18m Nationals weight restriction at Seminole

[Andrzej Kobus]

I just found out that due to a short runway at Seminole a decision was made to restrict the weight of each glider to 1150 lb. Supposedly the decision was made after consultation with pilots, not sure with whom. I would love to know who thought that it was a great idea. This leaves gliders with higher wing area (mostly self launchers) at disadvantage. E.g. ASH-31 Mi would have to fly with lower wing loading by 1.1 lb/sq foot comparing to ASG-29. It puzzles me greatly who made this decision and why. A much more reasonable solution would have been to limit the wing loading for each glider. That is how it is done in a Grand Prix event. In my opinion it is the only fair way to limit weight at such a low, for 18 m class, weight range. I don't think an organizer should be able to limit weight effectively creating a different class. I decided to withdraw from the competition. It is one more reason contest participation is dropping.

[Kevin Christner]

Wilbur Wright personally approved of this limit. He and asw20pilot are very positive on Seminole Lake.

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 9:06:25 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> I just found out that due to a short runway at Seminole a decision was made to restrict the weight of each glider to 1150 lb. Supposedly the decision was made after consultation with pilots, not sure with whom. I would love to know who thought that it was a great idea. This leaves gliders with higher wing area (mostly self launchers) at disadvantage. E.g. ASH-31 Mi would have to fly with lower wing loading by 1.1 lb/sq foot comparing to ASG-29. It puzzles me greatly who made this decision and why. A much more reasonable solution would have been to limit the wing loading for each glider. That is how it is done in a Grand Prix event. In my opinion it is the only fair way to limit weight at such a low, for 18 m class, weight range. I don't think an organizer should be able to limit weight effectively creating a different class. I decided to withdraw from the competition. It is one more reason contest participation is dropping.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 9:06:25 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> I just found out that due to a short runway at Seminole a decision was made to restrict the weight of each glider to 1150 lb. Supposedly the decision was made after consultation with pilots, not sure with whom. I would love to know who thought that it was a great idea. This leaves gliders with higher wing area (mostly self launchers) at disadvantage. E.g. ASH-31 Mi would have to fly with lower wing loading by 1.1 lb/sq foot comparing to ASG-29. It puzzles me greatly who made this decision and why. A much more reasonable solution would have been to limit the wing loading for each glider. That is how it is done in a Grand Prix event. In my opinion it is the only fair way to limit weight at such a low, for 18 m class, weight range. I don't think an organizer should be able to limit weight effectively creating a different class. I decided to withdraw from the competition. It is one more reason contest participation is dropping.

There are two reasons for this approach:

1) Takeoff distance is driven primarily by takeoff weight and only secondarily by wing loading. A full aerodynamic factor analysis of takeoff performance was done to confirm this fact. A wing loading limit would have allowed gliders with larger wing area to take off at a heavier weight than smaller wing area gliders, compromising the takeoff safety goal.

2) FAI and Grand Prix rules are different. Grand Prix attempts to handicap gliders, FAA decidedly does not. Some glider designs are optimized for running at high wing loading and give up some climbing ability and others are the opposite. Pilots choose to fly different gliders in part because they are making choices for one design strategy over others. FAI rules specifically allow for different wing loading design strategies. The maximum wing loading of the various 18M gliders in this contest range from 10.4 lbs to 12.3 lbs. Setting a wing loading limit would have eliminated these design differences on the run while forcing smaller wing area designs to fly with a climb tradeoff. A wing loading limit would advantage large wing area gliders and disadvantage low wing area gliders as compared to flying within the normal limits of the 18M FAI class.

The minimum intervention in the relative competitiveness of gliders to achieve the takeoff distance goal for this airport is therefore takeoff weight. The approach you suggest would have conferred an advantage to the specific glider you are flying that is not part of the philosophy or rules of the FAI 18M class.

Hope that helps.

Andy Blackburn
9B
For the Rules Committee

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
"The approach you suggest would have conferred an advantage to the specific glider you are flying that is not part of the philosophy or rules of the FAI 18M class"

Andy, I can't believe what you wrote, did you read it before you sent it? Did you write it in the name of the Rules committee or is it your own opinion?

What advantage would I get, if I fly at the same wing loading as an ASG-29?
You must be kidding the 18M class weight restriction is 1320 lb. By limiting the weight you are handicapping me more than you are handicapping an ASG-29. On the east coast the optimum wing loading is around 10 lb/sq foot. You let the ASG-29 fly with that wing loading while handicapping me to 9 lb/sq foot. If not for the restriction I would be able to fly at the optimal wing loading. How is that fair? It seems to me the competition should never have been allowed to be held at an airport that can not handle the requirements of the 18 m class. Hopefully this is the last time Seminole is awarded a FAI class competition.

[Ron Gleason]

On Friday, 9 March 2018 09:35:06 UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> "The approach you suggest would have conferred an advantage to the specific glider you are flying that is not part of the philosophy or rules of the FAI 18M class"
>
> Andy, I can't believe what you wrote, did you read it before you sent it? Did you write it in the name of the Rules committee or is it your own opinion?
>
> What advantage would I get, if I fly at the same wing loading as an ASG-29?
> You must be kidding the 18M class weight restriction is 1320 lb. By limiting the weight you are handicapping me more than you are handicapping an ASG-29. On the east coast the optimum wing loading is around 10 lb/sq foot. You let the ASG-29 fly with that wing loading while handicapping me to 9 lb/sq foot. If not for the restriction I would be able to fly at the optimal wing loading. How is that fair? It seems to me the competition should never have been allowed to be held at an airport that can not handle the requirements of the 18 m class. Hopefully this is the last time Seminole is awarded a FAI class competition.

Andrej, while I understand your passion and desire to 'level the playing field' IMHO safety has to be number one priority. A 10/lb per sq ft wing loading does you no good if you are on the ground in a field or the swamp around Seminole because the tow plane had to release you for their own safety.

In 2016 at Nephi we intentionally launched the open class last each day for safety. Even with 5,000 feet plus of usable runway getting 800 Kg open class gliders in the air safely was on the margin even with the most powerful tow planes. We took heat for it but it is just the right thing to do. Yes it caused shorter tasks some days but we had 100% safety record for launches and that was our goal and priority.

Your statement 'It seems to me the competition should never have been allowed to be held at an airport that can not handle the requirements of the 18 m class. Hopefully this is the last time Seminole is awarded a FAI class competition.' is short sighted and selfish. The number of locations that are able and willing to host contests is shrinking across the US. IMO compromises, like a weight limit, are acceptable for some locations.

With that said, I do believe that the SSA contest committee and site selection committee should have caught this sooner (folks that volunteer on these committees have and do fly out of Seminole) and had this information available to interested pilots at time of sanctioning and/or registration.

Ron Gleason

[[email protected]]

If 1150lb is what is decided as the max safe tow weight, then you could set the wing loading limit to highest entered wing area glider / 1150lb.

Handicap on wingloading, advantage the JS1. Handicap on weight, advantage the ASG29.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 8:59:44 AM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Friday, 9 March 2018 09:35:06 UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > "The approach you suggest would have conferred an advantage to the specific glider you are flying that is not part of the philosophy or rules of the FAI 18M class"
> >
> > Andy, I can't believe what you wrote, did you read it before you sent it? Did you write it in the name of the Rules committee or is it your own opinion?
> >
> > What advantage would I get, if I fly at the same wing loading as an ASG-29?
> > You must be kidding the 18M class weight restriction is 1320 lb. By limiting the weight you are handicapping me more than you are handicapping an ASG-29. On the east coast the optimum wing loading is around 10 lb/sq foot. You let the ASG-29 fly with that wing loading while handicapping me to 9 lb/sq foot. If not for the restriction I would be able to fly at the optimal wing loading. How is that fair? It seems to me the competition should never have been allowed to be held at an airport that can not handle the requirements of the 18 m class. Hopefully this is the last time Seminole is awarded a FAI class competition.
>
> Andrej, while I understand your passion and desire to 'level the playing field' IMHO safety has to be number one priority. A 10/lb per sq ft wing loading does you no good if you are on the ground in a field or the swamp around Seminole because the tow plane had to release you for their own safety..
>
> In 2016 at Nephi we intentionally launched the open class last each day for safety. Even with 5,000 feet plus of usable runway getting 800 Kg open class gliders in the air safely was on the margin even with the most powerful tow planes. We took heat for it but it is just the right thing to do. Yes it caused shorter tasks some days but we had 100% safety record for launches and that was our goal and priority.
>
> Your statement 'It seems to me the competition should never have been allowed to be held at an airport that can not handle the requirements of the 18 m class. Hopefully this is the last time Seminole is awarded a FAI class competition.' is short sighted and selfish. The number of locations that are able and willing to host contests is shrinking across the US. IMO compromises, like a weight limit, are acceptable for some locations.
>
> With that said, I do believe that the SSA contest committee and site selection committee should have caught this sooner (folks that volunteer on these committees have and do fly out of Seminole) and had this information available to interested pilots at time of sanctioning and/or registration.
>
> Ron Gleason

