Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2 [Archive]

April 12th 21, 12:06 AM

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 6:00:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-4, BobWa43 wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:17:08 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > It would make more sense to stratify OLC results on glider price, than motor/no motor. Dinging a guy with a Pik20E compared to a JS1 is plain silly. A separate class or handicap for motorgliders is either a wealth or convenience tax - not a performance tax. And certainly not a testosterone measure. Probably, anyone who has to get on a public forum and boast of testosterone levels, is lacking same.
> > >
> > > I continue to find that nearly every glider pilot who is deprecating of motorgliders for how they are operated or the advantage they have, has never operated one for any length of time. The actual advantage has everything to do with convenience and nothing to do with performance.
> > > On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:39:42 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > > > Your OLC (or FAI for that matter) flight ends when you start the engine
> > > > so the only advantage is that of not having to wait for a trailer. I
> > > > recall a flight in a friend's ASW-24E where I flew far into
> > > > deteriorating lift. No worries! I'll just start the engine and fly
> > > > back to the lift. It started just fine and then quit within minutes due
> > > > to lack of fuel. Had to drive around Pike's Peak to get back to the
> > > > airport.
> > > >
> > > > In the case of the Stemme, I don't have a trailer and, though it's never
> > > > failed me, I won't trust the engine to save me; it's strictly for launch
> > > > or travel to another location.
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > > > 5J
> > > > On 4/11/21 6:54 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > BobWa43 wrote on 4/11/2021 5:19 AM:
> > > > >> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:10:18 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > >>> Eric Greenwell wrote on 4/10/2021 8:32 PM:
> > > > >>>>> I guess being in the Kuiper belt is not that bad. I guess us purist
> > > > >>>>> have a distinct habit of
> > > > >>>>> staying away from home. I guess next year we will name or gathering
> > > > >>>>> the Kuiper Safari.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Don't read too much into the Pluto part: I just wanted some
> > > > >>>> alliteration - Pluto/Purist,
> > > > >>>> Mars/Motorglider. :^)
> > > > >>> I suggest "Kuiper Kamp" to keep the alliteration going.
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> > > > >>> email me)
> > > > >>> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > > > >>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Do I think that having or not having an engine is a predictor of
> > > > >> piloting skills or testosterone levels? No, absolutely not. Do I
> > > > >> think that having an engine provides a significant advantage in
> > > > >> scoring OLC points? Absolutely, Yes. I have nothing against motor
> > > > >> gliders, particularly the self launching variety,(I would like to own
> > > > >> one except for the expense) but you have to admit that the sustainers
> > > > >> have only one purpose and that is to save a flight that would
> > > > >> otherwise end in landing out. How can anyone deny that this is a huge
> > > > >> psychological advantage on the average OLC flight where there is
> > > > >> nothing at stake but bragging rights. Bottom line, motor gliders
> > > > >> should compete against motor gliders on OLC.
> > > > >>
> > > > > I had flown 2000 hours in unpowered sailplanes when I switched to a
> > > > > motorglider, and I did not feel I had a huge psychological advantage.
> > > > > And when I fly at the Parowan motorglider event each year, somehow my
> > > > > "huge psychological advantage" isn't enough to keep pilots like Rami
> > > > > Yanetz and Thorsten Streple from clobbering me on the OLC! There is some
> > > > > advantage, but it's not huge, or even big.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, of all the factors that go into an OLC score, why do you focus only
> > > > > on the motor? The place has a much larger effect, I think. Who has the
> > > > > greater advantage: the sustainer pilot launching from Seminole lake, or
> > > > > the pilot launching from Ridge Soaring on a good ridge day? Or a pilot
> > > > > in South Africa?
> > > > >
> > At Dan "When you start the engine the flight is over" true, but as the man in the earlier referenced video said most times you don't have to start the engine. You get to take the chance on whether there will be lift under that distant cloud with no real penalty if there isn't. If that is not a great advantage, I don't what is. If you would agree to disable the engine after take off then it would be a level playing field. It currently is not. Why do motor glider pilots resist the idea of a separate competition group?

It is very much of an advantage to the motorglider pilot, the self launch I can accept as an equal, only if the engine is retracted and not started again. On the other hand the sustainer is different in how it is utilized to continue a flight that would otherwise be terminated. The mindset for the motorglider pilot changes just after release from tow, there is always a safety cushion, us purist do not have that cushion.
Went to Home Depot today and bought that white Gorilla Tape so if some of these motorglider enthusiast come down and fly in the Safari next year I can tape their motor doors shut and we will all go for a flight.

