Death of the 13.5m class?

[Paul T[_4_]]

http://www.spr.aero/wcc-main-news/e-concept-rules-for-electric-
gliders.aspx

[Chris Davison[_3_]]

At 08:13 23 December 2017, Paul T wrote:
>http://www.spr.aero/wcc-main-news/e-concept-rules-for-electric-
>gliders.aspx
>
>

Rebirth of the (e) standard class. If only we could retrofit FES units to
existing standard class gliders (please)!

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 9:00:08 AM UTC-5, Chris Davison wrote:

> If olnly we could retrofit FES units to
> existing standard class gliders (please)!

problem is weight -- the weight hit on an 18 m (or bigger span) glider matters a lot less than on a 15, and then as they have better L/D you need less total power to sustain them (although don't forget the impact of gross weight)

It's worth going through the numbers just to see what's going on -- first, take the optimistic case:

The power required to fly level is just

P = m * g * v / (L/D)

Taking an 18 m glider at 400 kg gross weight, coming home at 60 kts ≈ 30 m/s and an L/D of 40 yields 2.9 kW (before motor and propeller losses) ... taking 3.2 kW as battery output required would be reasonable.

The very best Lithium-sulfur batteries are now around 400 Wh/kg, but 200 is more typical of common Lithium batteries.

So if you wanted 60 nm return range @ 1 hour cruising time you'd need 16 kg of standard lithium batteries. Motor and propeller for this power will add 4 - 5 ... so up around 20 kg ... sounds good, right?


But if you look, people aren't fitting FES that wimpy. Pilots will want more than 60 nm return range and will want to come home FASTER, also have more margin for sink or headwind en route. The real FES units being put into gliders just about double all the numbers, and that becomes a real load on a 15 m glider ... and L/D at cruise matters, the 18 m ships win there too.

Better batteries are the only thing that can change the equation.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 10:01:38 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 9:00:08 AM UTC-5, Chris Davison wrote:
>
> > If olnly we could retrofit FES units to
> > existing standard class gliders (please)!
>
> problem is weight -- the weight hit on an 18 m (or bigger span) glider matters a lot less than on a 15, and then as they have better L/D you need less total power to sustain them (although don't forget the impact of gross weight)
>
> It's worth going through the numbers just to see what's going on -- first, take the optimistic case:
>
> The power required to fly level is just
>
> P = m * g * v / (L/D)
>
> Taking an 18 m glider at 400 kg gross weight, coming home at 60 kts ≈ 30 m/s and an L/D of 40 yields 2.9 kW (before motor and propeller losses) ... taking 3.2 kW as battery output required would be reasonable.
>
> The very best Lithium-sulfur batteries are now around 400 Wh/kg, but 200 is more typical of common Lithium batteries.
>
> So if you wanted 60 nm return range @ 1 hour cruising time you'd need 16 kg of standard lithium batteries. Motor and propeller for this power will add 4 - 5 ... so up around 20 kg ... sounds good, right?
>
>
> But if you look, people aren't fitting FES that wimpy. Pilots will want more than 60 nm return range and will want to come home FASTER, also have more margin for sink or headwind en route. The real FES units being put into gliders just about double all the numbers, and that becomes a real load on a 15 m glider ... and L/D at cruise matters, the 18 m ships win there too..
>
> Better batteries are the only thing that can change the equation.

I'm converting a Std class ASW-24E right now from existing engine to electric.
Weight of motor, battery, controller, and prop is 78 lb. Lift mechanism being reused adds another 8. Engine, fuel tanks and other stuff coming out is about 68 lb.
I'm getting 25 kw instead of 17kw at the price of 10 lb and obviously reduced range. Full power run time will be about 12 minutes.
The net weight gain by having the electric stuff in vs pure glider raises my wing loading .8 lb per square foot.
FES alternative in this ship would be about 10 lb lighter.
FWIW
UH

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 1:22:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 10:01:38 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 9:00:08 AM UTC-5, Chris Davison wrote:
> >
> > > If olnly we could retrofit FES units to
> > > existing standard class gliders (please)!
> >
> > problem is weight -- the weight hit on an 18 m (or bigger span) glider matters a lot less than on a 15, and then as they have better L/D you need less total power to sustain them (although don't forget the impact of gross weight)
> >
> > It's worth going through the numbers just to see what's going on -- first, take the optimistic case:
> >
> > The power required to fly level is just
> >
> > P = m * g * v / (L/D)
> >
> > Taking an 18 m glider at 400 kg gross weight, coming home at 60 kts ≈ 30 m/s and an L/D of 40 yields 2.9 kW (before motor and propeller losses) ... taking 3.2 kW as battery output required would be reasonable.
> >
> > The very best Lithium-sulfur batteries are now around 400 Wh/kg, but 200 is more typical of common Lithium batteries.
> >
> > So if you wanted 60 nm return range @ 1 hour cruising time you'd need 16 kg of standard lithium batteries. Motor and propeller for this power will add 4 - 5 ... so up around 20 kg ... sounds good, right?
> >
> >
> > But if you look, people aren't fitting FES that wimpy. Pilots will want more than 60 nm return range and will want to come home FASTER, also have more margin for sink or headwind en route. The real FES units being put into gliders just about double all the numbers, and that becomes a real load on a 15 m glider ... and L/D at cruise matters, the 18 m ships win there too.
> >
> > Better batteries are the only thing that can change the equation.
>
> I'm converting a Std class ASW-24E right now from existing engine to electric.
> Weight of motor, battery, controller, and prop is 78 lb. Lift mechanism being reused adds another 8. Engine, fuel tanks and other stuff coming out is about 68 lb.
> I'm getting 25 kw instead of 17kw at the price of 10 lb and obviously reduced range. Full power run time will be about 12 minutes.
> The net weight gain by having the electric stuff in vs pure glider raises my wing loading .8 lb per square foot.
> FES alternative in this ship would be about 10 lb lighter.
> FWIW
> UH

I dunno. Seems to me that ultimately most gliders will be fitted with some sort of MOP. Having a race where use of the motor to avoid a landout and continue on course (with a time penalty) is ultimately easier and fairer to score than trying to equate miles to MPH - along with all the attendant methods of day devaluation, etc.

