2005 SSA Handicaps Posted

[Ken Kochanski (KK)]

http://sailplane-racing.org/rules.htm

Ken Kochanski
SRA Secretary

[[email protected]]

no listing for the following

ASW22-A 24meter
ASW22-A 22meter

Al

[M B]

As I think about a 24 meter glider, I wonder how much
span is too much?

At some point, the roll rate of a long span must just
be terrible. And there is added wetted area, right?


There are other disadvantages too (assembly, runway
width, etc.) that have nothing to do with flight in
the air too, I suppose.

I can see how lots of span is fine if you are willing
to add enough water, but 24 meters seems like a LOT
of wing.
Once L/D goes beyond a certain point (40 or 50 or whatever)

it seems like updrafts and downdrafts and penetration
become a much better indicator of performance than

strictly L/D.

The pilots who DON'T buy langer spans but have plenty
of money to do so are buying shorter spans for some
reason.
Is it mostly the ground factors, or is there a pretty
'natural' cutoff? Single seat vs. 2-seat I can understand,
and maybe some extra wing for those pilots who are
a bit
heavier, but 24 meters seems REALLY long to me...

At 21:00 15 April 2005, wrote:
>no listing for the following
>
>ASW22-A 24meter
>ASW22-A 22meter
>
>Al
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[Chris Reed]

M B wrote:
> The pilots who DON'T buy langer spans but have plenty
> of money to do so are buying shorter spans for some
> reason.
> Is it mostly the ground factors, or is there a pretty
> 'natural' cutoff? Single seat vs. 2-seat I can understand,
> and maybe some extra wing for those pilots who are
> a bit
> heavier, but 24 meters seems REALLY long to me...
>

Increasing span changes your style of flying, and this is one reason why
pilots don't buy as much span as they can afford. My recent step up from
15m to a princely 17.7m made a surprising difference in the kind of
flying which was most effective, and having once flown with Brian
Spreckley in an ASH25 I can say that this much span gives vastly more
difference from 15m.

Big wings (in my case, "just a bit bigger" wings) don't suit everyone,
and even 18m can feel uncomfortable or unnatural for those pilots who
like snappy handling.

Chris Reed

[bumper]

'Course if you start out with a Stemme (23 meter), then an ASH26E (18 meter)
feels almost like driving a Honda S2000!

bumper

"Chris Reed" > wrote in message
...
>
> Big wings (in my case, "just a bit bigger" wings) don't suit everyone, and
> even 18m can feel uncomfortable or unnatural for those pilots who like
> snappy handling.
>
> Chris Reed

[nimbusgb]

M B wrote:
> As I think about a 24 meter glider, I wonder how much
> span is too much?
>
> At some point, the roll rate of a long span must just
> be terrible. And there is added wetted area, right?
>
>
> There are other disadvantages too (assembly, runway
> width, etc.) that have nothing to do with flight in
> the air too, I suppose.
>
> I can see how lots of span is fine if you are willing
> to add enough water, but 24 meters seems like a LOT
> of wing.
> Once L/D goes beyond a certain point (40 or 50 or whatever)
>
> it seems like updrafts and downdrafts and penetration
> become a much better indicator of performance than
>
> strictly L/D.
>
> The pilots who DON'T buy langer spans but have plenty
> of money to do so are buying shorter spans for some
> reason.
> Is it mostly the ground factors, or is there a pretty
> 'natural' cutoff? Single seat vs. 2-seat I can understand,
> and maybe some extra wing for those pilots who are
> a bit
> heavier, but 24 meters seems REALLY long to me...
>
> At 21:00 15 April 2005, wrote:
> >no listing for the following
> >
> >ASW22-A 24meter
> >ASW22-A 22meter
> >
> >Al
> >
> >
> Mark J. Boyd

25.5 m on my Nimbus 3 and I have never even bothered to fly it in the
22.5 m short mode without the tips on! The roll rate is not 'terrible'
but it does take some getting used too! Unfortunately our field is a
little short so I can't load it to the gills but on anything but a
winters day it really needs a couple of barrels of juice in the wings.