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:08:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> If 1150lb is what is decided as the max safe tow weight, then you could set the wing loading limit to highest entered wing area glider / 1150lb.
>
> Handicap on wingloading, advantage the JS1. Handicap on weight, advantage the ASG29.
>
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Absolutely, that is how they should have done this to be fair.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:35:06 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> "The approach you suggest would have conferred an advantage to the specific glider you are flying that is not part of the philosophy or rules of the FAI 18M class"
>
> Andy, I can't believe what you wrote, did you read it before you sent it? Did you write it in the name of the Rules committee or is it your own opinion?
>
> What advantage would I get, if I fly at the same wing loading as an ASG-29?
> You must be kidding the 18M class weight restriction is 1320 lb. By limiting the weight you are handicapping me more than you are handicapping an ASG-29. On the east coast the optimum wing loading is around 10 lb/sq foot. You let the ASG-29 fly with that wing loading while handicapping me to 9 lb/sq foot. If not for the restriction I would be able to fly at the optimal wing loading. How is that fair? It seems to me the competition should never have been allowed to be held at an airport that can not handle the requirements of the 18 m class. Hopefully this is the last time Seminole is awarded a FAI class competition.

Hi Andrzej,

Thanks for your thoughts.

This was exhaustively analyzed and debated over a period of weeks, not a knee-jerk decision. I did supporting analysis, but the waiver request was from the contest organizers and approved by the SSA Board. Feel free to blame me as I support the approach taken and I meant exactly what I said above.

There were three approachers considered:

1) Fixed wing loading
2) Fixed MTOW
3) Fixed % reduction in MTOW from max certified

The criteria were basically twofold:
1) Address as directly as possible the concerns related to takeoff distance over an obstacle
2) Minimize any alteration to the existing relative performance differences across glider types - that is, minimize handicapping by glider type.

The maximum certified wing loading of gliders flying in 18M Class under the rules are:

HpH 304S - 10.4 lbs/sf
ASH-31Mi - 10.8 lbs/sf
JS1C-18 - 11.0 lbs/sf
Ventus 3 - 11.3 lbs/sf
ASG-29 - 12.3 lbs/sf
JS3 - 12.4 lbs/sf (none signed up as of this writing)

Without any weight restrictions, the ASH-31 and JS1 would fly at close to 1..5 lbs lower maximum loading that the ASG-29 and JS3 and about half a pound lighter than the Ventus 3. A percent weight limit preserves the proportionate max wing loading differences but reduces the absolute differences by the amount of the % reduction. Setting a weight limit closes that gap to closer to 1 lb/sf and a wing loading limit totally eliminates it - effectively handicapping the higher wing loading gliders. To answer your specific question, handicapping most of the gliders other than yours gives you a benefit that you wouldn't otherwise have. I can see why you would prefer this as it would help you compete under strong conditions in particular.

However, there is nothing in the letter or the spirit of the rules governing 18M class (unlike Sports Class or SGP racing) that says we should handicap the performance of gliders - quite the opposite. People in non-handicapped classes purchase gliders for the specific design and performance tradeoffs of that design and have a right to expect that those choices wouldn't be deliberately diluted through changes in the rules. Motor gliders present some unique challenges because the designs represent an inherent tradeoff in wing loading range to accommodate a motor. That's the choice you make when you buy a motorglider - there are some benefits and some tradeoffs.

The other point is a wing loading limit doesn't purely address the takeoff distance challenge. It allows gliders with more wing area to fly at a higher MTOW, making them less safe in terms of takeoff distance due to higher rolling friction on soft ground, slower acceleration under the same thrust, etc. I can take you through the calculations if you like. Restricting takeoff weight is the clearly preferred safety option - it most directly addresses the takeoff distance challenge and does a decent job not changing the competitive capability differences across gliders (actually a % MTOW reduction does slightly better, but does less well on simply addressing the takeoff distance requirement).

I can see why you would have preferred a wing loading limit as it would have benefitted you by reducing the wing loading gap you'd otherwise have faced versus other gliders, but it's not the job of the Rules Committee (or the organizers or the SSA Board) to change that differential for you - particularly if it does a less good job at addressing the primary safety objective..

These issues are not simple to address as there are many moving parts. We attempt to maintain a safe and fair competitive environment consistent with the letter and spirit of the rules, but clearly different alternatives to addressing specific challenges will affect different gliders and pilots differently. Our attempt here is to minimize the changes in the competitive differences between gliders. I'm very comfortable this does the best job of all the alternatives, none of which is 100% perfect. The perfect solution is a longer runway, but that wasn't a realistic alternative.

Andy

[Dave Nadler]

First, make no mistake:
Higher WEIGHT gliders at this site are a real problem.
In addition to length issue, the runway is soft sandy grass.
Gliders with high weights and sometimes smaller tire footprint, well...

Grand Prix rules say equalize all wing loading, based on the highest
minimum wing-loading. For Florida Grand Prix that's me at 9.5 lb/ft2.

I suggested we do the same for 18m nationals; this was not the decision taken.
In any case Florida weather is VERY unlikely to reward higher wing-loadings!
This is not Hobbs!

Stop fussing and come on down Andrzej!

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:35:06 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > "The approach you suggest would have conferred an advantage to the specific glider you are flying that is not part of the philosophy or rules of the FAI 18M class"
> >
> > Andy, I can't believe what you wrote, did you read it before you sent it? Did you write it in the name of the Rules committee or is it your own opinion?
> >
> > What advantage would I get, if I fly at the same wing loading as an ASG-29?
> > You must be kidding the 18M class weight restriction is 1320 lb. By limiting the weight you are handicapping me more than you are handicapping an ASG-29. On the east coast the optimum wing loading is around 10 lb/sq foot. You let the ASG-29 fly with that wing loading while handicapping me to 9 lb/sq foot. If not for the restriction I would be able to fly at the optimal wing loading. How is that fair? It seems to me the competition should never have been allowed to be held at an airport that can not handle the requirements of the 18 m class. Hopefully this is the last time Seminole is awarded a FAI class competition.
>
> Hi Andrzej,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> This was exhaustively analyzed and debated over a period of weeks, not a knee-jerk decision. I did supporting analysis, but the waiver request was from the contest organizers and approved by the SSA Board. Feel free to blame me as I support the approach taken and I meant exactly what I said above.
>
> There were three approachers considered:
>
> 1) Fixed wing loading
> 2) Fixed MTOW
> 3) Fixed % reduction in MTOW from max certified
>
> The criteria were basically twofold:
> 1) Address as directly as possible the concerns related to takeoff distance over an obstacle
> 2) Minimize any alteration to the existing relative performance differences across glider types - that is, minimize handicapping by glider type.
>
> The maximum certified wing loading of gliders flying in 18M Class under the rules are:
>
> HpH 304S - 10.4 lbs/sf
> ASH-31Mi - 10.8 lbs/sf
> JS1C-18 - 11.0 lbs/sf
> Ventus 3 - 11.3 lbs/sf
> ASG-29 - 12.3 lbs/sf
> JS3 - 12.4 lbs/sf (none signed up as of this writing)
>
> Without any weight restrictions, the ASH-31 and JS1 would fly at close to 1.5 lbs lower maximum loading that the ASG-29 and JS3 and about half a pound lighter than the Ventus 3. A percent weight limit preserves the proportionate max wing loading differences but reduces the absolute differences by the amount of the % reduction. Setting a weight limit closes that gap to closer to 1 lb/sf and a wing loading limit totally eliminates it - effectively handicapping the higher wing loading gliders. To answer your specific question, handicapping most of the gliders other than yours gives you a benefit that you wouldn't otherwise have. I can see why you would prefer this as it would help you compete under strong conditions in particular.
>
> However, there is nothing in the letter or the spirit of the rules governing 18M class (unlike Sports Class or SGP racing) that says we should handicap the performance of gliders - quite the opposite. People in non-handicapped classes purchase gliders for the specific design and performance tradeoffs of that design and have a right to expect that those choices wouldn't be deliberately diluted through changes in the rules. Motor gliders present some unique challenges because the designs represent an inherent tradeoff in wing loading range to accommodate a motor. That's the choice you make when you buy a motorglider - there are some benefits and some tradeoffs.
>
> The other point is a wing loading limit doesn't purely address the takeoff distance challenge. It allows gliders with more wing area to fly at a higher MTOW, making them less safe in terms of takeoff distance due to higher rolling friction on soft ground, slower acceleration under the same thrust, etc. I can take you through the calculations if you like. Restricting takeoff weight is the clearly preferred safety option - it most directly addresses the takeoff distance challenge and does a decent job not changing the competitive capability differences across gliders (actually a % MTOW reduction does slightly better, but does less well on simply addressing the takeoff distance requirement).
>
> I can see why you would have preferred a wing loading limit as it would have benefitted you by reducing the wing loading gap you'd otherwise have faced versus other gliders, but it's not the job of the Rules Committee (or the organizers or the SSA Board) to change that differential for you - particularly if it does a less good job at addressing the primary safety objective.
>
> These issues are not simple to address as there are many moving parts. We attempt to maintain a safe and fair competitive environment consistent with the letter and spirit of the rules, but clearly different alternatives to addressing specific challenges will affect different gliders and pilots differently. Our attempt here is to minimize the changes in the competitive differences between gliders. I'm very comfortable this does the best job of all the alternatives, none of which is 100% perfect. The perfect solution is a longer runway, but that wasn't a realistic alternative.
>
> Andy