Imagine a scoring system where you get 5 minutes added to your time on course for every minute you run your MOP. If you did a 4 knot climb under power for 15 minutes to get home it would cost you about an incremental hour, so you'd only be inclined to use it when the alternative is landing out.

I'm sure there are all kinds of corner-cases to think through in terms of impact on strategy and of course it's only fair if everyone has a roughly equivalent capabilities. A reliable motor would also be pretty important. Landing out because your motor didn't start would end your contest in a world where everyone else can motor home at a cost of 100 points or so rather than 400 points. Because of the need for ubiquity, I don't see it in mainstream contest flying anytime soon.

I think it's interesting. Bring on the FES kits!

Andy Blackburn
9B

[[email protected]]

There is a war against landing out. Or at least creeping cultural change against landing out. Remember kids if you let land outs slip from being a normal thing they will eventually be forbidden.

[Mike C]

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 4:50:23 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 1:22:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 10:01:38 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 9:00:08 AM UTC-5, Chris Davison wrote:
> > >
> > > > If olnly we could retrofit FES units to
> > > > existing standard class gliders (please)!
> > >
> > > problem is weight -- the weight hit on an 18 m (or bigger span) glider matters a lot less than on a 15, and then as they have better L/D you need less total power to sustain them (although don't forget the impact of gross weight)
> > >
> > > It's worth going through the numbers just to see what's going on -- first, take the optimistic case:
> > >
> > > The power required to fly level is just
> > >
> > > P = m * g * v / (L/D)
> > >
> > > Taking an 18 m glider at 400 kg gross weight, coming home at 60 kts ≈ 30 m/s and an L/D of 40 yields 2.9 kW (before motor and propeller losses) ... taking 3.2 kW as battery output required would be reasonable..
> > >
> > > The very best Lithium-sulfur batteries are now around 400 Wh/kg, but 200 is more typical of common Lithium batteries.
> > >
> > > So if you wanted 60 nm return range @ 1 hour cruising time you'd need 16 kg of standard lithium batteries. Motor and propeller for this power will add 4 - 5 ... so up around 20 kg ... sounds good, right?
> > >
> > >
> > > But if you look, people aren't fitting FES that wimpy. Pilots will want more than 60 nm return range and will want to come home FASTER, also have more margin for sink or headwind en route. The real FES units being put into gliders just about double all the numbers, and that becomes a real load on a 15 m glider ... and L/D at cruise matters, the 18 m ships win there too.
> > >
> > > Better batteries are the only thing that can change the equation.
> >
> > I'm converting a Std class ASW-24E right now from existing engine to electric.
> > Weight of motor, battery, controller, and prop is 78 lb. Lift mechanism being reused adds another 8. Engine, fuel tanks and other stuff coming out is about 68 lb.
> > I'm getting 25 kw instead of 17kw at the price of 10 lb and obviously reduced range. Full power run time will be about 12 minutes.
> > The net weight gain by having the electric stuff in vs pure glider raises my wing loading .8 lb per square foot.
> > FES alternative in this ship would be about 10 lb lighter.
> > FWIW
> > UH
>
> I dunno. Seems to me that ultimately most gliders will be fitted with some sort of MOP. Having a race where use of the motor to avoid a landout and continue on course (with a time penalty) is ultimately easier and fairer to score than trying to equate miles to MPH - along with all the attendant methods of day devaluation, etc.
>
> Imagine a scoring system where you get 5 minutes added to your time on course for every minute you run your MOP. If you did a 4 knot climb under power for 15 minutes to get home it would cost you about an incremental hour, so you'd only be inclined to use it when the alternative is landing out.
>
> I'm sure there are all kinds of corner-cases to think through in terms of impact on strategy and of course it's only fair if everyone has a roughly equivalent capabilities. A reliable motor would also be pretty important. Landing out because your motor didn't start would end your contest in a world where everyone else can motor home at a cost of 100 points or so rather than 400 points. Because of the need for ubiquity, I don't see it in mainstream contest flying anytime soon.
>
> I think it's interesting. Bring on the FES kits!
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

Use of a motor get distance points from start cylinder to motor on. Pilot and crew save a retrieve effort.

Mike

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 5:10:19 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> There is a war against landing out. Or at least creeping cultural change against landing out. Remember kids if you let land outs slip from being a normal thing they will eventually be forbidden.


Sound like all that "War on Christmas" talk - 'tis the season - LOL.

I promise you - landing out will never be banned. Do it every day you fly if it pleases you to do so. Just don't ask me to be your retrieve buddy.

;-)

9B

[Jeff Morgan]

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 4:50:23 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:

> Imagine a scoring system where you get 5 minutes added to your time on course for every minute you run your MOP. If you did a 4 knot climb under power for 15 minutes to get home it would cost you about an incremental hour, so you'd only be inclined to use it when the alternative is landing out.
>

Since the

[Jeff Morgan]

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 4:50:23 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:

> Imagine a scoring system where you get 5 minutes added to your time on course for every minute you run your MOP. If you did a 4 knot climb under power for 15 minutes to get home it would cost you about an incremental hour, so you'd only be inclined to use it when the alternative is landing out.
>

Easy fix. Since the motor is to prevent the land-out score it this way:

Starting Motor = Land Out.

The benefit is avoiding the inconvenience of the land out. Back to the airport in time for BBQ and beer, hope for better the next day.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 9:58:16 PM UTC-8, Jeff Morgan wrote:
> On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 4:50:23 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
> > Imagine a scoring system where you get 5 minutes added to your time on course for every minute you run your MOP. If you did a 4 knot climb under power for 15 minutes to get home it would cost you about an incremental hour, so you'd only be inclined to use it when the alternative is landing out.
> >
>
> Easy fix. Since the motor is to prevent the land-out score it this way:
>
> Starting Motor = Land Out.
>
> The benefit is avoiding the inconvenience of the land out. Back to the airport in time for BBQ and beer, hope for better the next day.


Solution = don't ever change anything. Okaaaay.

I think you missed the point. The idea is to not have to score miles versus MPH by avoiding being scored as a landout entirely. The idea of a split between speed and distance points is arbitrary so this would reduce that randomness.

