2019 SSA handicap list

[Tom (TK)]

Has the 2019 SSA handicap list been approved/released yet?

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 11:01:17 AM UTC-5, Tom (TK) wrote:
> Has the 2019 SSA handicap list been approved/released yet?

Most revisions complete. Changes principally affect motor versions of some sailplanes that have reference handicaps adjusted for weight difference from the base glider using the just approved weight adjustment formula.
For the HC
UH

[Mike C]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 6:00:11 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 11:01:17 AM UTC-5, Tom (TK) wrote:
> > Has the 2019 SSA handicap list been approved/released yet?
>
> Most revisions complete. Changes principally affect motor versions of some sailplanes that have reference handicaps adjusted for weight difference from the base glider using the just approved weight adjustment formula.
> For the HC
> UH

I recall that several years ago an experienced contest pilot said that the B model Ventus did not have as good of a glide as the slimmer A model. I think the pilot was Tom Knauff, but not sure. Is this ever taken into account when handicapping the Ventus?

Thanks,

Mike

[Tony[_5_]]

Yes. https://www.ssa.org/ContestHandicaps

[Mike C]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 8:07:37 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> Yes. https://www.ssa.org/ContestHandicaps

Hmm. That seems to indicate that the B has the higher performance.

[[email protected]]

The lower the number, the better the performance.

[Mike C]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 9:07:34 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> The lower the number, the better the performance.

The B has a lower number, although the difference seems meaningless.

[[email protected]]

Am Donnerstag, 28. Februar 2019 05:07:34 UTC+1 schrieb :
> The lower the number, the better the performance.

Schempp-Hirth Ventus 3-18 18 853 0.84
Schempp-Hirth Ventus 3FES-18 M 18 1017 0.828

??

Peter

[Tom (TK)]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 9:07:37 PM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
> Yes. https://www.ssa.org/ContestHandicaps

When you click the download "here" button the files is unreadable. The web page content says it is from 2009.

[Tango Eight]

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:01:38 AM UTC-5, A.E.Neumann wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 28. Februar 2019 05:07:34 UTC+1 schrieb :
> > The lower the number, the better the performance.
>
> Schempp-Hirth Ventus 3-18 18 853 0.84
> Schempp-Hirth Ventus 3FES-18 M 18 1017 0.828
>
> ??
>
> Peter

Because wing loading.

CH handicap scheme presumes strong weather, dry ships.

T8

[Mike C]

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:02:55 AM UTC-7, Tom (TK) wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 9:07:37 PM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
> > Yes. https://www.ssa.org/ContestHandicaps
>
> When you click the download "here" button the files is unreadable. The web page content says it is from 2009.

According to the page/link that I open it is the current list.

It appears that there is a penalty for the A model although it is claimed to have noticeably higher performance in glide. Handicapping must be one of the "Dark Arts".

[MNLou]

I assume the handicaps are weight based and do not include any adjustments for prop drag on FES models or drag from unsealed bay doors for gliders with motors on a mast.

Is that correct?

I don't know of any data on unsealed bay doors. I do believe data on FES drag is out there someplace.

Thanks!

Lou

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 10:58:59 AM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
> I assume the handicaps are weight based and do not include any adjustments for prop drag on FES models or drag from unsealed bay doors for gliders with motors on a mast.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> I don't know of any data on unsealed bay doors. I do believe data on FES drag is out there someplace.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Lou

"Results of Flight Performance Determination of the Lak‐17a FES (S5‐3117)
using the comparison flight method
in Aalen‐Heidenheim‐Elchingen, August 20th and 21st 2012" - you can see it at http://www.front-electric-sustainer.com/Documents/IDAFLIEG%20test%20LAK17A%20FES_en.pdf . If the link doesn't work use your search engine with title to find it. Fig 9 shows what to my eye is about 2 pts less of L/D at 160 kph and they say: "A clearly determinable but small drag increase due to the presence of the two propeller blades can be seen." If you look at the most current (2018) DAeC (German) handicaps ( https://www.daec.de/fileadmin/user_upload/files/2018/Sportarten/Segelflug/DMSt-WO_2018ki.pdf "), the handicap for FES is the same as the base glider, which seems to indicate that the increase in wing loading and the drag of the FES balance, which seems reasonable.
Dan