Andy, your reasoning is completely flawed because on the east coast no one flies with wing loading of 12. You so called solution allows some glider to fly at optimum wing loading for the east coast while handicapping higher wing area gliders. I hope you can understand that. If the contest was held in Uvalde your reasoning would have been justified but not at the location the contest is going to be held. I hope you can admit this.

> The other point is a wing loading limit doesn't purely address the takeoff distance challenge. It allows gliders with more wing area to fly at a higher MTOW, making them less safe in terms of takeoff distance due to higher rolling friction on soft ground, slower acceleration under the same thrust, etc. I can take you through the calculations if you like.

Again, you could take the weight 1150 divide by the highest wing area glider and establish weight for each of the 4 or 5 types that would never exceed 1150.

> I can see why you would have preferred a wing loading limit as it would have benefitted you by reducing the wing loading gap you'd otherwise have faced versus other gliders

Wrong again! I was not disadvantaged on the east coast because I could not use a higher wing loading on the east coast anyway. Once again no one flies on the east coast with wing loading of 12. Your west coast 18,000 cloud bases experience with wide thermals does not translate well to making rules on the east coast.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:47:40 PM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
> First, make no mistake:
> Higher WEIGHT gliders at this site are a real problem.
> In addition to length issue, the runway is soft sandy grass.
> Gliders with high weights and sometimes smaller tire footprint, well...
>
> Grand Prix rules say equalize all wing loading, based on the highest
> minimum wing-loading. For Florida Grand Prix that's me at 9.5 lb/ft2.
>
> I suggested we do the same for 18m nationals; this was not the decision taken.
> In any case Florida weather is VERY unlikely to reward higher wing-loadings!
> This is not Hobbs!
>
> Stop fussing and come on down Andrzej!

Dave, unfortunately I am not going to endorse this decision with my participation. To me it is a fairness issue. Have this rule implemented on the west coast and I will not argue on the east coast this rule clearly favours some gliders over others.

[MNLou]

Andy -

One option you didn't list is a "dry contest". Just curious as to why that wasn't explored.

Thanks!

Lou

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:50:41 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:35:06 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > "The approach you suggest would have conferred an advantage to the specific glider you are flying that is not part of the philosophy or rules of the FAI 18M class"
> > >
> > > Andy, I can't believe what you wrote, did you read it before you sent it? Did you write it in the name of the Rules committee or is it your own opinion?
> > >
> > > What advantage would I get, if I fly at the same wing loading as an ASG-29?
> > > You must be kidding the 18M class weight restriction is 1320 lb. By limiting the weight you are handicapping me more than you are handicapping an ASG-29. On the east coast the optimum wing loading is around 10 lb/sq foot. You let the ASG-29 fly with that wing loading while handicapping me to 9 lb/sq foot. If not for the restriction I would be able to fly at the optimal wing loading. How is that fair? It seems to me the competition should never have been allowed to be held at an airport that can not handle the requirements of the 18 m class. Hopefully this is the last time Seminole is awarded a FAI class competition.
> >
> > Hi Andrzej,
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts.
> >
> > This was exhaustively analyzed and debated over a period of weeks, not a knee-jerk decision. I did supporting analysis, but the waiver request was from the contest organizers and approved by the SSA Board. Feel free to blame me as I support the approach taken and I meant exactly what I said above.
> >
> > There were three approachers considered:
> >
> > 1) Fixed wing loading
> > 2) Fixed MTOW
> > 3) Fixed % reduction in MTOW from max certified
> >
> > The criteria were basically twofold:
> > 1) Address as directly as possible the concerns related to takeoff distance over an obstacle
> > 2) Minimize any alteration to the existing relative performance differences across glider types - that is, minimize handicapping by glider type.
> >
> > The maximum certified wing loading of gliders flying in 18M Class under the rules are:
> >
> > HpH 304S - 10.4 lbs/sf
> > ASH-31Mi - 10.8 lbs/sf
> > JS1C-18 - 11.0 lbs/sf
> > Ventus 3 - 11.3 lbs/sf
> > ASG-29 - 12.3 lbs/sf
> > JS3 - 12.4 lbs/sf (none signed up as of this writing)
> >
> > Without any weight restrictions, the ASH-31 and JS1 would fly at close to 1.5 lbs lower maximum loading that the ASG-29 and JS3 and about half a pound lighter than the Ventus 3. A percent weight limit preserves the proportionate max wing loading differences but reduces the absolute differences by the amount of the % reduction. Setting a weight limit closes that gap to closer to 1 lb/sf and a wing loading limit totally eliminates it - effectively handicapping the higher wing loading gliders. To answer your specific question, handicapping most of the gliders other than yours gives you a benefit that you wouldn't otherwise have. I can see why you would prefer this as it would help you compete under strong conditions in particular.
> >
> > However, there is nothing in the letter or the spirit of the rules governing 18M class (unlike Sports Class or SGP racing) that says we should handicap the performance of gliders - quite the opposite. People in non-handicapped classes purchase gliders for the specific design and performance tradeoffs of that design and have a right to expect that those choices wouldn't be deliberately diluted through changes in the rules. Motor gliders present some unique challenges because the designs represent an inherent tradeoff in wing loading range to accommodate a motor. That's the choice you make when you buy a motorglider - there are some benefits and some tradeoffs.
> >
> > The other point is a wing loading limit doesn't purely address the takeoff distance challenge. It allows gliders with more wing area to fly at a higher MTOW, making them less safe in terms of takeoff distance due to higher rolling friction on soft ground, slower acceleration under the same thrust, etc. I can take you through the calculations if you like. Restricting takeoff weight is the clearly preferred safety option - it most directly addresses the takeoff distance challenge and does a decent job not changing the competitive capability differences across gliders (actually a % MTOW reduction does slightly better, but does less well on simply addressing the takeoff distance requirement).
> >
> > I can see why you would have preferred a wing loading limit as it would have benefitted you by reducing the wing loading gap you'd otherwise have faced versus other gliders, but it's not the job of the Rules Committee (or the organizers or the SSA Board) to change that differential for you - particularly if it does a less good job at addressing the primary safety objective.
> >
> > These issues are not simple to address as there are many moving parts. We attempt to maintain a safe and fair competitive environment consistent with the letter and spirit of the rules, but clearly different alternatives to addressing specific challenges will affect different gliders and pilots differently. Our attempt here is to minimize the changes in the competitive differences between gliders. I'm very comfortable this does the best job of all the alternatives, none of which is 100% perfect. The perfect solution is a longer runway, but that wasn't a realistic alternative.
> >
> > Andy
>
> Andy, your reasoning is completely flawed because on the east coast no one flies with wing loading of 12. You so called solution allows some glider to fly at optimum wing loading for the east coast while handicapping higher wing area gliders. I hope you can understand that. If the contest was held in Uvalde your reasoning would have been justified but not at the location the contest is going to be held. I hope you can admit this.
>
> > The other point is a wing loading limit doesn't purely address the takeoff distance challenge. It allows gliders with more wing area to fly at a higher MTOW, making them less safe in terms of takeoff distance due to higher rolling friction on soft ground, slower acceleration under the same thrust, etc. I can take you through the calculations if you like.
>
> Again, you could take the weight 1150 divide by the highest wing area glider and establish weight for each of the 4 or 5 types that would never exceed 1150.
>
> > I can see why you would have preferred a wing loading limit as it would have benefitted you by reducing the wing loading gap you'd otherwise have faced versus other gliders
>
> Wrong again! I was not disadvantaged on the east coast because I could not use a higher wing loading on the east coast anyway. Once again no one flies on the east coast with wing loading of 12. Your west coast 18,000 cloud bases experience with wide thermals does not translate well to making rules on the east coast.