New ideas are initially hard to grasp so people tend to resist them.

9B

[Kiwi User]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:00:49 -0800, Andy Blackburn wrote:

> I promise you - landing out will never be banned.
>
It is or was banned in Japan.

Some years back an e-mail friend, an American resident there, told me
about a police helicopter operating in Gunma Prefecture, which is in the
middle of Honshu, the main Japanese island and quite a hilly region. It
was caught out by low cloud and thickening mist, so made a precautionary
landing on a river bank while they waited for the vis to improve. Its
crew were arrested for the illegal land-out.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie
| dot org

[teck48[_2_]]

I cannot get the .aero link to work. Does anyone have an alternate? Link "doesn't exist or has been moved"

[Dan Marotta]

You mean using the engine or motor is /_not_/ scored as a land out?Â*
Seems pretty obvious to me.Â* Give the poor bloke a participation trophy
for the day and move on.Â* Oh, and fix such a dumb over sight.

On 12/23/2017 10:58 PM, Jeff Morgan wrote:
> On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 4:50:23 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
>> Imagine a scoring system where you get 5 minutes added to your time on course for every minute you run your MOP. If you did a 4 knot climb under power for 15 minutes to get home it would cost you about an incremental hour, so you'd only be inclined to use it when the alternative is landing out.
>>
> Easy fix. Since the motor is to prevent the land-out score it this way:
>
> Starting Motor = Land Out.
>
> The benefit is avoiding the inconvenience of the land out. Back to the airport in time for BBQ and beer, hope for better the next day.

--
Dan, 5J


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Dan Marotta]

If not having an engine would have resulted in a land out, having one
should not have a different result if it is used.Â* Use all the
justifications you want about randomness, etc., but you can't alter that
simple truth.Â* Just one more reason that I tend to avoid anything which
is "organized".

On 12/24/2017 12:47 AM, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 9:58:16 PM UTC-8, Jeff Morgan wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 4:50:23 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>>
>>> Imagine a scoring system where you get 5 minutes added to your time on course for every minute you run your MOP. If you did a 4 knot climb under power for 15 minutes to get home it would cost you about an incremental hour, so you'd only be inclined to use it when the alternative is landing out.
>>>
>> Easy fix. Since the motor is to prevent the land-out score it this way:
>>
>> Starting Motor = Land Out.
>>
>> The benefit is avoiding the inconvenience of the land out. Back to the airport in time for BBQ and beer, hope for better the next day.
>
> Solution = don't ever change anything. Okaaaay.
>
> I think you missed the point. The idea is to not have to score miles versus MPH by avoiding being scored as a landout entirely. The idea of a split between speed and distance points is arbitrary so this would reduce that randomness.
>
> New ideas are initially hard to grasp so people tend to resist them.
>
> 9B

--
Dan, 5J

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Tony[_5_]]

For the 2019 13.5m WGC, all gliders participating will be required to have electric motors and be capable of self launching. Potentially being allowed to use some of the electric energy in flight will lead to some interesting tasking and flights I think. I would not consider it to be "Soaring" though.

[John Foster]

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 10:16:53 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> If not having an engine would have resulted in a land out, having one
> should not have a different result if it is used.Â* Use all the
> justifications you want about randomness, etc., but you can't alter that
> simple truth.Â* Just one more reason that I tend to avoid anything which
> is "organized".
>
> On 12/24/2017 12:47 AM, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 9:58:16 PM UTC-8, Jeff Morgan wrote:
> >> On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 4:50:23 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> >>
> >>> Imagine a scoring system where you get 5 minutes added to your time on course for every minute you run your MOP. If you did a 4 knot climb under power for 15 minutes to get home it would cost you about an incremental hour, so you'd only be inclined to use it when the alternative is landing out.

[BobW]

> For the 2019 13.5m WGC, all gliders participating will be required to have electric motors and be capable of self launching. Potentially being allowed to use some of the electric energy in flight will lead to some interesting tasking and flights I think. I would not consider it to be "Soaring" though.

At the risk of initiating terminal thread drift (I blame last evening's latest
snow and overnight's -4F!) such
(scoring-continued-after-electrically-powered-propulsion) tasking would be a
sort of bureaucratic initiative exemplifying: a) a bureaucracy exceeding its
original r'aison d'etre, perhaps even (gasp!) to perpetuating itself over
actually promoting "soaring"; b) an active step diminishing its relevance (at
least in the eyes of some of the great unwashed who might otherwise see in
said bureaucracies, elements of genuine value to "the sport of soaring").
Thankfully IGC has only a voluntary constituency! :)

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 17:28 24 December 2017, Tony wrote:
>For the 2019 13.5m WGC, all gliders participating will be required
to have
>=
>electric motors and be capable of self launching. Potentially being
>allowed=
> to use some of the electric energy in flight will lead to some
>interesting=
> tasking and flights I think. I would not consider it to be "Soaring"
>thoug=
>h.
>

13.5m WGC may not be 13.5m WGC.


The IGC are currently working on a set of ‘E-concept’ rules for
gliders equipped with electric means of propulsion (MOP) in
competitions.

The idea is to allow use of limited amounts of electric power to
improve the glider's performance or to gain altitude. The first test
event will be at Pavullo in Italy in September 2018.

If the proposal is accepted, a new event will replace the 13.5m
World Gliding Championships in 2019, opening the competition to
gliders with up to 15m wingspan with electric power units. The 2019
WGC will provide an opportunity to experience the concept in action,
allowing the IGC to consider how it can be developed for the future.

Currently, several gliders are manufactured with electric MOP
installed. These include the 13.5m mini Lak and 15m Lak, and the
prototype GP14, which has a 13.5m span. The Silent, constructed as
a microlight, is another example, and the Ventus 3 from Schempp
Hirth and JS3 from Jonkers Sailplanes are also available in FES
versions.

Without a doubt, interest in the MOP concept is growing. More
information will be available after the 2018 IGC meeting.