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 10:58:59 AM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
> I assume the handicaps are weight based and do not include any adjustments for prop drag on FES models or drag from unsealed bay doors for gliders with motors on a mast.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> I don't know of any data on unsealed bay doors. I do believe data on FES drag is out there someplace.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Lou

There is a 1.4% adjustment for props on FES ships, developed from information available last year when this first came up.
UH

[Tony[_5_]]

the reference weight for the B is 30 lbs higher.

[Tony[_5_]]

flying 165 lbs heavier ought to make the glider go faster?

[Mike C]

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 12:14:36 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> the reference weight for the B is 30 lbs higher.

Which equals about the same percentage difference in handicaps between the A and B. It does not address the noticeably better glide of the A though.

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 01:03 01 March 2019, Mike C wrote:
>On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 12:14:36 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
>> the reference weight for the B is 30 lbs higher.
>
>Which equals about the same percentage difference in handicaps between
the
>A and B. It does not address the noticeably better glide of the A though.

>
The A definitely goes better than the B. It has a wider range of wing
loadings.

Now that the UK CC has set the V3 handicap the same as the V2 (and 27!),
does anyone in the USA want to buy a V2a?

[[email protected]]

Why determine the handicaps dry? Surely in competition, most gliders are being flown pretty much maxed out with ballast. It would make more sense to use the MTOW as the reference weight and then it would take out these discussions about FES being heavier than standard.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 1:42:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Why determine the handicaps dry? Surely in competition, most gliders are being flown pretty much maxed out with ballast. It would make more sense to use the MTOW as the reference weight and then it would take out these discussions about FES being heavier than standard.

The list is specifically designed for Sports Class, thus the title.
By definition those ships are flown without disposable ballast.
UH

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

And no, unless you have a recognized Doctors note, 40 gallons of "drinking water" is not allowed......

Yes, decades ago I asked this (being a skinny f'r.....).
;-)

Way back when, flying a light -20 A or C, I was at a disadvantage being light (150lbs in street clothes) against -20 B's and similar on a ridge or good day.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 3:19:13 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> And no, unless you have a recognized Doctors note, 40 gallons of "drinking water" is not allowed......
>
> Yes, decades ago I asked this (being a skinny f'r.....).
> ;-)
>
> Way back when, flying a light -20 A or C, I was at a disadvantage being light (150lbs in street clothes) against -20 B's and similar on a ridge or good day.

I am significantly lighter than you, Charlie, and I fly a very light glider, thus am about 20% below the max gross. When I flew at the regional contest last year the weather was rather hot and I asked the CD whether the extra water bottle was OK :-) Seriously though, if they apply a correction to my handicap next time, based on my being far below the reference weight, I won't complain.

[Dan Marotta]

Could you not have sat on a shot bag?

On 3/1/2019 1:19 PM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> And no, unless you have a recognized Doctors note, 40 gallons of "drinking water" is not allowed......
>
> Yes, decades ago I asked this (being a skinny f'r.....).
> ;-)
>
> Way back when, flying a light -20 A or C, I was at a disadvantage being light (150lbs in street clothes) against -20 B's and similar on a ridge or good day.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Yeah, could have........;-).....in theory though, whatever I started flying at weight wise (in a handicapped class) I would always have to fly at.
"Drinking water" may vary based on expected weather for the day.........LOL.......

[Dan Marotta]

Drink a whole lot before the initial weigh-in... ;-)

On 3/1/2019 6:29 PM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Yeah, could have........;-).....in theory though, whatever I started flying at weight wise (in a handicapped class) I would always have to fly at.
> "Drinking water" may vary based on expected weather for the day.........LOL.......

--
Dan, 5J

[Tony[_5_]]

They should have adjusted your handicap based on flying weight. Some contests use provided weight, some have scales.

[Tony[_5_]]

Yes, fixed ballast is acceptable in sports class. But you have to fly the same weight every day of the contest.