Andrzej,

Your proposed solution is to set the takeoff weight for your glider suitable to meet the takeoff requirement and then put an additional (and unnecessary to the safety goal) weight reduction on other gliders with less wing area. It's not in the spirit or letter of the rules to force other gliders down to an artificially reduced wing loading. If they can take off at a higher wing loading and you can't because your glider is heavier, it's not up to the rules to equalize that any more than it is the job of the rules to equalize it in a situation without a runway limitation.

It did not escape anyone that on any given day the optimal wing loading may be anywhere across a range of possibilities depending on conditions - or that average thermal strength is generally lower in the east than the west. The issue is should we impose an additional wing loading reduction on other gliders with less wing area than the heaviest ones flying even though there is no reason to do it from a takeoff perspective?

I appreciate that you may have the view that the optimal wing loading in Florida is no more than 9 lbs/sf and that suits you and your glider, but there are many other gliders and many other pilots as well. For instance a JS3 would be forced to take off 200 pounds lighter than an ASH-31mi to meet 9 lbs/sf. When faced with the requirement of limiting weight for safety purposes, there's simply no rationale in the rules for imposing additional restrictions beyond what's required for safety.

If you'd like to introduce a proposal that we impose a maximum wing loading in 18M class as a general rule we could certainly survey the pilots and see if there is broad agreement, but it's not in the rules now. These decision need to be made based on a consistent set of principles, not what suits one person or another or one glider or another.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:20:04 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
> Andy -
>
> One option you didn't list is a "dry contest". Just curious as to why that wasn't explored.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Lou

Thanks Lou,

I apologize, that did come up and was considered. It created the most disruption of all the options. The goal was to minimize the amount of change from a contest with no weight restriction.

Andy

[Dave Nadler]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:20:04 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
> One option you didn't list is a "dry contest".
> Just curious as to why that wasn't explored.

That would be quite unfair to gliders with a low minimum wing-loading...

Of course with my machines I wouldn't know about low wing-loading ;-)

[Tango Eight]

Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.

Rules Committee should reconsider this.

T8

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:35:06 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > "The approach you suggest would have conferred an advantage to the specific glider you are flying that is not part of the philosophy or rules of the FAI 18M class"
> >
> > Andy, I can't believe what you wrote, did you read it before you sent it? Did you write it in the name of the Rules committee or is it your own opinion?
> >
> > What advantage would I get, if I fly at the same wing loading as an ASG-29?
> > You must be kidding the 18M class weight restriction is 1320 lb. By limiting the weight you are handicapping me more than you are handicapping an ASG-29. On the east coast the optimum wing loading is around 10 lb/sq foot. You let the ASG-29 fly with that wing loading while handicapping me to 9 lb/sq foot. If not for the restriction I would be able to fly at the optimal wing loading. How is that fair? It seems to me the competition should never have been allowed to be held at an airport that can not handle the requirements of the 18 m class. Hopefully this is the last time Seminole is awarded a FAI class competition.
>
> Hi Andrzej,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> This was exhaustively analyzed and debated over a period of weeks, not a knee-jerk decision. I did supporting analysis, but the waiver request was from the contest organizers and approved by the SSA Board. Feel free to blame me as I support the approach taken and I meant exactly what I said above.
>
> There were three approachers considered:
>
> 1) Fixed wing loading
> 2) Fixed MTOW
> 3) Fixed % reduction in MTOW from max certified
>
> The criteria were basically twofold:
> 1) Address as directly as possible the concerns related to takeoff distance over an obstacle
> 2) Minimize any alteration to the existing relative performance differences across glider types - that is, minimize handicapping by glider type.
>
> The maximum certified wing loading of gliders flying in 18M Class under the rules are:
>
> HpH 304S - 10.4 lbs/sf
> ASH-31Mi - 10.8 lbs/sf
> JS1C-18 - 11.0 lbs/sf
> Ventus 3 - 11.3 lbs/sf
> ASG-29 - 12.3 lbs/sf
> JS3 - 12.4 lbs/sf (none signed up as of this writing)
>
> Without any weight restrictions, the ASH-31 and JS1 would fly at close to 1.5 lbs lower maximum loading that the ASG-29 and JS3 and about half a pound lighter than the Ventus 3. A percent weight limit preserves the proportionate max wing loading differences but reduces the absolute differences by the amount of the % reduction. Setting a weight limit closes that gap to closer to 1 lb/sf and a wing loading limit totally eliminates it - effectively handicapping the higher wing loading gliders. To answer your specific question, handicapping most of the gliders other than yours gives you a benefit that you wouldn't otherwise have. I can see why you would prefer this as it would help you compete under strong conditions in particular.
>
> However, there is nothing in the letter or the spirit of the rules governing 18M class (unlike Sports Class or SGP racing) that says we should handicap the performance of gliders - quite the opposite. People in non-handicapped classes purchase gliders for the specific design and performance tradeoffs of that design and have a right to expect that those choices wouldn't be deliberately diluted through changes in the rules. Motor gliders present some unique challenges because the designs represent an inherent tradeoff in wing loading range to accommodate a motor. That's the choice you make when you buy a motorglider - there are some benefits and some tradeoffs.
>
> The other point is a wing loading limit doesn't purely address the takeoff distance challenge. It allows gliders with more wing area to fly at a higher MTOW, making them less safe in terms of takeoff distance due to higher rolling friction on soft ground, slower acceleration under the same thrust, etc. I can take you through the calculations if you like. Restricting takeoff weight is the clearly preferred safety option - it most directly addresses the takeoff distance challenge and does a decent job not changing the competitive capability differences across gliders (actually a % MTOW reduction does slightly better, but does less well on simply addressing the takeoff distance requirement).
>
> I can see why you would have preferred a wing loading limit as it would have benefitted you by reducing the wing loading gap you'd otherwise have faced versus other gliders, but it's not the job of the Rules Committee (or the organizers or the SSA Board) to change that differential for you - particularly if it does a less good job at addressing the primary safety objective.
>
> These issues are not simple to address as there are many moving parts. We attempt to maintain a safe and fair competitive environment consistent with the letter and spirit of the rules, but clearly different alternatives to addressing specific challenges will affect different gliders and pilots differently. Our attempt here is to minimize the changes in the competitive differences between gliders. I'm very comfortable this does the best job of all the alternatives, none of which is 100% perfect. The perfect solution is a longer runway, but that wasn't a realistic alternative.
>
> Andy

For Andy, 9B, the max. weight of the ASG 29 18 Meter is 1322 lbs(600 kg). Then divided by 113 sq. ft. which gives a 11.7 lbs sq. ft. loading. The 12..2 lbs you list is for ASG 29/15 Meter max. wing loading(1202 divided by 99 sq. ft.)

Thanks for your work on this as a safe and fair contest is what we need. Why some may ask why at Seminole? No one else, I was told, was interested in the contest as its an east coast contest this year.

First practice day most few, it was weak, several landouts, but most home. Check OGN network for live tracking.