[jfitch]

That is not entirely true. Some 'cruisy' type races allow engine runs with a penalty. There are assumptions made as to the advantage of the engine run.. One interesting consequence was a 1st place due to motoring the entire course (I think it was the Ensenada race). One contestant brought a peculiar sailboat that could plane running a huge outboard motor and he did the course at 20 knots, far faster than the penalty contemplated. Maybe we will see 13.5m gliders with big jet engines and 8m wingspans....

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 11:08:30 AM UTC-8, John Foster wrote:
> I gotta agree with Dan here. It's like in a sailboat race: if you start your motor you're disqualified. The use of a motor in a gliding race should be either a disqualifying event, or at the least, equated to a land-out.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 11:58:40 AM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
> That is not entirely true. Some 'cruisy' type races allow engine runs with a penalty. There are assumptions made as to the advantage of the engine run. One interesting consequence was a 1st place due to motoring the entire course (I think it was the Ensenada race). One contestant brought a peculiar sailboat that could plane running a huge outboard motor and he did the course at 20 knots, far faster than the penalty contemplated. Maybe we will see 13.5m gliders with big jet engines and 8m wingspans....
>

It occurred to me that any penalty system might need to contemplate potential differences in the climb rate that would result from using the MOP. If you can climb at 5 knots instead of 2 knots under power the penalty might need to change. A 5 minute penalty per minute of MOP use would overwhelm the differences versus a glider that didn't use their MOP (and therefore discourage MOP use for purely tactical purposes), but between two gliders using MOPs with varying climb rates there would be a difference in outcome that would need to be addressed.

Again, to clarify, this is NOT a proposal for rules regulating motor use in mixed pure glider, motor glider racing. This is for 100% motorglider events (specifically, electric motorgliders).

I think it's an interesting concept. It's clearly not for those who see the risk of outlanding as a major part of the appeal of the sport. Vive la difference!

9B

[jfitch]

Andy, why not just penalize the altitude gain and distance along course made during the engine run? It would all be in the log file and you wouldn't need to worry about what did it.

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 12:33:07 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 11:58:40 AM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
> > That is not entirely true. Some 'cruisy' type races allow engine runs with a penalty. There are assumptions made as to the advantage of the engine run. One interesting consequence was a 1st place due to motoring the entire course (I think it was the Ensenada race). One contestant brought a peculiar sailboat that could plane running a huge outboard motor and he did the course at 20 knots, far faster than the penalty contemplated. Maybe we will see 13.5m gliders with big jet engines and 8m wingspans....
> >
>
> It occurred to me that any penalty system might need to contemplate potential differences in the climb rate that would result from using the MOP. If you can climb at 5 knots instead of 2 knots under power the penalty might need to change. A 5 minute penalty per minute of MOP use would overwhelm the differences versus a glider that didn't use their MOP (and therefore discourage MOP use for purely tactical purposes), but between two gliders using MOPs with varying climb rates there would be a difference in outcome that would need to be addressed.
>
> Again, to clarify, this is NOT a proposal for rules regulating motor use in mixed pure glider, motor glider racing. This is for 100% motorglider events (specifically, electric motorgliders).
>
> I think it's an interesting concept. It's clearly not for those who see the risk of outlanding as a major part of the appeal of the sport. Vive la difference!
>
> 9B

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Jeff Morgan wrote on 12/23/2017 9:58 PM:
> On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 4:50:23 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
>> Imagine a scoring system where you get 5 minutes added to your time on course for every minute you run your MOP. If you did a 4 knot climb under power for 15 minutes to get home it would cost you about an incremental hour, so you'd only be inclined to use it when the alternative is landing out.
>>
>
> Easy fix. Since the motor is to prevent the land-out score it this way:
>
> Starting Motor = Land Out.
>
> The benefit is avoiding the inconvenience of the land out. Back to the airport in time for BBQ and beer, hope for better the next day.

But you still have the situation where the motor changes the game in various ways.
One is the glider with a motor will do more poorly in weak weather with it's
higher wing loading; another is the pilot can push on during a poor day, knowing
he will achieve the best score he can, and still be able to return home easily -
no lengthy midnight retrieve to leave him too tired to fly the next day.

Longing for "Purity" in the sport is normal, but we don't share a common
definition of "pure": a dedicated 1-26 pilot might think it's a distinction
without a difference when you talk about an 18 meter glider with or without a
motor. For me, a long-time self-launcher owner, a class that uses hybrid scoring
sounds interesting, and I look forward to the experiment.

--
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

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 1:07:56 PM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
> Andy, why not just penalize the altitude gain and distance along course made during the engine run? It would all be in the log file and you wouldn't need to worry about what did it.

You definitely need to not give credit for cruise-climb distance made, but the bigger impact on speed is the benefit of the climb rate versus what otherwise would have been the case. You can't really directly subtract altitude, you have to turn it into either time or distance to translate the penalty to time/distance = speed.

If you can climb at 4 knots under power then a rough breakeven penalty versus a 1 knot climb without power would be around 7 minutes per minute under power. If you want to set the "breakeven" unpowered climb rate at 2 knots, it's around 4 minutes per minute under power and at 3 knots it's around 2.5 minutes per minute under power. Under each penalty structure it would be to the pilot's benefit to use the motor any time (s)he is faced with a climb slower than the breakeven rate. I picked 5 minutes per minute, or around 150 ft/min breakeven.

You could also turn altitude gain into a scored distance penalty at some sort of glide angle translation, assuming an L/D, which would correspond to a speed to fly for a lift condition. I haven't messed with that, but I assume you could construct something equivalent to the time penalty.

9B

[[email protected]]

New rules are what I'd imagine racing touring motor gliders would be, hero pilots only.
And motor laden pilots say having an engine doesn't change anything lolz. With intermittent motor runs record legal will the motor guys still argue to be in the same record class as pure gliders?
What'll be really funny to see is when the designers start building 'gliders' for winning under the new rules- it'll be electric airplane racing. Hmmm probably sponsorship money available in electric airplane racing.

[[email protected]]

If this is "soaring," then no external power or induced thrust should be allowed. Start the engine, turn a prop (or turbine, or compressed air jet, or stick an oar out the window or whatever) and you are now a powered aircraft. In competition, the flight STOPS THERE. (Just like the OLC.) No exceptions. If you elect to augment your flight to make it home when getting too low for comfort and do not want to accept a landout, too bad. The scoresheet should reflect that you decided to terminate soaring flight at that point.