Given enough funds I might go to a HP 304S - 18T. I have always liked
their ships and the 304S looks like another winner and yes ground
rigging is pretty much all of the reason for moving over.

Someone else has already pointed out that longer span changes the way
you fly. There was a comment somewhere about flying the Eta ( 30m span
) 'when in doubt climb in a straight line'. Thats how the big open
ships seem to get around.

The 18m class ships have most of the L/D of the Opens but the reduced
span and modern aerodynamics retain most, if not all of the 15m
maneuverability. In European conditions I doubt whether most open ships
can run away from a new 18m ship. However when it dies late on a good
day its really nice to throttle back to best glide and be able to
average in the 60's for the last 50 or 60km through a sea-breezed final
glide area.


Ian

[Steve Leonard]

Mark,

As one qutoe says, "There is No Substitute for Span." Then, some Bird
came along and said "There is a Substitute for span. It is called
Talent. But you can buy Span!"

Handling qualities are relative. If you are looking for a ship to do
acro in, I would not recommend an ASH-25. Of the big ships I am aware
of, the handling is not bad. Just slower in roll. Forces are still
generally light. And they take more work to fly well in circles. But
as some pilot here in the US said when someone complained about how the
Ventus requires lots of effort to fly, "A REAL pilot does not have any
trouble flying a Ventus."

Ground rigging is probably the biggest reason for people not liking to
deal with the open class ships. Face it. Most have six pieces of wing
to attach. No matter how bad your two piece wing might be, it will
probably take less time to assemble than a six piece wing. Runway
width can be an issue, as we generaly will hang out near or over lights
on both sides of the runway. Know your airplane and you can offset one
way then lower the other wing.

As for performance, I personally think they have gotten too big. Look
at the Schleicher site on the ASH-25. Partly marketing, but they make
the comment that higher minimum wing loadings do not seem to hurt the
open class gliders. And with a 750 KG weight limit for contests, the
current open class ships are stuck at under 9.5 psf. The Nimbus 4 is
about 8.7. Read what others have written, and almost all of them want
more weight.

I came up with the idea that best L/D can be approximated by Span in
Meters plus Aspect Ratio. This generally gets you within about 10%,
except on the new 15 meter class ships, where it falls a bit short of
the claims by the factories. If the span was cut back to, say 22
meters, and the aspect ratio run up to about 40 (heck, Eta is 51,and
the long tipped 25's are pushing if not above 40, but with 26 plus
meters of span), that puts the area at about 130 square feet. Chords
would be similar to an ASW-27, but over longer sections between the
taper breaks.

Now, if my ultra preliminary estimation for performance holds true, you
would have about the same best L/D (22 + 40 = 62) as a N4, but you
could ballast up to about 12.8 psf at 750 KG. Wouldn't that make for a
rocketship! And if you could keep the minimum wingloading to about
8.5, this leave about 900 lbs for the empty weight (200 lb pilot).
Seems doable to me at a first glance.

Of course, this view is US Based. In Europe, there doesn't seem to be
the desire for the ultra-high wing loading. And do you think any
manufacturer would put out a smaller Unlimted Class ship than what they
have now? Not bloody likely.

So, is 24 meters too much? Maybe, for the US and the weight
restriction. You might do better with less. I see lots of pictures
of German registered ASH-25s that have been stretched, some to as much
as 27 meters. So, I am suspecting that L/D max is more important than
the ultra high speed cruising in Europe. That, and the crossover for
the longer wings is above the often used cruising speeds.

And just to confuse things, I have a 604 that I am looking to stretch
from 22 to 24 meters. Being in the more sedate, flat lands, I am
looking for more low end performance, and hoping the cross-over will be
above my typical crusie speeds.

