wrote in message
...
> When Microlift conditions go bad, is the lift then called microsoft?
> -
> Mark Navarre
> ASW-20 OD
> California, USA
> -

Oh no! Gates will now patent and copyright microlift and each of us will
have to pay a licence fee per thermal. Every 2 years the thermals will get
an upgrade and will cost more, the hardware required to exploit them will
need to be more and more sophisticated but wont actually do anything new.

:-)

Ian

[Libelle Driver]

Kind of like buying a new car every two years because Detroit changes the
fenders or someone makes one that is called a SUV and every person in town
has to have one. If you don't like Microsoft, try doing your business
without the world of computers that they have assisted in creating. Without
MS, you would not have money to buy all the glider toys you play with every
weekend.

"tango4" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark Navarre" > wrote in message
> ...
> > When Microlift conditions go bad, is the lift then called microsoft?
> > -
> > Mark Navarre
> > ASW-20 OD
> > California, USA
> > -
>
> Oh no! Gates will now patent and copyright microlift and each of us will
> have to pay a licence fee per thermal. Every 2 years the thermals will get
> an upgrade and will cost more, the hardware required to exploit them will
> need to be more and more sophisticated but wont actually do anything new.
>
> :-)
>
> Ian
>
>

[Martin Gregorie]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 06:51:54 -0800, "Libelle Driver"
> wrote:

>Kind of like buying a new car every two years because Detroit changes the
>fenders or someone makes one that is called a SUV and every person in town
>has to have one. If you don't like Microsoft, try doing your business
>without the world of computers that they have assisted in creating. Without
>MS, you would not have money to buy all the glider toys you play with every
>weekend.
>
Actually, that's quite easy: throughout my professional life I have
never used a DOS or Windows PC for more than a cheap terminal and word
processor.

Now, thanks to Linux and Open Office I can do everything quite nicely,
thanks, without any of Mr Gates' products.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Denis]

Gary Osoba wrote:

> at Lausanne, Switzerland, had voted to accept the OSTIV-proposed
> definition and creation of a new class of gliders- MIcrolift.

.... of micro-interest :-(((

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?