Also remember that virtually ALL external power sources (Reciprocating engine, Turbine or Electric CAN fail. And the insidious "Emergency Algorithm" dictates that it will most probably fail at the absolutely WORST time, i.e., too low over bad terrain when you have not previously selected an appropriate landing area and planned how to get in to it safely.

An auxiliary power source is a neat thing to have. Just remember that it is NOT a "Safety" device. It is best if you just treat it as a way to avoid inconvenience. Betting on it to save your sorry butt in a competition (or on any flight) is just asking for trouble.

[John Foster]

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 7:39:40 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> If this is "soaring," then no external power or induced thrust should be allowed. Start the engine, turn a prop (or turbine, or compressed air jet, or stick an oar out the window or whatever) and you are now a powered aircraft. In competition, the flight STOPS THERE. (Just like the OLC.) No exceptions. If you elect to augment your flight to make it home when getting too low for comfort and do not want to accept a landout, too bad. The scoresheet should reflect that you decided to terminate soaring flight at that point..
>
> Also remember that virtually ALL external power sources (Reciprocating engine, Turbine or Electric CAN fail. And the insidious "Emergency Algorithm" dictates that it will most probably fail at the absolutely WORST time, i.e.., too low over bad terrain when you have not previously selected an appropriate landing area and planned how to get in to it safely.
>
> An auxiliary power source is a neat thing to have. Just remember that it is NOT a "Safety" device. It is best if you just treat it as a way to avoid inconvenience. Betting on it to save your sorry butt in a competition (or on any flight) is just asking for trouble.

I agree with this completely!

[Tony[_5_]]

No one is talking about changing the current rules for soaring world records.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 6:39:40 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> If this is "soaring," then no external power or induced thrust should be allowed. Start the engine, turn a prop (or turbine, or compressed air jet, or stick an oar out the window or whatever) and you are now a powered aircraft. In competition, the flight STOPS THERE. (Just like the OLC.) No exceptions. If you elect to augment your flight to make it home when getting too low for comfort and do not want to accept a landout, too bad. The scoresheet should reflect that you decided to terminate soaring flight at that point..
>
> Also remember that virtually ALL external power sources (Reciprocating engine, Turbine or Electric CAN fail. And the insidious "Emergency Algorithm" dictates that it will most probably fail at the absolutely WORST time, i.e.., too low over bad terrain when you have not previously selected an appropriate landing area and planned how to get in to it safely.
>
> An auxiliary power source is a neat thing to have. Just remember that it is NOT a "Safety" device. It is best if you just treat it as a way to avoid inconvenience. Betting on it to save your sorry butt in a competition (or on any flight) is just asking for trouble.

I don't think the allowed use of a motor in competition without precipitating a mandator handout doesn't anything to change the fact that a motor is not a safety device. At the same time, I don't think in an event where every glider is equipped with electric propulsion it is necessarily mandatory anymore to treat motor use as a mandatory landout. That's the point that people seem to be missing. It's a new form of the sport, one where you aren't knocked out of the contest if you miss a critical climb.

That seems worth looking at.

9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:18:45 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 6:39:40 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > If this is "soaring," then no external power or induced thrust should be allowed. Start the engine, turn a prop (or turbine, or compressed air jet, or stick an oar out the window or whatever) and you are now a powered aircraft. In competition, the flight STOPS THERE. (Just like the OLC.) No exceptions. If you elect to augment your flight to make it home when getting too low for comfort and do not want to accept a landout, too bad. The scoresheet should reflect that you decided to terminate soaring flight at that point.

[Tony[_5_]]

No one is suggesting a change to the soaring world record rules...

[Jax]

Nobody said gliding competitions using the existing format are being completely replaced, we have too many classes diluting the merit of the champions in each class. The top pilots compete in 2 or 3 categories (raising the cost and reducing opportunities for less wealthy pilots). So replacing a not very popular class with something new and actually different is a good thing.

If some people don't want to call it soaring fine, lets call it assisted-soaring. I think this could be a fantastic platform for technology innovation, you still need a machine a pilot, knowledge, skills and strategy (and a bit of luck). If anything, the skillset necessary to win will be broader than it is now.

Of course some rules need to be in place, perhaps limit the weight of batteries or quantity stored energy in such way that it represents lets say max 10% of the energy necessary to complete the task so it still has a something to do with gliding and not electric pylon racing.

I think this could be a tremendous opportunity to revive gliding as a sport, give a green image, sophisticated high tech sport, attract sponsors and hopefully appeal to newer generations of pilots. (Last contest I attended had 45 competitors and only 4 were under 50yo so we need to fill a gap if we want contests in 10-15 years)

My only concern would be an escalation of cost where the $ would give an edge but that is already the case today anyway and it can be controlled by rules.

I give it 10/10

Jacques

[[email protected]]

Its getting more ridiculous each year! Use a motor=your not soaring, period! Now if you want to start a new form of racing called "L/D assisted power racing" fine but its not soaring and definitely another nail in the coffin of pure sailplane racing.

The dumbing down of the actual piloting/soaring skills needed to fly cross country is apparent. Fear of outlandings, inability to go anywhere unless your flying a 40/1 machine, inability to navigate if a moving map fails, inability to find an energy line or thermal unless you can identify the gaggle using your flarm. It has become ridiculous. I will stick with setting personal cross country and state record goals. I'll land out a bunch (no big deal) and damn well find my own thermals. The racing scene has become financially unobtainable for most and at best has become a contest of who has a maximized wallet and who can maximize their flight computers performance on a given day.

[[email protected]]

If everyone in the class has an E, I'm OK with it, just don't let that kind of thinking find its way into the real soaring rules.
JJ

[Duster[_2_]]

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-6, teck48 wrote:
> I cannot get the .aero link to work. Does anyone have an alternate? Link "doesn't exist or has been moved"

Same link, but cut off the http// or go to just the website for spr.aero

www.spr.aero/wcc-main-news/e-concept-rules-for-electric-gliders.aspx

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 12:36:43 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> No one is suggesting a change to the soaring world record rules...