But, if you know of anyone willing to part with an ASH-26 fuselage, I
could get started on a set of thin, 22 meter wings to try and prove my
point... Could be intersting to plan a 40:1 final glide at 115 knots,
no wind.

Steve Leonard

[Marc Ramsey]

Steve Leonard wrote:
> But as some pilot here in the US said when someone complained about
> how the Ventus requires lots of effort to fly, "A REAL pilot does
> not have any trouble flying a Ventus."

I prefer: a REAL pilot understands his or her own current limitations,
and flies a ship that fits them...

[Stefan]

Steve Leonard wrote:

> Ground rigging is probably the biggest reason for people not liking to
> deal with the open class ships.

Although it's exactly the same work to attach the 18m as the 15m
winglets to the LS8, I always fly 15m. It's just nicer, quicker, more
"sportive".

> Of course, this view is US Based. In Europe, there doesn't seem to be
> the desire for the ultra-high wing loading.

I know many pilots which always fly fully loaded. Not me. They like the
speed. I prefer to feel the thermals better. But then, I don't fly
competitions.

> And do you think any
> manufacturer would put out a smaller Unlimted Class ship than what they
> have now? Not bloody likely.

There's the new Antares with 20m.

Stefan

[Steve Leonard]

> Steve Leonard wrote:
> > And do you think any manufacturer would put out a smaller Unlimted
> > Class ship than what they have now? Not bloody likely.

Stefan wrote:
There's the new Antares with 20m.

Exactly. The Antares is from a NEW manufacturer. Not someone that
already has a 22 or 24 meter span Unlimited class sailplane. It is a
motorglider. And what is the span of a lot of the current generation
of motorgliders? 18 meters, if I remember correctly. Yes, there is
the N4M, and ASW-22BLE at well over 20 meters, but there is also the
LS-9, DG-800, ASH-26E, Ventus 2CM at 18 meters.

Some like span, some don't. I personally like span. I must be lacking
in the "skill" department ;-)

Steve

[Ted Wagner]

The whole handicap thing remains a mystery to this racing sophomore. If I
had to fly my glider in soft conditions I would feel more advantaged, with
low sink rates and good L/D below 65 knots (but not the advertised 44:1,
which is a joke). When the conditions get strong (I fly in Arizona), my
competitors disappear into the horizon when I find myself having to find my
next thermal. Often this means they get to the next thermal and I don't. So
a glider's handicap seems to have quite a different affect in different
parts of the country!

-ted/2NO

"Ken Kochanski (KK)" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> http://sailplane-racing.org/rules.htm
>
> Ken Kochanski
> SRA Secretary
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Ted Wagner wrote:
> The whole handicap thing remains a mystery to this racing sophomore. If I
> had to fly my glider in soft conditions I would feel more advantaged, with
> low sink rates and good L/D below 65 knots (but not the advertised 44:1,
> which is a joke). When the conditions get strong (I fly in Arizona), my
> competitors disappear into the horizon when I find myself having to find my
> next thermal. Often this means they get to the next thermal and I don't. So
> a glider's handicap seems to have quite a different affect in different
> parts of the country!

I think when you have more experience, you'll the 304 is good machine
for the Sports Class, even it it's only 40:1.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[hannu]

"Ted Wagner" > wrote in message
news:1113884285.a78fd29b709c0208118e60bfb2ea8e41@t eranews...
> The whole handicap thing remains a mystery to this racing sophomore. If I
> had to fly my glider in soft conditions I would feel more advantaged, with
> low sink rates and good L/D below 65 knots (but not the advertised 44:1,
> which is a joke). When the conditions get strong (I fly in Arizona), my
> competitors disappear into the horizon when I find myself having to find
my
> next thermal. Often this means they get to the next thermal and I don't.
So
> a glider's handicap seems to have quite a different affect in different
> parts of the country!

It's a impossible task to make ONE coefficient to correct the
multi-dimensional problem field...