Dan Marotta

April 12th 21, 12:36 AM

Unless the engine doesn't start.

Dan
5J

On 4/11/21 3:38 PM, BobWa43 wrote:
> You get to take the chance on whether there will be lift under that distant cloud with no real penalty if there isn't.

Douglas Richardson

April 12th 21, 11:45 AM

The argument that "purists" are better than "motorgliderists" is an argument used by miserable old men who try to assert that flying "pure" gliders is more difficult that flying motorised gliders in order to discourage the next generation from adopting emerging technologies.
They do this because they themselves own a "pure" (unmotorised) glider and they don't want their large investment to reduce to $0 as people move away from unmotorised gliders.
It's self-interest, through and through.
Simple as that.

Motorised gliders are far better for several different reasons:

1. Reduce risks associated with landouts
2. Faster turn around time between flights
3. No need for expensive equipment for a launch
4. Reduce the number of people required to launch
......etc....

[email protected]

April 12th 21, 01:05 PM

On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 6:45:09 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> The argument that "purists" are better than "motorgliderists" is an argument used by miserable old men who try to assert that flying "pure" gliders is more difficult that flying motorised gliders in order to discourage the next generation from adopting emerging technologies.
> They do this because they themselves own a "pure" (unmotorised) glider and they don't want their large investment to reduce to $0 as people move away from unmotorised gliders.
> It's self-interest, through and through.
> Simple as that.
>
> Motorised gliders are far better for several different reasons:
>
> 1. Reduce risks associated with landouts
> 2. Faster turn around time between flights
> 3. No need for expensive equipment for a launch
> 4. Reduce the number of people required to launch
> .....etc....

Richardson, I do not recall mentioning the word difficult on any of my post, that word never came into the conversation. This is all about advantage. Sustainers would have the same turn around time as the purist since the sustainer cannot self launch. The expense of a self launch is probably comparative to a pure glider and a respectable tow plane.
I guess it is just the miserable old man syndrome that keeps us going.

Moshe Braner

April 12th 21, 01:46 PM

On 4/12/2021 6:45 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> ...
>
> Motorised gliders are far better for several different reasons:
>
> ...
> 3. No need for expensive equipment for a launch

Ha!

jfitch

April 12th 21, 03:57 PM

That is some very convoluted logic. Once airborne, there are no significant operational differences between a sustainer and a self launch. Either *might* save you from unlandable terrain, however this behavior has severe negative feedback and is self limiting. I do know of a couple of pilots who behaved that way, both of them hung their gliders in trees and no longer fly.

What you are proving is that you have never flown a motorglider cross country, and have no idea what the mindset is and how they are operated. If anything, a motorglider has a performance disadvantage compared to a motorless, because the ballast choices are limited. It is operationally more complicated during a landout, as everything the "purist" must consider has to be considered, along with deploying and starting an engine. Abandoning further cross country flight has to be done earlier and higher, a disadvantage.

A motor is a convenience, like a pee tube or a fancy glide computer. It saves you from having to round up a tow plane to launch, and a retrieve crew to retrieve. That's it. If you want a separate class that includes motorgliders and any pilot with a retrieve crew, then at least that would be logically consistent. Or if you want a separate class that uses no engine power for launch or retrieve, that would be logically consistent (though limited to hang gliders).

I've flown "pure" gliders many thousands of cross country miles. Have you flown a motorglider cross country at all? Your posts suggest you have not, as they are ignorant of the most basic facts.