Best. #711.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:31:24 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:50:41 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:35:06 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > > "The approach you suggest would have conferred an advantage to the specific glider you are flying that is not part of the philosophy or rules of the FAI 18M class"
> > > >
> > > > Andy, I can't believe what you wrote, did you read it before you sent it? Did you write it in the name of the Rules committee or is it your own opinion?
> > > >
> > > > What advantage would I get, if I fly at the same wing loading as an ASG-29?
> > > > You must be kidding the 18M class weight restriction is 1320 lb. By limiting the weight you are handicapping me more than you are handicapping an ASG-29. On the east coast the optimum wing loading is around 10 lb/sq foot. You let the ASG-29 fly with that wing loading while handicapping me to 9 lb/sq foot. If not for the restriction I would be able to fly at the optimal wing loading. How is that fair? It seems to me the competition should never have been allowed to be held at an airport that can not handle the requirements of the 18 m class. Hopefully this is the last time Seminole is awarded a FAI class competition.
> > >
> > > Hi Andrzej,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your thoughts.
> > >
> > > This was exhaustively analyzed and debated over a period of weeks, not a knee-jerk decision. I did supporting analysis, but the waiver request was from the contest organizers and approved by the SSA Board. Feel free to blame me as I support the approach taken and I meant exactly what I said above.
> > >
> > > There were three approachers considered:
> > >
> > > 1) Fixed wing loading
> > > 2) Fixed MTOW
> > > 3) Fixed % reduction in MTOW from max certified
> > >
> > > The criteria were basically twofold:
> > > 1) Address as directly as possible the concerns related to takeoff distance over an obstacle
> > > 2) Minimize any alteration to the existing relative performance differences across glider types - that is, minimize handicapping by glider type.
> > >
> > > The maximum certified wing loading of gliders flying in 18M Class under the rules are:
> > >
> > > HpH 304S - 10.4 lbs/sf
> > > ASH-31Mi - 10.8 lbs/sf
> > > JS1C-18 - 11.0 lbs/sf
> > > Ventus 3 - 11.3 lbs/sf
> > > ASG-29 - 12.3 lbs/sf
> > > JS3 - 12.4 lbs/sf (none signed up as of this writing)
> > >
> > > Without any weight restrictions, the ASH-31 and JS1 would fly at close to 1.5 lbs lower maximum loading that the ASG-29 and JS3 and about half a pound lighter than the Ventus 3. A percent weight limit preserves the proportionate max wing loading differences but reduces the absolute differences by the amount of the % reduction. Setting a weight limit closes that gap to closer to 1 lb/sf and a wing loading limit totally eliminates it - effectively handicapping the higher wing loading gliders. To answer your specific question, handicapping most of the gliders other than yours gives you a benefit that you wouldn't otherwise have. I can see why you would prefer this as it would help you compete under strong conditions in particular.
> > >
> > > However, there is nothing in the letter or the spirit of the rules governing 18M class (unlike Sports Class or SGP racing) that says we should handicap the performance of gliders - quite the opposite. People in non-handicapped classes purchase gliders for the specific design and performance tradeoffs of that design and have a right to expect that those choices wouldn't be deliberately diluted through changes in the rules. Motor gliders present some unique challenges because the designs represent an inherent tradeoff in wing loading range to accommodate a motor. That's the choice you make when you buy a motorglider - there are some benefits and some tradeoffs.
> > >
> > > The other point is a wing loading limit doesn't purely address the takeoff distance challenge. It allows gliders with more wing area to fly at a higher MTOW, making them less safe in terms of takeoff distance due to higher rolling friction on soft ground, slower acceleration under the same thrust, etc. I can take you through the calculations if you like. Restricting takeoff weight is the clearly preferred safety option - it most directly addresses the takeoff distance challenge and does a decent job not changing the competitive capability differences across gliders (actually a % MTOW reduction does slightly better, but does less well on simply addressing the takeoff distance requirement).
> > >
> > > I can see why you would have preferred a wing loading limit as it would have benefitted you by reducing the wing loading gap you'd otherwise have faced versus other gliders, but it's not the job of the Rules Committee (or the organizers or the SSA Board) to change that differential for you - particularly if it does a less good job at addressing the primary safety objective.
> > >
> > > These issues are not simple to address as there are many moving parts.. We attempt to maintain a safe and fair competitive environment consistent with the letter and spirit of the rules, but clearly different alternatives to addressing specific challenges will affect different gliders and pilots differently. Our attempt here is to minimize the changes in the competitive differences between gliders. I'm very comfortable this does the best job of all the alternatives, none of which is 100% perfect. The perfect solution is a longer runway, but that wasn't a realistic alternative.
> > >
> > > Andy
> >
> > Andy, your reasoning is completely flawed because on the east coast no one flies with wing loading of 12. You so called solution allows some glider to fly at optimum wing loading for the east coast while handicapping higher wing area gliders. I hope you can understand that. If the contest was held in Uvalde your reasoning would have been justified but not at the location the contest is going to be held. I hope you can admit this.
> >
> > > The other point is a wing loading limit doesn't purely address the takeoff distance challenge. It allows gliders with more wing area to fly at a higher MTOW, making them less safe in terms of takeoff distance due to higher rolling friction on soft ground, slower acceleration under the same thrust, etc. I can take you through the calculations if you like.
> >
> > Again, you could take the weight 1150 divide by the highest wing area glider and establish weight for each of the 4 or 5 types that would never exceed 1150.
> >
> > > I can see why you would have preferred a wing loading limit as it would have benefitted you by reducing the wing loading gap you'd otherwise have faced versus other gliders
> >
> > Wrong again! I was not disadvantaged on the east coast because I could not use a higher wing loading on the east coast anyway. Once again no one flies on the east coast with wing loading of 12. Your west coast 18,000 cloud bases experience with wide thermals does not translate well to making rules on the east coast.
>
> Andrzej,
>
> Your proposed solution is to set the takeoff weight for your glider suitable to meet the takeoff requirement and then put an additional (and unnecessary to the safety goal) weight reduction on other gliders with less wing area. It's not in the spirit or letter of the rules to force other gliders down to an artificially reduced wing loading. If they can take off at a higher wing loading and you can't because your glider is heavier, it's not up to the rules to equalize that any more than it is the job of the rules to equalize it in a situation without a runway limitation.
>
> It did not escape anyone that on any given day the optimal wing loading may be anywhere across a range of possibilities depending on conditions - or that average thermal strength is generally lower in the east than the west.. The issue is should we impose an additional wing loading reduction on other gliders with less wing area than the heaviest ones flying even though there is no reason to do it from a takeoff perspective?
>
> I appreciate that you may have the view that the optimal wing loading in Florida is no more than 9 lbs/sf and that suits you and your glider, but there are many other gliders and many other pilots as well. For instance a JS3 would be forced to take off 200 pounds lighter than an ASH-31mi to meet 9 lbs/sf. When faced with the requirement of limiting weight for safety purposes, there's simply no rationale in the rules for imposing additional restrictions beyond what's required for safety.
>
> If you'd like to introduce a proposal that we impose a maximum wing loading in 18M class as a general rule we could certainly survey the pilots and see if there is broad agreement, but it's not in the rules now. These decision need to be made based on a consistent set of principles, not what suits one person or another or one glider or another.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

Andy, so far you failed to understand the other side of the argument. You are saying "It's not in the spirit or letter of the rules to force other gliders down to an artificially reduced wing loading." I am asking, is it in the spirit of the rules to force my glider to an artificially low wing loading? I hope not, but that is what you are doing. If you can force me to such unreasonably low wing loading why can't your force the other gliders.

You are trying to preserve the perceived advantage that ASG-29 would have due to its ability to load to around 12 lb/sq foot. The problem with that is that at the location of this contest this advantage does not exist, so you in fact legislated it.

I am very surprised that this decision was made without polling pilots or any discussion. The rules only talk about dry contest or FAI limit. I did not think this option even existed.

Andrzej
One less pilot flying contests

[Dave Nadler]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:42:37 PM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage
> to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

Only if we have pretty strong weather. Let's hope, but...
I'm not going to complain too much about being limited to 9.5!