There are many scenarios that make unfair compensation:

1. Too long glide (for more-handicapped glider), I go to a field, others get
average speed
2. (Mr. Cochrane:) With lesser performance, I have to use weaker lifts, less
average speed as compared to flying the same McCready performance ratio
3. If clearly less performance, others fly together, me alone - almost fatal
in blue days and severely affects also in others.

To compensate the unfairness:

4. Rain wall, tough upper cloud or equivalent on the task: I win, because
everybody stops on the (almost) same spot.

Hmmm.. probablility: (1..3)/4 is approximately 25:1 (subjective guess)

I am accustomed to German handicap system (flying mostly 0.96 against
1.04-1.08) and admittedly being less of a pilot as well, I still feel
squaring the handicaps might make it even a bit closer (doesn't help 1.,
though)

2, and especially 3 are prevalent in most of the days

This evaluation is based both flying in (last 5 years) and scoring the
gliding competitions (last 10 years). Maybe the handicap system works better
when each pilot flies alone.

regards, hannu

[Ken Kochanski (KK)]

Anybody want to write a dynamic handicapping system ... something that
would take all the flight logs from a contest to analyze task length,
thermal strength, height and working band, spacing, wind strength (all
by time of day) ... and come up with a 'fair' handicap for the day.

KK

[Marcel Duenner]

"hannu" > wrote in message >...
..
..
1. Too long glide (for more-handicapped glider), I go to a field,
others get
average speed
2. (Mr. Cochrane:) With lesser performance, I have to use weaker
lifts, less
average speed as compared to flying the same McCready performance
ratio
3. If clearly less performance, others fly together, me alone - almost
fatal
in blue days and severely affects also in others.

To compensate the unfairness:

4. Rain wall, tough upper cloud or equivalent on the task: I win,
because
everybody stops on the (almost) same spot.
> This evaluation is based both flying in (last 5 years) and scoring the
> gliding competitions (last 10 years). Maybe the handicap system works better
> when each pilot flies alone.
>



That is exactly what the handicap factors are based on: It takes in to
account the performance of the glider type, flown alone, in
homogeneous weather. Your 1.-4. simply can't be compensated
mathematically.

regards
Marcel

[[email protected]]

Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
> Anybody want to write a dynamic handicapping system ... something
that
> would take all the flight logs from a contest to analyze task length,
> thermal strength, height and working band, spacing, wind strength
(all
> by time of day) ... and come up with a 'fair' handicap for the day.
>
> KK

The Soaring Society of South Africa has come up with a dynamic handicap
system. It is based on three senarios - weak, intermediate and strong.
The senario applied will be based on the top speeds of the day. The
whole system is normalised to the ASW 20. An example of how it works is
that an ASW 17 will fly off a handicap of 109% to the ASW 20 on a weak
day but only 102% on a strong day. An ASW 27 will fly of a 106%
handicap to the ASW 20 on a weak day but 113% on a strong day. The
system is still very new but has been used in the last Nationals and at
the Gauteng Regionals and will be used at the North West Regionals at
the end of this month. More details can be found on the SSSA website
(sssa.org.za)

Clinton
Lak 12

[CV]

Steve Leonard wrote:
> Mark,
>
> As one qutoe says, "There is No Substitute for Span." Then, some Bird
> came along and said "There is a Substitute for span. It is called
> Talent. But you can buy Span!"

That reasoning seems to presuppose you can only have one or the other.

What's to say you can't have both ?

Cheers CV

[[email protected]]

40:1 if I'm lucky, and freshly cleaned and waxed ... DJ couldn't get
better than 38:1 in his flight test, and that was at 50 knots, not 60.

I love my 304CZ, it's the perfect ship for a newer pilot who enjoys
both recreational and contest x/c, but when the CD calls a 250 mile AST
on a strong summer day, I'm in trouble if I can't start 20 minutes
before all Venti, LS-8s and ASW-27s I fly against start ...

-ted/2NO

[M B]

Thanks for the interesting replies.