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:06:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 6:00:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-4, BobWa43 wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:17:08 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > It would make more sense to stratify OLC results on glider price, than motor/no motor. Dinging a guy with a Pik20E compared to a JS1 is plain silly. A separate class or handicap for motorgliders is either a wealth or convenience tax - not a performance tax. And certainly not a testosterone measure. Probably, anyone who has to get on a public forum and boast of testosterone levels, is lacking same.
> > > >
> > > > I continue to find that nearly every glider pilot who is deprecating of motorgliders for how they are operated or the advantage they have, has never operated one for any length of time. The actual advantage has everything to do with convenience and nothing to do with performance.
> > > > On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:39:42 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > > > > Your OLC (or FAI for that matter) flight ends when you start the engine
> > > > > so the only advantage is that of not having to wait for a trailer.. I
> > > > > recall a flight in a friend's ASW-24E where I flew far into
> > > > > deteriorating lift. No worries! I'll just start the engine and fly
> > > > > back to the lift. It started just fine and then quit within minutes due
> > > > > to lack of fuel. Had to drive around Pike's Peak to get back to the
> > > > > airport.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the case of the Stemme, I don't have a trailer and, though it's never
> > > > > failed me, I won't trust the engine to save me; it's strictly for launch
> > > > > or travel to another location.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan
> > > > > 5J
> > > > > On 4/11/21 6:54 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > BobWa43 wrote on 4/11/2021 5:19 AM:
> > > > > >> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:10:18 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > >>> Eric Greenwell wrote on 4/10/2021 8:32 PM:
> > > > > >>>>> I guess being in the Kuiper belt is not that bad. I guess us purist
> > > > > >>>>> have a distinct habit of
> > > > > >>>>> staying away from home. I guess next year we will name or gathering
> > > > > >>>>> the Kuiper Safari.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Don't read too much into the Pluto part: I just wanted some
> > > > > >>>> alliteration - Pluto/Purist,
> > > > > >>>> Mars/Motorglider. :^)
> > > > > >>> I suggest "Kuiper Kamp" to keep the alliteration going.
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> > > > > >>> email me)
> > > > > >>> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > > > > >>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> Do I think that having or not having an engine is a predictor of
> > > > > >> piloting skills or testosterone levels? No, absolutely not. Do I
> > > > > >> think that having an engine provides a significant advantage in
> > > > > >> scoring OLC points? Absolutely, Yes. I have nothing against motor
> > > > > >> gliders, particularly the self launching variety,(I would like to own
> > > > > >> one except for the expense) but you have to admit that the sustainers
> > > > > >> have only one purpose and that is to save a flight that would
> > > > > >> otherwise end in landing out. How can anyone deny that this is a huge
> > > > > >> psychological advantage on the average OLC flight where there is
> > > > > >> nothing at stake but bragging rights. Bottom line, motor gliders
> > > > > >> should compete against motor gliders on OLC.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > I had flown 2000 hours in unpowered sailplanes when I switched to a
> > > > > > motorglider, and I did not feel I had a huge psychological advantage.
> > > > > > And when I fly at the Parowan motorglider event each year, somehow my
> > > > > > "huge psychological advantage" isn't enough to keep pilots like Rami
> > > > > > Yanetz and Thorsten Streple from clobbering me on the OLC! There is some
> > > > > > advantage, but it's not huge, or even big.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, of all the factors that go into an OLC score, why do you focus only
> > > > > > on the motor? The place has a much larger effect, I think. Who has the
> > > > > > greater advantage: the sustainer pilot launching from Seminole lake, or
> > > > > > the pilot launching from Ridge Soaring on a good ridge day? Or a pilot
> > > > > > in South Africa?
> > > > > >
> > > At Dan "When you start the engine the flight is over" true, but as the man in the earlier referenced video said most times you don't have to start the engine. You get to take the chance on whether there will be lift under that distant cloud with no real penalty if there isn't. If that is not a great advantage, I don't what is. If you would agree to disable the engine after take off then it would be a level playing field. It currently is not.. Why do motor glider pilots resist the idea of a separate competition group?
> It is very much of an advantage to the motorglider pilot, the self launch I can accept as an equal, only if the engine is retracted and not started again. On the other hand the sustainer is different in how it is utilized to continue a flight that would otherwise be terminated. The mindset for the motorglider pilot changes just after release from tow, there is always a safety cushion, us purist do not have that cushion.
> Went to Home Depot today and bought that white Gorilla Tape so if some of these motorglider enthusiast come down and fly in the Safari next year I can tape their motor doors shut and we will all go for a flight.