Not yet.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 12/24/2017 6:39 PM:
> If this is "soaring," then no external power or induced thrust should be allowed. Start the engine, turn a prop (or turbine, or compressed air jet, or stick an oar out the window or whatever) and you are now a powered aircraft. In competition, the flight STOPS THERE. (Just like the OLC.) No exceptions. If you elect to augment your flight to make it home when getting too low for comfort and do not want to accept a landout, too bad. The scoresheet should reflect that you decided to terminate soaring flight at that point.
>
> Also remember that virtually ALL external power sources (Reciprocating engine, Turbine or Electric CAN fail. And the insidious "Emergency Algorithm" dictates that it will most probably fail at the absolutely WORST time, i.e., too low over bad terrain when you have not previously selected an appropriate landing area and planned how to get in to it safely.
>
> An auxiliary power source is a neat thing to have. Just remember that it is NOT a "Safety" device. It is best if you just treat it as a way to avoid inconvenience. Betting on it to save your sorry butt in a competition (or on any flight) is just asking for trouble.

What about a glider with a rescue parachute? If the motor failed to operate, and
there was no safe place to land, the pilot could use the rescue parachute. The
risk of, say, an electric motor failing to start, AND being over a place where a
landing would harm the pilot, AND the rescue parachute failing is much smaller
than all the other safety risks of flying in a contest. In that case, a pilot with
a motor gives up some weak weather performance to gain more area to fly in,
looking for that elusive thermal. Even if the scoring ends with the motor
starting, having a motor can change how the soaring is done.


--
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

[Darryl Ramm]

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:15:18 PM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote on 12/24/2017 6:39 PM:
> > If this is "soaring," then no external power or induced thrust should be allowed. Start the engine, turn a prop (or turbine, or compressed air jet, or stick an oar out the window or whatever) and you are now a powered aircraft. In competition, the flight STOPS THERE. (Just like the OLC.) No exceptions. If you elect to augment your flight to make it home when getting too low for comfort and do not want to accept a landout, too bad. The scoresheet should reflect that you decided to terminate soaring flight at that point.

[Pat Russell[_2_]]

Powered flight is not Gliding.

Motor-assisted touring, racing, badge flying, and records are all interesting.

But they all have homes in other FAI Commissions. CASI has rules for airplanes (including electric), and CIMA governs microlights (including electric).. I'm sure that these Commissions work hard to make their sports attractive..

But my sport is Gliding. I want to do the best I can using the energy I find in the atmosphere, and I want to compare my performance with others doing the same thing. The method of my launch and retrieval are not relevant. I want a precise definition of "soaring," and I want fair rules to follow.

IGC should stick to Gliding.

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 11:15:18 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Even if the scoring ends with the motor
> starting, having a motor can change how the soaring is done.

Behold: honesty. Rare enough to be noteworthy. Thanks, Eric.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Dan Marotta]

On 12/25/2017 9:37 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:15:18 PM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> wrote on 12/24/2017 6:39 PM:
>>> If this is "soaring," then no external power or induced thrust should be allowed. Start the engine, turn a prop (or turbine, or compressed air jet, or stick an oar out the window or whatever) and you are now a powered aircraft. In competition, the flight STOPS THERE. (Just like the OLC.) No exceptions. If you elect to augment your flight to make it home when getting too low for comfort and do not want to accept a landout, too bad. The scoresheet should reflect that you decided to terminate soaring flight at that point.
>>>
>>> Also remember that virtually ALL external power sources (Reciprocating engine, Turbine or Electric CAN fail. And the insidious "Emergency Algorithm" dictates that it will most probably fail at the absolutely WORST time, i.e., too low over bad terrain when you have not previously selected an appropriate landing area and planned how to get in to it safely.
>>>
>>> An auxiliary power source is a neat thing to have. Just remember that it is NOT a "Safety" device. It is best if you just treat it as a way to avoid inconvenience. Betting on it to save your sorry butt in a competition (or on any flight) is just asking for trouble.
>> What about a glider with a rescue parachute? If the motor failed to operate, and
>> there was no safe place to land, the pilot could use the rescue parachute. The
>> risk of, say, an electric motor failing to start, AND being over a place where a
>> landing would harm the pilot, AND the rescue parachute failing is much smaller
>> than all the other safety risks of flying in a contest. In that case, a pilot with
>> a motor gives up some weak weather performance to gain more area to fly in,
>> looking for that elusive thermal. Even if the scoring ends with the motor
>> starting, having a motor can change how the soaring is done.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
> What about a glider with an ejection seat. When your electric glider fails to start and you have no landing options you can eject. No parachute allowed however on the ejection seat...
>
A wing suit, maybe?Â* Then you could get an extra 10 feet or so of added
distance.
--
Dan, 5J

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[WB]

“IGC should stick to Gliding.�

Absolutely! Well said!

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 6:19:19 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 11:15:18 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Even if the scoring ends with the motor
> > starting, having a motor can change how the soaring is done.
>
> Behold: honesty. Rare enough to be noteworthy. Thanks, Eric.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Yes - about as much as having a dedicated crew for the retrieve. They should be penalized equally.

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 7:21:12 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 6:19:19 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 11:15:18 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > Even if the scoring ends with the motor
> > > starting, having a motor can change how the soaring is done.
> >
> > Behold: honesty. Rare enough to be noteworthy. Thanks, Eric.
> >
> > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Yes - about as much as having a dedicated crew for the retrieve. They should be penalized equally.

On a 1750 km triangle attempt, which would YOU rather have?

[[email protected]]

I find the fuss to be somewhat funny.

It is actually a pretty interesting concept. Call using a motor on course whatever you want, but it makes for an interesting game.

The sport is all about managing energy. The addition of a limited amount of reserved power is just another tool in that equation.

There are fascinating tradeoffs that result from having power. For instance, do you use the motor to increase speed in cruise, or do you keep it in reserve to mitigate the risk of landing out in the end? Do you use it to help increase your acheived climbrate, assisting weak thermals to net an acheived climb of 4 knots for each thermal you take? Do you use it to go straight through the blue hole rather than deviating?