It was interesting to hear that yes, gound assembly
and
handling was a consideration. It seems that the convenience
of self-launch, or assembly, etc. do have a notable

effect on choices in gliders. Cost is just another
factor
that is put in with these factors.

I also thought I saw a 750kg limit total for contests.
Is this right in the U.S.? I guess that would be a
bit
of an arbitrary disincentive for more span too ;)

At 23:00 18 April 2005, Steve Leonard wrote:
>Mark,
>
>As one qutoe says, 'There is No Substitute for Span.'
> Then, some Bird
>came along and said 'There is a Substitute for span.
> It is called
>Talent. But you can buy Span!'
>
>Handling qualities are relative. If you are looking
>for a ship to do
>acro in, I would not recommend an ASH-25. Of the big
>ships I am aware
>of, the handling is not bad. Just slower in roll.
> Forces are still
>generally light. And they take more work to fly well
>in circles. But
>as some pilot here in the US said when someone complained
>about how the
>Ventus requires lots of effort to fly, 'A REAL pilot
>does not have any
>trouble flying a Ventus.'
>
>Ground rigging is probably the biggest reason for people
>not liking to
>deal with the open class ships. Face it. Most have
>six pieces of wing
>to attach. No matter how bad your two piece wing might
>be, it will
>probably take less time to assemble than a six piece
>wing. Runway
>width can be an issue, as we generaly will hang out
>near or over lights
>on both sides of the runway. Know your airplane and
>you can offset one
>way then lower the other wing.
>
>As for performance, I personally think they have gotten
>too big. Look
>at the Schleicher site on the ASH-25. Partly marketing,
>but they make
>the comment that higher minimum wing loadings do not
>seem to hurt the
>open class gliders. And with a 750 KG weight limit
>for contests, the
>current open class ships are stuck at under 9.5 psf.
> The Nimbus 4 is
>about 8.7. Read what others have written, and almost
>all of them want
>more weight.
>
>I came up with the idea that best L/D can be approximated
>by Span in
>Meters plus Aspect Ratio. This generally gets you
>within about 10%,
>except on the new 15 meter class ships, where it falls
>a bit short of
>the claims by the factories. If the span was cut back
>to, say 22
>meters, and the aspect ratio run up to about 40 (heck,
>Eta is 51,and
>the long tipped 25's are pushing if not above 40, but
>with 26 plus
>meters of span), that puts the area at about 130 square
>feet. Chords
>would be similar to an ASW-27, but over longer sections
>between the
>taper breaks.
>
>Now, if my ultra preliminary estimation for performance
>holds true, you
>would have about the same best L/D (22 + 40 = 62) as
>a N4, but you
>could ballast up to about 12.8 psf at 750 KG. Wouldn't
>that make for a
>rocketship! And if you could keep the minimum wingloading
>to about
>8.5, this leave about 900 lbs for the empty weight
>(200 lb pilot).
>Seems doable to me at a first glance.
>
>Of course, this view is US Based. In Europe, there
>doesn't seem to be
>the desire for the ultra-high wing loading. And do
>you think any
>manufacturer would put out a smaller Unlimted Class
>ship than what they
>have now? Not bloody likely.
>
>So, is 24 meters too much? Maybe, for the US and the
>weight
>restriction. You might do better with less. I see
>lots of pictures
>of German registered ASH-25s that have been stretched,
>some to as much
>as 27 meters. So, I am suspecting that L/D max is
>more important than
>the ultra high speed cruising in Europe. That, and
>the crossover for
>the longer wings is above the often used cruising speeds.
>
>And just to confuse things, I have a 604 that I am
>looking to stretch
>from 22 to 24 meters. Being in the more sedate, flat
>lands, I am
>looking for more low end performance, and hoping the
>cross-over will be
>above my typical crusie speeds.
>
>But, if you know of anyone willing to part with an
>ASH-26 fuselage, I
>could get started on a set of thin, 22 meter wings
>to try and prove my
>point... Could be intersting to plan a 40:1 final
>glide at 115 knots,
>no wind.
>
>Steve Leonard
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[Tim Ward]

"CV" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Leonard wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > As one qutoe says, "There is No Substitute for Span." Then, some Bird
> > came along and said "There is a Substitute for span. It is called
> > Talent. But you can buy Span!"
>
> That reasoning seems to presuppose you can only have one or the other.
>
> What's to say you can't have both ?
>
> Cheers CV

Well, in that case you don't need a substitute.