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:44:21 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:35:06 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > "The approach you suggest would have conferred an advantage to the specific glider you are flying that is not part of the philosophy or rules of the FAI 18M class"
> > >
> > > Andy, I can't believe what you wrote, did you read it before you sent it? Did you write it in the name of the Rules committee or is it your own opinion?
> > >
> > > What advantage would I get, if I fly at the same wing loading as an ASG-29?
> > > You must be kidding the 18M class weight restriction is 1320 lb. By limiting the weight you are handicapping me more than you are handicapping an ASG-29. On the east coast the optimum wing loading is around 10 lb/sq foot. You let the ASG-29 fly with that wing loading while handicapping me to 9 lb/sq foot. If not for the restriction I would be able to fly at the optimal wing loading. How is that fair? It seems to me the competition should never have been allowed to be held at an airport that can not handle the requirements of the 18 m class. Hopefully this is the last time Seminole is awarded a FAI class competition.
> >
> > Hi Andrzej,
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts.
> >
> > This was exhaustively analyzed and debated over a period of weeks, not a knee-jerk decision. I did supporting analysis, but the waiver request was from the contest organizers and approved by the SSA Board. Feel free to blame me as I support the approach taken and I meant exactly what I said above.
> >
> > There were three approachers considered:
> >
> > 1) Fixed wing loading
> > 2) Fixed MTOW
> > 3) Fixed % reduction in MTOW from max certified
> >
> > The criteria were basically twofold:
> > 1) Address as directly as possible the concerns related to takeoff distance over an obstacle
> > 2) Minimize any alteration to the existing relative performance differences across glider types - that is, minimize handicapping by glider type.
> >
> > The maximum certified wing loading of gliders flying in 18M Class under the rules are:
> >
> > HpH 304S - 10.4 lbs/sf
> > ASH-31Mi - 10.8 lbs/sf
> > JS1C-18 - 11.0 lbs/sf
> > Ventus 3 - 11.3 lbs/sf
> > ASG-29 - 12.3 lbs/sf
> > JS3 - 12.4 lbs/sf (none signed up as of this writing)
> >
> > Without any weight restrictions, the ASH-31 and JS1 would fly at close to 1.5 lbs lower maximum loading that the ASG-29 and JS3 and about half a pound lighter than the Ventus 3. A percent weight limit preserves the proportionate max wing loading differences but reduces the absolute differences by the amount of the % reduction. Setting a weight limit closes that gap to closer to 1 lb/sf and a wing loading limit totally eliminates it - effectively handicapping the higher wing loading gliders. To answer your specific question, handicapping most of the gliders other than yours gives you a benefit that you wouldn't otherwise have. I can see why you would prefer this as it would help you compete under strong conditions in particular.
> >
> > However, there is nothing in the letter or the spirit of the rules governing 18M class (unlike Sports Class or SGP racing) that says we should handicap the performance of gliders - quite the opposite. People in non-handicapped classes purchase gliders for the specific design and performance tradeoffs of that design and have a right to expect that those choices wouldn't be deliberately diluted through changes in the rules. Motor gliders present some unique challenges because the designs represent an inherent tradeoff in wing loading range to accommodate a motor. That's the choice you make when you buy a motorglider - there are some benefits and some tradeoffs.
> >
> > The other point is a wing loading limit doesn't purely address the takeoff distance challenge. It allows gliders with more wing area to fly at a higher MTOW, making them less safe in terms of takeoff distance due to higher rolling friction on soft ground, slower acceleration under the same thrust, etc. I can take you through the calculations if you like. Restricting takeoff weight is the clearly preferred safety option - it most directly addresses the takeoff distance challenge and does a decent job not changing the competitive capability differences across gliders (actually a % MTOW reduction does slightly better, but does less well on simply addressing the takeoff distance requirement).
> >
> > I can see why you would have preferred a wing loading limit as it would have benefitted you by reducing the wing loading gap you'd otherwise have faced versus other gliders, but it's not the job of the Rules Committee (or the organizers or the SSA Board) to change that differential for you - particularly if it does a less good job at addressing the primary safety objective.
> >
> > These issues are not simple to address as there are many moving parts. We attempt to maintain a safe and fair competitive environment consistent with the letter and spirit of the rules, but clearly different alternatives to addressing specific challenges will affect different gliders and pilots differently. Our attempt here is to minimize the changes in the competitive differences between gliders. I'm very comfortable this does the best job of all the alternatives, none of which is 100% perfect. The perfect solution is a longer runway, but that wasn't a realistic alternative.
> >
> > Andy
>
> For Andy, 9B, the max. weight of the ASG 29 18 Meter is 1322 lbs(600 kg). Then divided by 113 sq. ft. which gives a 11.7 lbs sq. ft. loading. The 12.2 lbs you list is for ASG 29/15 Meter max. wing loading(1202 divided by 99 sq. ft.)
>
> Thanks for your work on this as a safe and fair contest is what we need. Why some may ask why at Seminole? No one else, I was told, was interested in the contest as its an east coast contest this year.
>
> First practice day most few, it was weak, several landouts, but most home.. Check OGN network for live tracking.
>
> Best. #711.

Thanks Tom - I grabbed the 15M weight.

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:47:44 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:31:24 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:50:41 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:35:06 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:05:04 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > > > "The approach you suggest would have conferred an advantage to the specific glider you are flying that is not part of the philosophy or rules of the FAI 18M class"
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy, I can't believe what you wrote, did you read it before you sent it? Did you write it in the name of the Rules committee or is it your own opinion?
> > > > >
> > > > > What advantage would I get, if I fly at the same wing loading as an ASG-29?
> > > > > You must be kidding the 18M class weight restriction is 1320 lb. By limiting the weight you are handicapping me more than you are handicapping an ASG-29. On the east coast the optimum wing loading is around 10 lb/sq foot. You let the ASG-29 fly with that wing loading while handicapping me to 9 lb/sq foot. If not for the restriction I would be able to fly at the optimal wing loading. How is that fair? It seems to me the competition should never have been allowed to be held at an airport that can not handle the requirements of the 18 m class. Hopefully this is the last time Seminole is awarded a FAI class competition.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Andrzej,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > This was exhaustively analyzed and debated over a period of weeks, not a knee-jerk decision. I did supporting analysis, but the waiver request was from the contest organizers and approved by the SSA Board. Feel free to blame me as I support the approach taken and I meant exactly what I said above.
> > > >
> > > > There were three approachers considered:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Fixed wing loading
> > > > 2) Fixed MTOW
> > > > 3) Fixed % reduction in MTOW from max certified
> > > >
> > > > The criteria were basically twofold:
> > > > 1) Address as directly as possible the concerns related to takeoff distance over an obstacle
> > > > 2) Minimize any alteration to the existing relative performance differences across glider types - that is, minimize handicapping by glider type.
> > > >
> > > > The maximum certified wing loading of gliders flying in 18M Class under the rules are:
> > > >
> > > > HpH 304S - 10.4 lbs/sf
> > > > ASH-31Mi - 10.8 lbs/sf
> > > > JS1C-18 - 11.0 lbs/sf
> > > > Ventus 3 - 11.3 lbs/sf
> > > > ASG-29 - 12.3 lbs/sf
> > > > JS3 - 12.4 lbs/sf (none signed up as of this writing)
> > > >
> > > > Without any weight restrictions, the ASH-31 and JS1 would fly at close to 1.5 lbs lower maximum loading that the ASG-29 and JS3 and about half a pound lighter than the Ventus 3. A percent weight limit preserves the proportionate max wing loading differences but reduces the absolute differences by the amount of the % reduction. Setting a weight limit closes that gap to closer to 1 lb/sf and a wing loading limit totally eliminates it - effectively handicapping the higher wing loading gliders. To answer your specific question, handicapping most of the gliders other than yours gives you a benefit that you wouldn't otherwise have. I can see why you would prefer this as it would help you compete under strong conditions in particular.
> > > >
> > > > However, there is nothing in the letter or the spirit of the rules governing 18M class (unlike Sports Class or SGP racing) that says we should handicap the performance of gliders - quite the opposite. People in non-handicapped classes purchase gliders for the specific design and performance tradeoffs of that design and have a right to expect that those choices wouldn't be deliberately diluted through changes in the rules. Motor gliders present some unique challenges because the designs represent an inherent tradeoff in wing loading range to accommodate a motor. That's the choice you make when you buy a motorglider - there are some benefits and some tradeoffs.
> > > >
> > > > The other point is a wing loading limit doesn't purely address the takeoff distance challenge. It allows gliders with more wing area to fly at a higher MTOW, making them less safe in terms of takeoff distance due to higher rolling friction on soft ground, slower acceleration under the same thrust, etc. I can take you through the calculations if you like. Restricting takeoff weight is the clearly preferred safety option - it most directly addresses the takeoff distance challenge and does a decent job not changing the competitive capability differences across gliders (actually a % MTOW reduction does slightly better, but does less well on simply addressing the takeoff distance requirement).
> > > >
> > > > I can see why you would have preferred a wing loading limit as it would have benefitted you by reducing the wing loading gap you'd otherwise have faced versus other gliders, but it's not the job of the Rules Committee (or the organizers or the SSA Board) to change that differential for you - particularly if it does a less good job at addressing the primary safety objective.
> > > >
> > > > These issues are not simple to address as there are many moving parts. We attempt to maintain a safe and fair competitive environment consistent with the letter and spirit of the rules, but clearly different alternatives to addressing specific challenges will affect different gliders and pilots differently. Our attempt here is to minimize the changes in the competitive differences between gliders. I'm very comfortable this does the best job of all the alternatives, none of which is 100% perfect. The perfect solution is a longer runway, but that wasn't a realistic alternative.
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > >
> > > Andy, your reasoning is completely flawed because on the east coast no one flies with wing loading of 12. You so called solution allows some glider to fly at optimum wing loading for the east coast while handicapping higher wing area gliders. I hope you can understand that. If the contest was held in Uvalde your reasoning would have been justified but not at the location the contest is going to be held. I hope you can admit this.
> > >
> > > > The other point is a wing loading limit doesn't purely address the takeoff distance challenge. It allows gliders with more wing area to fly at a higher MTOW, making them less safe in terms of takeoff distance due to higher rolling friction on soft ground, slower acceleration under the same thrust, etc. I can take you through the calculations if you like.
> > >
> > > Again, you could take the weight 1150 divide by the highest wing area glider and establish weight for each of the 4 or 5 types that would never exceed 1150.
> > >
> > > > I can see why you would have preferred a wing loading limit as it would have benefitted you by reducing the wing loading gap you'd otherwise have faced versus other gliders
> > >
> > > Wrong again! I was not disadvantaged on the east coast because I could not use a higher wing loading on the east coast anyway. Once again no one flies on the east coast with wing loading of 12. Your west coast 18,000 cloud bases experience with wide thermals does not translate well to making rules on the east coast.
> >
> > Andrzej,
> >
> > Your proposed solution is to set the takeoff weight for your glider suitable to meet the takeoff requirement and then put an additional (and unnecessary to the safety goal) weight reduction on other gliders with less wing area. It's not in the spirit or letter of the rules to force other gliders down to an artificially reduced wing loading. If they can take off at a higher wing loading and you can't because your glider is heavier, it's not up to the rules to equalize that any more than it is the job of the rules to equalize it in a situation without a runway limitation.
> >
> > It did not escape anyone that on any given day the optimal wing loading may be anywhere across a range of possibilities depending on conditions - or that average thermal strength is generally lower in the east than the west. The issue is should we impose an additional wing loading reduction on other gliders with less wing area than the heaviest ones flying even though there is no reason to do it from a takeoff perspective?
> >
> > I appreciate that you may have the view that the optimal wing loading in Florida is no more than 9 lbs/sf and that suits you and your glider, but there are many other gliders and many other pilots as well. For instance a JS3 would be forced to take off 200 pounds lighter than an ASH-31mi to meet 9 lbs/sf. When faced with the requirement of limiting weight for safety purposes, there's simply no rationale in the rules for imposing additional restrictions beyond what's required for safety.
> >
> > If you'd like to introduce a proposal that we impose a maximum wing loading in 18M class as a general rule we could certainly survey the pilots and see if there is broad agreement, but it's not in the rules now. These decision need to be made based on a consistent set of principles, not what suits one person or another or one glider or another.
> >
> > Andy Blackburn
> > 9B
>
> Andy, so far you failed to understand the other side of the argument. You are saying "It's not in the spirit or letter of the rules to force other gliders down to an artificially reduced wing loading." I am asking, is it in the spirit of the rules to force my glider to an artificially low wing loading? I hope not, but that is what you are doing. If you can force me to such unreasonably low wing loading why can't your force the other gliders.
>
> You are trying to preserve the perceived advantage that ASG-29 would have due to its ability to load to around 12 lb/sq foot. The problem with that is that at the location of this contest this advantage does not exist, so you in fact legislated it.
>
> I am very surprised that this decision was made without polling pilots or any discussion. The rules only talk about dry contest or FAI limit. I did not think this option even existed.
>
> Andrzej
> One less pilot flying contests