[email protected]

April 12th 21, 04:20 PM

On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 10:57:04 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> That is some very convoluted logic. Once airborne, there are no significant operational differences between a sustainer and a self launch. Either *might* save you from unlandable terrain, however this behavior has severe negative feedback and is self limiting. I do know of a couple of pilots who behaved that way, both of them hung their gliders in trees and no longer fly..
>
> What you are proving is that you have never flown a motorglider cross country, and have no idea what the mindset is and how they are operated. If anything, a motorglider has a performance disadvantage compared to a motorless, because the ballast choices are limited. It is operationally more complicated during a landout, as everything the "purist" must consider has to be considered, along with deploying and starting an engine. Abandoning further cross country flight has to be done earlier and higher, a disadvantage.
>
> A motor is a convenience, like a pee tube or a fancy glide computer. It saves you from having to round up a tow plane to launch, and a retrieve crew to retrieve. That's it. If you want a separate class that includes motorgliders and any pilot with a retrieve crew, then at least that would be logically consistent. Or if you want a separate class that uses no engine power for launch or retrieve, that would be logically consistent (though limited to hang gliders).
>
> I've flown "pure" gliders many thousands of cross country miles. Have you flown a motorglider cross country at all? Your posts suggest you have not, as they are ignorant of the most basic facts.
> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:06:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 6:00:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-4, BobWa43 wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:17:08 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > It would make more sense to stratify OLC results on glider price, than motor/no motor. Dinging a guy with a Pik20E compared to a JS1 is plain silly. A separate class or handicap for motorgliders is either a wealth or convenience tax - not a performance tax. And certainly not a testosterone measure. Probably, anyone who has to get on a public forum and boast of testosterone levels, is lacking same.
> > > > >
> > > > > I continue to find that nearly every glider pilot who is deprecating of motorgliders for how they are operated or the advantage they have, has never operated one for any length of time. The actual advantage has everything to do with convenience and nothing to do with performance.
> > > > > On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:39:42 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > > > > > Your OLC (or FAI for that matter) flight ends when you start the engine
> > > > > > so the only advantage is that of not having to wait for a trailer. I
> > > > > > recall a flight in a friend's ASW-24E where I flew far into
> > > > > > deteriorating lift. No worries! I'll just start the engine and fly
> > > > > > back to the lift. It started just fine and then quit within minutes due
> > > > > > to lack of fuel. Had to drive around Pike's Peak to get back to the
> > > > > > airport.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the case of the Stemme, I don't have a trailer and, though it's never
> > > > > > failed me, I won't trust the engine to save me; it's strictly for launch
> > > > > > or travel to another location.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dan
> > > > > > 5J
> > > > > > On 4/11/21 6:54 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > > BobWa43 wrote on 4/11/2021 5:19 AM:
> > > > > > >> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:10:18 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > >>> Eric Greenwell wrote on 4/10/2021 8:32 PM:
> > > > > > >>>>> I guess being in the Kuiper belt is not that bad. I guess us purist
> > > > > > >>>>> have a distinct habit of
> > > > > > >>>>> staying away from home. I guess next year we will name or gathering
> > > > > > >>>>> the Kuiper Safari.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Don't read too much into the Pluto part: I just wanted some
> > > > > > >>>> alliteration - Pluto/Purist,
> > > > > > >>>> Mars/Motorglider. :^)
> > > > > > >>> I suggest "Kuiper Kamp" to keep the alliteration going.
> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> > > > > > >>> email me)
> > > > > > >>> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > > > > > >>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> Do I think that having or not having an engine is a predictor of
> > > > > > >> piloting skills or testosterone levels? No, absolutely not. Do I
> > > > > > >> think that having an engine provides a significant advantage in
> > > > > > >> scoring OLC points? Absolutely, Yes. I have nothing against motor
> > > > > > >> gliders, particularly the self launching variety,(I would like to own
> > > > > > >> one except for the expense) but you have to admit that the sustainers
> > > > > > >> have only one purpose and that is to save a flight that would
> > > > > > >> otherwise end in landing out. How can anyone deny that this is a huge
> > > > > > >> psychological advantage on the average OLC flight where there is
> > > > > > >> nothing at stake but bragging rights. Bottom line, motor gliders
> > > > > > >> should compete against motor gliders on OLC.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > I had flown 2000 hours in unpowered sailplanes when I switched to a
> > > > > > > motorglider, and I did not feel I had a huge psychological advantage.
> > > > > > > And when I fly at the Parowan motorglider event each year, somehow my
> > > > > > > "huge psychological advantage" isn't enough to keep pilots like Rami
> > > > > > > Yanetz and Thorsten Streple from clobbering me on the OLC! There is some
> > > > > > > advantage, but it's not huge, or even big.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, of all the factors that go into an OLC score, why do you focus only
> > > > > > > on the motor? The place has a much larger effect, I think. Who has the
> > > > > > > greater advantage: the sustainer pilot launching from Seminole lake, or
> > > > > > > the pilot launching from Ridge Soaring on a good ridge day? Or a pilot
> > > > > > > in South Africa?
> > > > > > >
> > > > At Dan "When you start the engine the flight is over" true, but as the man in the earlier referenced video said most times you don't have to start the engine. You get to take the chance on whether there will be lift under that distant cloud with no real penalty if there isn't. If that is not a great advantage, I don't what is. If you would agree to disable the engine after take off then it would be a level playing field. It currently is not. Why do motor glider pilots resist the idea of a separate competition group?
> > It is very much of an advantage to the motorglider pilot, the self launch I can accept as an equal, only if the engine is retracted and not started again. On the other hand the sustainer is different in how it is utilized to continue a flight that would otherwise be terminated. The mindset for the motorglider pilot changes just after release from tow, there is always a safety cushion, us purist do not have that cushion.
> > Went to Home Depot today and bought that white Gorilla Tape so if some of these motorglider enthusiast come down and fly in the Safari next year I can tape their motor doors shut and we will all go for a flight.