Tim Ward

[hannu]

"Marcel Duenner" > wrote in message
om...
> That is exactly what the handicap factors are based on: It takes in to
> account the performance of the glider type, flown alone, in
> homogeneous weather. Your 1.-4. simply can't be compensated
> mathematically.

Exactly my point! ;) But what is my another point is that in competition the
current (at least German/European) handicap system underhandicaps in the
competitions.

And they are used in those.

Another point still: the handicaps account for water ballast, but in club
class the ballast (at least here) is not allowed.

But..as this is without end... let's love with what we have.

hannu

[[email protected]]

US rules had "windicapping" as part of the rules a few years ago. This
was based upon logic that wind is the largest variable that a single
handicap number can't deal with.
It was in place for a couple years and never really got used, so it was
dropped. It definitely slows down the whole scoring process and would
make the scoring program much more complex.
It is of some significance that in order to get the scoring program
guys to do this we would likely have to get them very drunk for a very
long time.
UH
SSA Rules Subcommittee Chair

[[email protected]]

We have tried it all over the past 30 years, wind-capping,
weight-capping, day-capping, sight-capping, pilot-capping. The only
thing that stuck was day-capping, we now call that day-devaluation
based on the number of finishers. Playing with the numbers on a daily
basis leaves the pilots with the feeling that the whole thing is quite
liquid. Just bitch enough and you can get someone to change things to
help your score. Wind-capping was the worst, what wind, at what
altitude, in what valley, at what time of day?????

I'm thinking about writing the history of handicap racing in the US.
Who remembers the red and green books? Scratch task distance divided by
your handicap to determine the minimum distance triangle you must fly
out of the red book? Want to carry water, add 5% to your numbers, but
you must pay for it all week long.

[F.L. Whiteley]

wrote:

> US rules had "windicapping" as part of the rules a few years ago. This
> was based upon logic that wind is the largest variable that a single
> handicap number can't deal with.
> It was in place for a couple years and never really got used, so it was
> dropped. It definitely slows down the whole scoring process and would
> make the scoring program much more complex.
> It is of some significance that in order to get the scoring program
> guys to do this we would likely have to get them very drunk for a very
> long time.
> UH
> SSA Rules Subcommittee Chair
IMVHO the reason windicapping was not used was due to flawed implementation.
A PST first turnpoint could have been disallowed as less than the minimum
distance when windicapping was applied. The pilot while in flight would
have no easy way of discerning this. In fact, while scoring Region 9 a few
years ago I had to toss windicapping for exactly this reason.

Frank Whiteley

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, wrote:

> Who remembers the red and green books?

Sorta off topic, but who remembers those awful speed-limited gates with
a pyramid sight, a finish gate and a speed gate? I worked one or two of
those at Minden in, what was it, early 1980s?

What with wind, altitude, and CAS/TAS/IAS conversions, it was a mess.
It seemed that nobody was sorry to see them eliminated.

Bob K.

[Brian]

but when the CD calls a 250 mile AST
on a strong summer day, I'm in trouble

I do this all the time, a 38:1 ship on a "Good Day" should easily be
able to do a 250 AST. I have done it (or close to it)many times in my
HP16 which is probably closer to 36:1.

In 15 meter someone if a better ship has to make a mistake (usually a
serious one as far is speed) for me to keep up with them. Handicapped
it can be a close race.