There was a strong suggestion to poll the pilots in order to see what their opinion was. I really wanted to know who would object to each of the options enough to not participate. This suggestion was not adopted.
I did not agree with what was adopted as I believed a wing loading limit would be most fair to all. In the end a consensus in the RC and strong position on the part of the organizers prevailed.
I really appreciate that SL was willing to host the event.
FWIW
UH

[Bob Kuykendall]

Once again, an RAS thread for which the correct answer is "Sawzall."

And a necktie. Can't forget the necktie.

[Dan Marotta]

The one thing about all of this that sticks in my mind is Andy's
original post where he listed as one of the determinants, "sandy grass
runway".Â* Did everyone forget that?Â* Higher weight with a fixed tire
footprint means sinking deeper into the ground resulting in higher
rolling friction (drag).Â* And don't fortet the limited field length,
fixed tug power...Â* It makes perfect sense to me.

On 3/9/2018 3:42 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
> Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.
>
> AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.
>
> Rules Committee should reconsider this.
>
> T8

--
Dan, 5J

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> The one thing about all of this that sticks in my mind is Andy's
> original post where he listed as one of the determinants, "sandy grass
> runway".Â* Did everyone forget that?Â* Higher weight with a fixed tire
> footprint means sinking deeper into the ground resulting in higher
> rolling friction (drag).Â* And don't fortet the limited field length,
> fixed tug power...Â* It makes perfect sense to me.
>
> On 3/9/2018 3:42 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
> > Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.
> >
> > AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.
> >
> > Rules Committee should reconsider this.
> >
> > T8
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

Dan, no one disputes that the take off weight needs to be limited for this location.
Establishing the maximum weight for a safe take off and then determining the weight for each type of a glider to establish a common wing loading for all participants would be the only fair way to resolve this problem. In such case no one would fly above the safe weight and everyone would be allowed to fly at the same maximum wing loading to ensure a fair contest.
In this case a small minority got screwed by the organizer and a few pilots who pushed for this arrangement. No wonder contest participation is dropping.

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 2:25:48 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 March 2018 11:47:36 UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 12:06:08 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> >
> > > Dan, no one disputes that the take off weight needs to be limited for this location.
> > > Establishing the maximum weight for a safe take off and then determining the weight for each type of a glider to establish a common wing loading for all participants would be the only fair way to resolve this problem. In such case no one would fly above the safe weight and everyone would be allowed to fly at the same maximum wing loading to ensure a fair contest.
> > > In this case a small minority got screwed by the organizer and a few pilots who pushed for this arrangement. No wonder contest participation is dropping.
> >
> > Hi Andrzej,
> >
> > I'm sorry you feel like this doesn't work for you. I assure you there is no conspiracy to screw the minority of pilots flying big-wing motorgliders. We did think about and analyze this issue with some care, including the issues you raised. Any approach we pick is going to have its own idiosyncrasies. You are quite correct that on a contest day where the thermals are never stronger than, say, 2.5 or 3 knots, the thermals are narrow and there is no streeting, it is unlikely that anyone will be likely to ballast up enough for the small-wing gliders to take advantage of their wing loading advantage and therefore a wing loading limit would do no harm to the competitiveness of these gliders.
> >
> > The challenge is there is no guarantee that even an east coast contest in Florida in late spring will produce consistently sub-3-ish knot lift. The other issue is the effects of wing loading on achieved cross-country speed are asymmetric with lift conditions. On weaker days the difference of 1 lb/sf (9 vs 10) in terms of cross country speed is much smaller than on stronger days. Therefore a weight limit will create a small differential in speeds (0.25-0.5 mph) on weak days (2 knot climbs) and a wing loading limit will create a bigger speed differential (2-2.5 mph) stronger days (4 knot climbs). Basically, weaker conditions are closer to the ballast/no ballast crossover point so the overall performance effect of a pound in wing loading matters much less than on stronger days. In addition, if thermals are tight then the effect on stall speed and turning radius figure quite prominently when we are talking about a difference of 1 lb/sf. The charts on the attached link illustrate this graphically.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GmQYmyfhoy6xdBtNX8SaJjaLkgzmTqJz
> >
> > If we were willing to get quite complex we could implement a wing loading limit on days when the lift is forecast to be 2.5 knots or less with no streeting and a weight limit on days when the lift is forecast to be stronger. That of course is hard to manage and it would be better to have a system that is consistent regardless of venue or weather. That, IMO, is a weight limit. IT's what was imposed at the Open Class Nationals at Nephi IIRC. It's also more robust in not upsetting the established design differences across varying conditions, though obviously nothing is perfect.
> >
> > I'd encourage you to go and fly, the magnitude of any impact is likely to be far less than a couple of unneeded turns in a thermal - unless days turn out to be really strong, in which case you'd be spotting the small wing gliders a few miles an hour regardless.
> >
> > I hope that helps.
> >
> > Andy
>
> Andy, there were no weight limits at Nephi for the Open Class in 2016. The only limitation(s) we had was which tow plane(s) could tow open class gliders due to their use of Schwitzer (sp?) tow hooks.
>
> A question a bit off topic but relates to contests at Seminole. To start, I fully support any organizer placing site specific limitations for the sake of safety. For the 18M Nationals, have not reviewed the SGP, a 1150 pound limit will be used, OK, but in reviewing the current fleet of gliders flying this week at the Seniors there are 5 Arcus M's (empty weight 1212 pounds, 3 Duo's with an empty weight of 925 pounds and DG1000's at an empty weight of 915 pounds.
>
> For consistency are the ARcus M's at the seniors self launching only, are the Duo's and DG 1000's only flying with a single person weighing less than 225 pounds? Just wondering why the weight issue for one contest but not for all contest at the same site.
>
> Thanks, Ron Gleason