Fitch, better take more blood pressure medicine quick!

Dan Marotta

April 12th 21, 04:59 PM

On starting the engine in flight...

I recall a flight several years back with the late (and very missed) Tom
Bjork in his ASH-30mi. I was struggling mightily to keep the glider in
the air as Tom was working furiously to get the engine started to
prevent a land out. I was turning base to a private strip (with Xs
painted on both ends; Zorro Ranch for the Moriarty guys) when the engine
finally came to life and the flight was saved. Had that just been
desert and the engine not started, things would have been very inconvenient.

Dan
5J

On 4/12/21 8:57 AM, jfitch wrote:
> That is some very convoluted logic. Once airborne, there are no significant operational differences between a sustainer and a self launch. Either *might* save you from unlandable terrain, however this behavior has severe negative feedback and is self limiting. I do know of a couple of pilots who behaved that way, both of them hung their gliders in trees and no longer fly.
>
> What you are proving is that you have never flown a motorglider cross country, and have no idea what the mindset is and how they are operated. If anything, a motorglider has a performance disadvantage compared to a motorless, because the ballast choices are limited. It is operationally more complicated during a landout, as everything the "purist" must consider has to be considered, along with deploying and starting an engine. Abandoning further cross country flight has to be done earlier and higher, a disadvantage.
>
> A motor is a convenience, like a pee tube or a fancy glide computer. It saves you from having to round up a tow plane to launch, and a retrieve crew to retrieve. That's it. If you want a separate class that includes motorgliders and any pilot with a retrieve crew, then at least that would be logically consistent. Or if you want a separate class that uses no engine power for launch or retrieve, that would be logically consistent (though limited to hang gliders).
>
> I've flown "pure" gliders many thousands of cross country miles. Have you flown a motorglider cross country at all? Your posts suggest you have not, as they are ignorant of the most basic facts.
>
> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:06:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 6:00:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-4, BobWa43 wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:17:08 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
>>>>> It would make more sense to stratify OLC results on glider price, than motor/no motor. Dinging a guy with a Pik20E compared to a JS1 is plain silly. A separate class or handicap for motorgliders is either a wealth or convenience tax - not a performance tax. And certainly not a testosterone measure. Probably, anyone who has to get on a public forum and boast of testosterone levels, is lacking same.
>>>>>
>>>>> I continue to find that nearly every glider pilot who is deprecating of motorgliders for how they are operated or the advantage they have, has never operated one for any length of time. The actual advantage has everything to do with convenience and nothing to do with performance.
>>>>> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:39:42 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>>>> Your OLC (or FAI for that matter) flight ends when you start the engine
>>>>>> so the only advantage is that of not having to wait for a trailer. I
>>>>>> recall a flight in a friend's ASW-24E where I flew far into
>>>>>> deteriorating lift. No worries! I'll just start the engine and fly
>>>>>> back to the lift. It started just fine and then quit within minutes due
>>>>>> to lack of fuel. Had to drive around Pike's Peak to get back to the
>>>>>> airport.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the case of the Stemme, I don't have a trailer and, though it's never
>>>>>> failed me, I won't trust the engine to save me; it's strictly for launch
>>>>>> or travel to another location.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>> 5J
>>>>>> On 4/11/21 6:54 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>>>>> BobWa43 wrote on 4/11/2021 5:19 AM:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:10:18 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Eric Greenwell wrote on 4/10/2021 8:32 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>> I guess being in the Kuiper belt is not that bad. I guess us purist
>>>>>>>>>>> have a distinct habit of
>>>>>>>>>>> staying away from home. I guess next year we will name or gathering
>>>>>>>>>>> the Kuiper Safari.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't read too much into the Pluto part: I just wanted some