Brian Case
HP16T N16VP V6

[John Sinclair]

GPS has sure solved a lot of problems with start and
finish gates. Remember trying to figure your start
time interval for the shortest first leg? You had to
make the STI match a first turn point that you weren't
real sure you would be using. Oh, yes, it was the distance
to the first turn divided by your HCF. Fun days, lots
of head-down in the cockpit stuff. I do believe picking
a triangle that was at least your minimum distance
was a real challenge. Now days we just follow the clouds
and or other sailplanes into one turn area and then
another, let the computer tell us when to head for
home. Where's the challenge?
JJ
>Sorta off topic, but who remembers those awful speed-limited
>gates with
>a pyramid sight, a finish gate and a speed gate? I
>worked one or two of
>those at Minden in, what was it, early 1980s?
>
>What with wind, altitude, and CAS/TAS/IAS conversions,
>it was a mess.
>It seemed that nobody was sorry to see them eliminated.
>
>Bob K.

[Ken Kochanski (KK)]

Yeah, some of the mechanics are easier ... but trying to beat DJ on any
given contest day will still keep you occupied. :-)

KK

[[email protected]]

A good PILOT on a "Good Day", of course, but I've only flown over 250
miles once in my life, and that was a downwind dash on a GREAT day!

I'll be able to use my handicap to compete with the faster slippers
when I get better at getting high early (as in in the start cylinder)
and starting just ahead of the pack instead of just after. It's always
been bad news when I started after the pack on long ASTs (which hasn't
been by choice) -- I hear them calling in their finishes when I'm still
45 to an hour out and it's demoralizing!

But the learning is fun.

ted/2NO

[hannu]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> A good PILOT on a "Good Day", of course, but I've only flown over 250
> miles once in my life, and that was a downwind dash on a GREAT day!
>
> I'll be able to use my handicap to compete with the faster slippers
> when I get better at getting high early (as in in the start cylinder)
> and starting just ahead of the pack instead of just after. It's always
> been bad news when I started after the pack on long ASTs (which hasn't
> been by choice) -- I hear them calling in their finishes when I'm still
> 45 to an hour out and it's demoralizing!
>
> But the learning is fun.

Welcome to the club! :) Though 45 mins might make me quite happy ;)

hannu

[Brian]

Learning is fun.

And yes my preferred strategy is to try to start 1st and then use all
the other gliders as Markers as they Pass me.

The only problem with this is when the finish 45 minutes ahead of me, I
know they are 45 minutes a head of me.

A little complicated but it might be fun to try a contest where the
start time was based on you handicap. Lowest handicaps starts 1st, in
such a way that theoretically everyone would arrive at the finish line
at the same time. So if that ASW27 finishs before you he has beat you.
I you finish before him, your the winner. Would make for some fun
finishes, It would be interesting to see how close the races really
are.

Brian

[F.L. Whiteley]

I think that's part of what Bill meant by wuss tasks.

I tend to agree. I objected long ago to the beercans.

My current objection is to the 86 point limit on Regional Sports.

Frank

John Sinclair wrote:

> GPS has sure solved a lot of problems with start and
> finish gates. Remember trying to figure your start
> time interval for the shortest first leg? You had to
> make the STI match a first turn point that you weren't
> real sure you would be using. Oh, yes, it was the distance
> to the first turn divided by your HCF. Fun days, lots
> of head-down in the cockpit stuff. I do believe picking
> a triangle that was at least your minimum distance
> was a real challenge. Now days we just follow the clouds
> and or other sailplanes into one turn area and then
> another, let the computer tell us when to head for
> home. Where's the challenge?
> JJ
>>Sorta off topic, but who remembers those awful speed-limited
>>gates with
>>a pyramid sight, a finish gate and a speed gate? I
>>worked one or two of
>>those at Minden in, what was it, early 1980s?
>>
>>What with wind, altitude, and CAS/TAS/IAS conversions,
>>it was a mess.
>>It seemed that nobody was sorry to see them eliminated.
>>
>>Bob K.