In effect, you could have the option of becoming a Concordia for a while at the flip of a switch.

It's a different game. I love the sport as it is. But I can see how this new game could be appealing too.

All the best,
Daniel

[[email protected]]

Powered flight is not gliding and powered airplanes, no matter how long and skinny their wings may be, are not gliders.

[JS[_5_]]

On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 6:41:38 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> I find the fuss to be somewhat funny.
>
> It is actually a pretty interesting concept. Call using a motor on course whatever you want, but it makes for an interesting game.
>
> The sport is all about managing energy. The addition of a limited amount of reserved power is just another tool in that equation.
>
> There are fascinating tradeoffs that result from having power. For instance, do you use the motor to increase speed in cruise, or do you keep it in reserve to mitigate the risk of landing out in the end? Do you use it to help increase your acheived climbrate, assisting weak thermals to net an acheived climb of 4 knots for each thermal you take? Do you use it to go straight through the blue hole rather than deviating?
>
> In effect, you could have the option of becoming a Concordia for a while at the flip of a switch.
>
> It's a different game. I love the sport as it is. But I can see how this new game could be appealing too.
>
> All the best,
> Daniel

Agreed. A new game with new rules played by pilots in similar aircraft.
But in the bulk of the year when you're not at a contest racing against equals, what is this new game going to feel like?
Jim

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Tango Eight wrote on 12/26/2017 6:19 AM:
> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 11:15:18 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Even if the scoring ends with the motor
>> starting, having a motor can change how the soaring is done.
>
> Behold: honesty. Rare enough to be noteworthy. Thanks, Eric.

I fly a motor glider because it can change how the soaring is done; the result is
I do more soaring, and more interesting soaring, than I would with a towed glider.
I have 2000+ hours in towed gliders, double that in my motorglider, so I'm very
aware of both situations.

As Jon suggests, you could have a very dedicated retrieve crew (and I do - but she
does say the motorglider is the best glider we've ever had) and achieve similar
independence, especially if the crew had a towplane and could tow. It seemed
easier to get a motorglider.

To expand a bit on Jon's point: having a Nimbus 4 instead of a 1-26 will change
how the soaring is done, too, in a big way, bigger than flying a motorized 1-26
(or equivalent). The equipment always affects the choices you make while soaring.

--
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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Tango Eight wrote on 12/26/2017 6:01 PM:
> On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 7:21:12 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 6:19:19 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 11:15:18 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>> Even if the scoring ends with the motor
>>>> starting, having a motor can change how the soaring is done.
>>>
>>> Behold: honesty. Rare enough to be noteworthy. Thanks, Eric.
>>>
>>> -Evan Ludeman / T8
>>
>> Yes - about as much as having a dedicated crew for the retrieve. They should be penalized equally.
>
> On a 1750 km triangle attempt, which would YOU rather have?

30 years ago - an ASH 25 (or whatever the equivalent was then) and the crew;
today, an ASH 30 Mi.


--
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

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 11:55:37 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Tango Eight wrote on 12/26/2017 6:19 AM:
> > On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 11:15:18 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> Even if the scoring ends with the motor
> >> starting, having a motor can change how the soaring is done.
> >
> > Behold: honesty. Rare enough to be noteworthy. Thanks, Eric.
>
> I fly a motor glider because it can change how the soaring is done

Exactly.

Back to the original point: the motorized guys have a track record in the IGC. Non-motorized guys -- if they care -- should pay attention to that. If Mr Fitch and like minded folk on the IGC can sing 'em all to sleep, well, I'm on my own! At least there's one hard ass left!

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Dan Marotta]

I have to agree with Eric, here.Â* Patti and I first tried a Pipistrel
Sinus so she could learn to fly, but it was a disappointment to me as a
glider.Â* Fortunately I had kept my LAK-17a for soaring, but she wanted
to try soaring, too, so the Stemme was the ideal solution.Â* We can
launch whenever we want, experience high performance soaring
side-by-side, and go places without a tow plane to worry about.

As to performance, just look at some of Mike Abernathy's flights on
OLC.Â* He knows how to use the Stemme!

On 12/27/2017 7:40 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 11:55:37 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Tango Eight wrote on 12/26/2017 6:19 AM:
>>> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 11:15:18 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>> Even if the scoring ends with the motor
>>>> starting, having a motor can change how the soaring is done.
>>> Behold: honesty. Rare enough to be noteworthy. Thanks, Eric.
>> I fly a motor glider because it can change how the soaring is done
> Exactly.
>
> Back to the original point: the motorized guys have a track record in the IGC. Non-motorized guys -- if they care -- should pay attention to that. If Mr Fitch and like minded folk on the IGC can sing 'em all to sleep, well, I'm on my own! At least there's one hard ass left!
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

--
Dan, 5J

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 3:15:06 AM UTC-5, Paul T wrote:
> http://www.spr.aero/wcc-main-news/e-concept-rules-for-electric-
> gliders.aspx

Greetings to all from a very snowy and cold Montreal;

I think you all fail to grasp the reasons for the creation of the 13.5m class in the first place, and now the debate is shifting towards 'powered', or 'assisted' flight within that class. It's really very simple: membership and participation in our sport/hobby/passion is waning, and any approach, wether influenced by technology, design philosophy, ergonomics, aesthetics, and perhaps most important of all, cost, taken towards shifting this tide, or at least curbing it, should be encouraged and not poo-pooed. God forbid had Wilbur and Orvil stuck to this glider-only mode of flight just to assuage the purist's sensibilities and a return to the ways of Lilienthal.

Would any sailing enthusiast out there forego the flexibility offered by an outboard motor on even the smallest of watercraft to get in and out of the marina for a club race against his buddies on a warm summer evening after work just for the sake of adhering to some old rule or concept? And how about the 'traditional', hand tool-only woodworker in a modern suburb? Do you honestly think he could put together a masterpiece without someone else using a chainsaw to cut the tree, a sawmill to prepare it, and at least one or more power tool to prepare the stock, and modern chemistry to perfect his adhesive? I digress.