>>>>>>>>>> alliteration - Pluto/Purist,
>>>>>>>>>> Mars/Motorglider. :^)
>>>>>>>>> I suggest "Kuiper Kamp" to keep the alliteration going.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>>>>>>>>> email me)
>>>>>>>>> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
>>>>>>>>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do I think that having or not having an engine is a predictor of
>>>>>>>> piloting skills or testosterone levels? No, absolutely not. Do I
>>>>>>>> think that having an engine provides a significant advantage in
>>>>>>>> scoring OLC points? Absolutely, Yes. I have nothing against motor
>>>>>>>> gliders, particularly the self launching variety,(I would like to own
>>>>>>>> one except for the expense) but you have to admit that the sustainers
>>>>>>>> have only one purpose and that is to save a flight that would
>>>>>>>> otherwise end in landing out. How can anyone deny that this is a huge
>>>>>>>> psychological advantage on the average OLC flight where there is
>>>>>>>> nothing at stake but bragging rights. Bottom line, motor gliders
>>>>>>>> should compete against motor gliders on OLC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had flown 2000 hours in unpowered sailplanes when I switched to a
>>>>>>> motorglider, and I did not feel I had a huge psychological advantage.
>>>>>>> And when I fly at the Parowan motorglider event each year, somehow my
>>>>>>> "huge psychological advantage" isn't enough to keep pilots like Rami
>>>>>>> Yanetz and Thorsten Streple from clobbering me on the OLC! There is some
>>>>>>> advantage, but it's not huge, or even big.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, of all the factors that go into an OLC score, why do you focus only
>>>>>>> on the motor? The place has a much larger effect, I think. Who has the
>>>>>>> greater advantage: the sustainer pilot launching from Seminole lake, or
>>>>>>> the pilot launching from Ridge Soaring on a good ridge day? Or a pilot
>>>>>>> in South Africa?
>>>>>>>
>>>> At Dan "When you start the engine the flight is over" true, but as the man in the earlier referenced video said most times you don't have to start the engine. You get to take the chance on whether there will be lift under that distant cloud with no real penalty if there isn't. If that is not a great advantage, I don't what is. If you would agree to disable the engine after take off then it would be a level playing field. It currently is not. Why do motor glider pilots resist the idea of a separate competition group?
>> It is very much of an advantage to the motorglider pilot, the self launch I can accept as an equal, only if the engine is retracted and not started again. On the other hand the sustainer is different in how it is utilized to continue a flight that would otherwise be terminated. The mindset for the motorglider pilot changes just after release from tow, there is always a safety cushion, us purist do not have that cushion.
>> Went to Home Depot today and bought that white Gorilla Tape so if some of these motorglider enthusiast come down and fly in the Safari next year I can tape their motor doors shut and we will all go for a flight.

Guy Acheson[_2_]

April 12th 21, 05:47 PM

Sounds like it is time to end this conversation.
Why does it always end up with personal attacks?

[email protected]

April 12th 21, 08:19 PM

On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 12:47:05 PM UTC-4, Guy Acheson wrote:
> Sounds like it is time to end this conversation.
> Why does it always end up with personal attacks?

Guy, don't worry I have thick skin, Fitch is just being Fitch. COVID has brought out all the anger in these motorglider pilots, hopefully they will get all their vaccinations soon.

waremark

April 12th 21, 10:59 PM

"If anything, a motorglider has a performance disadvantage compared to a motorless, because the ballast choices are limited. It is operationally more complicated during a landout, as everything the "purist" must consider has to be considered, along with deploying and starting an engine. Abandoning further cross country flight has to be done earlier and higher, a disadvantage."

All that is true, and I think in a competition the motorglider therefore has a net disadvantage, and more so for a self-launcher with its higher minimum wing loading. On the other hand, for what I might call the relaxed leisure pilot, motorglider pilots at my club tend to attempt flights further away from home or in more dubious conditions than pilots of pure gliders - because for a relaxed leisure flight pilots are less keen to risk a landout far from home. I accept that there must be pilots with enthusiastic crews who are more bold, but I don't know them!