As in past Seniors, all the 20 Meter ships are gridded at the very rear(back of) of the grid.

With the 18 Meter Nationals, we will have much less runway length available..

No contest day today 3/10/2018. Boxed it tonight as next few days along with a formal announcement happening tonight at dinner.

Best. #711.

[Dan Marotta]

Andrzej,

That sounds quite fair to me but this is the first time I recall hearing
that proposal.

Dan

On 3/10/2018 10:06 AM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> The one thing about all of this that sticks in my mind is Andy's
>> original post where he listed as one of the determinants, "sandy grass
>> runway".Â* Did everyone forget that?Â* Higher weight with a fixed tire
>> footprint means sinking deeper into the ground resulting in higher
>> rolling friction (drag).Â* And don't fortet the limited field length,
>> fixed tug power...Â* It makes perfect sense to me.
>>
>> On 3/9/2018 3:42 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
>>> Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.
>>>
>>> AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.
>>>
>>> Rules Committee should reconsider this.
>>>
>>> T8
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> Dan, no one disputes that the take off weight needs to be limited for this location.
> Establishing the maximum weight for a safe take off and then determining the weight for each type of a glider to establish a common wing loading for all participants would be the only fair way to resolve this problem. In such case no one would fly above the safe weight and everyone would be allowed to fly at the same maximum wing loading to ensure a fair contest.
> In this case a small minority got screwed by the organizer and a few pilots who pushed for this arrangement. No wonder contest participation is dropping.

--
Dan, 5J

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Andrzej,
>
> That sounds quite fair to me but this is the first time I recall hearing
> that proposal.
>
> Dan
>
> On 3/10/2018 10:06 AM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >> The one thing about all of this that sticks in my mind is Andy's
> >> original post where he listed as one of the determinants, "sandy grass
> >> runway".Â* Did everyone forget that?Â* Higher weight with a fixed tire
> >> footprint means sinking deeper into the ground resulting in higher
> >> rolling friction (drag).Â* And don't fortet the limited field length,
> >> fixed tug power...Â* It makes perfect sense to me.
> >>
> >> On 3/9/2018 3:42 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
> >>> Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.
> >>>
> >>> AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.
> >>>
> >>> Rules Committee should reconsider this.
> >>>
> >>> T8
> >> --
> >> Dan, 5J
> > Dan, no one disputes that the take off weight needs to be limited for this location.
> > Establishing the maximum weight for a safe take off and then determining the weight for each type of a glider to establish a common wing loading for all participants would be the only fair way to resolve this problem. In such case no one would fly above the safe weight and everyone would be allowed to fly at the same maximum wing loading to ensure a fair contest.
> > In this case a small minority got screwed by the organizer and a few pilots who pushed for this arrangement. No wonder contest participation is dropping.
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

That was the original proposal before some folks decided to change it.

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 5:22:37 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> along with a formal announcement happening tonight at dinner.

Help me Obi-wan Kenobi, you're my only hope. Do tell.

T8

[Tango Eight]

Dan,

Here's the short summary from a tow pilot & dude with an old 15m ship and no skin in the game.

As tow pilots, we all get that gross weight on the back end of the rope is what matters, everything else is in the noise. No one suggests that the SLGP guys don't have a good handle on what they can tow, so we're good with an 1150 # max gross.

Let's consider two specific gliders only, the ASG-29 and ASH-31Mi.

Absent any restrictions, the numbers are:
ASG-29, 1320 # gross, 11.7 psf.
ASH-31, 1389 # gross, 10.9 psf.

This wing loading difference will be important at Moriarity, but not at Seminole. Wing loading above 10# just won't get you any benefit at Seminole except on some crazy unicorn of a day.

Put in a flat restriction at 1150# gross. What happens is this:
ASG-29, 10.2 psf
ASH-31, 9.0 psf

At Seminole, the 29 pilot doesn't care. He wasn't going to fly heavier than 1150 *anyway*. The 31 pilot has a wing loading disadvantage on strong day.

That's what AK is ticked off about.

What's been suggested is to go with the 1150# max for the glider with the largest wing area (probably the ASH-31), then restrict all other types to the same (in this case 9 psf) maximum wing loading.

The other thing one could do is move anyone that wants to fly heavier than 1150 gross to the back of the grid. That's what I'd recommend.

Hey Andrzej... I think I'd like to go fly the 18s... since you won't be using your glider... :-).

best,
T8

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 10:52:43 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 5:22:37 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> > along with a formal announcement happening tonight at dinner.
>
> Help me Obi-wan Kenobi, you're my only hope. Do tell.
>
> T8

T8, the formal announcement was a rest day on Monday. We flew today, Sunday, score's are up on the SSA site along with daily reporting. Hearsay...one took off and chute opened in the cockpit, several relights along with landouts. Starting late (me) was a bad idea. Several flew most of the day below 3,000 msl. Some wishing they would of been able to do that.

Next fly day, Tuesday 3/13/2018.

Best. #711.

[[email protected]]

AK, just curious. How much does your 31MI weigh?
The handicap reference weight for a 31MI is 1189. Are you below that? Is the handicap table wrong?
If I read the safety notice correctly, the weight limit is not 1150lbs.
Gliders that weigh less than 1150 can only add water up to 1150lbs.
If a glider weighs more than 1150 dry, then it Is allowed to fly at the higher weight, but no additional ballast allowed.
Sounds like some heavy motorgliders might get an advantage.

While some heavy gliders are allowed to fly from the very back of the grid at the Seniors in March, there did not seem to be any discussion here about the density altitude difference between March and May when the 18m is scheduled.

Nice of SLGP to host the event. Would have been nice if it were earlier when the density altitude would be better or if another venue had stepped up.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 10:16:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> AK, just curious. How much does your 31MI weigh?
> The handicap reference weight for a 31MI is 1189. Are you below that? Is the handicap table wrong?
> If I read the safety notice correctly, the weight limit is not 1150lbs.
> Gliders that weigh less than 1150 can only add water up to 1150lbs.
> If a glider weighs more than 1150 dry, then it Is allowed to fly at the higher weight, but no additional ballast allowed.
> Sounds like some heavy motorgliders might get an advantage.
>
> While some heavy gliders are allowed to fly from the very back of the grid at the Seniors in March, there did not seem to be any discussion here about the density altitude difference between March and May when the 18m is scheduled.
>
> Nice of SLGP to host the event. Would have been nice if it were earlier when the density altitude would be better or if another venue had stepped up.

I am very light, but I would be 10-15 lb over the 1150 lb limit, which brings a good point that it would not be safe for me to take a tow, according to the organizer. This means I would be forced by the organizer to self launch, nice! It seems the organizer is not able to fulfill his obligations to host an 18 m class, even with this restriction.

[[email protected]]

It would be interesting to hear more specifics on what is planned. The big issue seems to be launches on rwy18. Rwy36 has a nice runoff area and plenty of fields north of the airport. South is mostly trees. For the Seniors, they stage some of the heavy gliders off the end of runway 18 and push them one by one on to the grid after the others gliders have launched. Perhaps the plan is to accommodate a handful of heavy gliders that way. That plan would certainly not work for all of the 30+ gliders that have signed up..