I suggest that anyone who would argues against adoption of technology go out and create a glider class of their own, or join the 'Vintage Glider Association'. There are a lot of very happy blokes there, but they are not winning any races with their classic birds, and they could offer you many design 'suggestions' for your new class, to wit:


-No motor or propulsion of any kind
-No electronics of any kind, either for navigation or lift detection and thermal centring
-No radio to talk with ATC, towplane, glider port or retrieve crew
-No mobile phones (see above)
-No transponder or FLARM, so other contestants have no idea where your going
-No parachute, because they are for sissies, and neither Otto, Orvil and his brother had one
-No relief tube, as your flights will be short anyway
-No food, snacks or water (see above)
-No rubber undercarriage, skid only
-No instruments, yaw string only
-Steel tube, wood and fabric construction only
-No towplane, winch only, as we are in an environmentally and noise sensitive neighbourhood
-Open cockpit, NO canopy allowed, windscreen only. ( Maximum dimension 8" by 10" with 1/16" maximum thickness, to allow the birds a chance of penetrating the cockpit during high-speed final glide)

Gentlemen, nobody is forcing you to hang a motor on your beautiful 18m plastic whirligigs. But I would offer you my own reservations against the status quo: with the current world-wide pilot shortage, it is increasingly difficult to find 'experienced' young pilots willing and able to fly our aging fleet of tow aircraft. Too many times on weekdays when soaring conditions are good, I am the only one left to tow while all my 'mates' are off having a jolly good time while I am left festering in the corner of the field awaiting their triumphant return. Well not really, as I'm too busy sulking, but I can go up for a quick 15 minute sunset hope at the end of the soaring day when another tug pilot shows up after work. But maybe, just maybe, someday I could alight from the tow plane and hop into my little self-lauch 13.5m glider and enjoy the rest of the day.

Thank you for following through my diatribe.

John Hebert
Montreal, Canada

[[email protected]]

How many of us would happily hang a motor of some kind on our gliders if:

[Kiwi User]

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 07:31:39 -0800, gebodc9 wrote:

> Would any sailing enthusiast out there forego the flexibility offered by
> an outboard motor on even the smallest of watercraft to get in and out
> of the marina for a club race against his buddies on a warm summer
> evening after work just for the sake of adhering to some old rule or
> concept?
>
Bad analogy. Thats equivalent to disallowing winch-/auto-/aero-tow
launching and has little or no relevance to carrying (or not) a power
source that can be started in the air.

As others have said, the nearest equivalent in sailing to carrying an air-
startable mechanical lift source, i.e. electric or IC turbo or FES
without counting its use as a land-out, would be the 'grinder' teams in
or carrying an engine to spin the winches in AmCup boats.

> And how about the 'traditional', hand tool-only woodworker in a
> modern suburb? Do you honestly think he could put together a masterpiece
> without someone else using a chainsaw to cut the tree, a sawmill to
> prepare it, and at least one or more power tool to prepare the stock,
> and modern chemistry to perfect his adhesive? I digress.
>
Well, there is a sort-of distant relationship here: if gliders were still
wood, the manufacturers would have a nice steady income from replacing
old gliders as they develop rot or glue joint failure rather than their
current problem that at least partly comes from longevity of metal and
composite gliders, which can go on flying for a very long time unless
they get totalled in a crash.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie
| dot org

[[email protected]]

Sorry, hit the wrong key. Let's try again.

How many of us would happily hang a motor of some kind on our gliders if:

1. The cost were zero; and
2. The complication were minimal.

I would. Then we could sit around discussing to what extent and how we wanted to allow motor use during a contest.

Until then, a big part of the debate, to me, revolves around something that--once again, in defiance of the downward trend in soaring activity--we're talking about making a change that will push costs up significantly. Yeah, we can say it's not mandatory. But if--as occurred when the 18M class was launched--pilots move in that direction, it will have an effect anyway.

Just my opinion.

Chip Bearden

[[email protected]]

Sailing eh? The sailors complain that every new class is more $ and smaller fleets. Sailors maintain that the foiling boats have done nothing for increasing sailing participation. If that new Ventus M doesn't inspire anyone a new 13.5 whizbox at half the price isn't going to either. Participation numbers are a separate issue from intermittent engine runs in soaring. First is cultural, second will lead to ridiculous electric airplane races, and less people racing or setting records once they merge the classes. And they will. Remember when it was thought ludicrous to have motorgliders and pure gliders in the same class? For the motor guys to feel legitimate they need to eliminate the pure class. With separate motor classes their accomplishments will never feel equal to them so pureness has to die. Since you brought up participation it's a cultural problem, men no longer own their free time. In the heyday if dad was a glider pilot you spent weekends at the airport, if dad was a sailor you spend weekends on the water. Now dad spends weekends driving his kids to playdates, recitals, and sports games. Not saying it is doom and gloom, plenty of bums to keep soaring going, but for the numbers to come back men need to reclaim their time and that is a cultural issue larger than any one sport.

[[email protected]]

Geb (john), the point most of us are making is NOT against technology, its against what defines "soaring" flight. I dont care how a guy gets in the air, towplane, bungee, onboard engine, falling off a cliff. I DO care that someone "assist" their "soaring" flight using an engine while on course. You start the engine on course, your soaring flight just ended.

If you want to start another "class" of racing thats fine, and who knows it might catch on, but don't call it or equate it with what we have now.

As for your lack of tow pilots, we could lend you some of ours. We have a club of 50 members and have 8 tow pilots with more wanting to do it than we have flights for. Maybe you think you don't have any tailwheel fliers up there. You need to recruit from the ranks of crop dusters and wantabe crop dusters. They are all tailwheel guys, and the youngsters wanting to get into dusters are always looking for a place to get more free tailwheel time. If you don't want to do that, sell your pawnee and replace it with a c-182. There's always guys wanting to build time.
Dan

[[email protected]]

How ironic. This whole “engine run� issue has been fought over in all the FAI classes of radio control soaring for 10 years now. Some of the classes involve scale birds (JS-1s, Arcii, ASG-29s, etc) with spans up to 30 feet. It’s as contentious as ever and makes a Chinese fire drill look like a Marine parade. Good luck.
Remember when men where men (post above) and gliders didn’t have engines?? Old fashioned? Proudly! Snobbish? To the max!