Most of the pilots at my club who now fly motorgliders were being rude about motorglider pilots 20 years ago. But virtually everyone who has bought a new glider in the last 10 years has bought it with an engine, whether internal combustion, jet or electric.

Both in my club and on the UK BGA Ladder there is a trophy for the best result in a 'non MOP' glider.

Wallace Berry[_2_]

April 13th 21, 02:39 AM

On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 4:59:35 PM UTC-5, waremark wrote:
> "If anything, a motorglider has a performance disadvantage compared to a motorless, because the ballast choices are limited. It is operationally more complicated during a landout, as everything the "purist" must consider has to be considered, along with deploying and starting an engine. Abandoning further cross country flight has to be done earlier and higher, a disadvantage."
> All that is true, and I think in a competition the motorglider therefore has a net disadvantage, and more so for a self-launcher with its higher minimum wing loading. On the other hand, for what I might call the relaxed leisure pilot, motorglider pilots at my club tend to attempt flights further away from home or in more dubious conditions than pilots of pure gliders - because for a relaxed leisure flight pilots are less keen to risk a landout far from home. I accept that there must be pilots with enthusiastic crews who are more bold, but I don't know them!
>
> Most of the pilots at my club who now fly motorgliders were being rude about motorglider pilots 20 years ago. But virtually everyone who has bought a new glider in the last 10 years has bought it with an engine, whether internal combustion, jet or electric.
>
> Both in my club and on the UK BGA Ladder there is a trophy for the best result in a 'non MOP' glider.

Just a sort of relevant anecdote: Was flying a contest at Uvalde where the task area has both flat land and mountains. One day a MAT task was called. It was almost totally blue over the flat ground but cu's were popping in the mountains. The motorgliders pretty much all went into the mountains to fly their extra turns. The non-motors stayed in the flats. Guess who had the better day.

jfitch

April 13th 21, 03:29 AM

Anger? Personal attacks? Not from me...I only observe. But the same couple of people start thread after thread on this subject, and it does get tiresome. I wish Old Bob would fly a few thousand miles crosscountry in a motorglider, then report back on the experience. We could then discuss the pros and cons intelligently.

On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 12:19:12 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 12:47:05 PM UTC-4, Guy Acheson wrote:
> > Sounds like it is time to end this conversation.
> > Why does it always end up with personal attacks?
> Guy, don't worry I have thick skin, Fitch is just being Fitch. COVID has brought out all the anger in these motorglider pilots, hopefully they will get all their vaccinations soon.

[email protected]

April 13th 21, 01:11 PM

On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 10:29:16 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> Anger? Personal attacks? Not from me...I only observe. But the same couple of people start thread after thread on this subject, and it does get tiresome. I wish Old Bob would fly a few thousand miles crosscountry in a motorglider, then report back on the experience. We could then discuss the pros and cons intelligently.

Just might want to review your post a bit more carefully, the old "Who Not Me", doesn't seem to apply. Now about that motorglider, Old Bob has flown quiet a bit in my lifetime, been places in my pure glider that most would never go, so experience is something that I am not lacking. I get a kick out of the motorglider guys and gals defending their stance on motorglider vs purist. So, Fitch, here is a special invitation to you to come on down to Vero Beach, join us in our 2022 Soaring Safari and fly among the purist. Old Bob

> On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 12:19:12 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 12:47:05 PM UTC-4, Guy Acheson wrote:
> > > Sounds like it is time to end this conversation.
> > > Why does it always end up with personal attacks?
> > Guy, don't worry I have thick skin, Fitch is just being Fitch. COVID has brought out all the anger in these motorglider pilots, hopefully they will get all their vaccinations soon.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 13th 21, 02:27 PM

wrote on 4/13/2021 5:11 AM:
> On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 10:29:16 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
>> Anger? Personal attacks? Not from me...I only observe. But the same couple of people start thread after thread on this subject, and it does get tiresome. I wish Old Bob would fly a few thousand miles crosscountry in a motorglider, then report back on the experience. We could then discuss the pros and cons intelligently.
>
> Just might want to review your post a bit more carefully, the old "Who Not Me", doesn't seem to apply. Now about that motorglider, Old Bob has flown quiet a bit in my lifetime, been places in my pure glider that most would never go, so experience is something that I am not lacking. I get a kick out of the motorglider guys and gals defending their stance on motorglider vs purist. So, Fitch, here is a special invitation to you to come on down to Vero Beach, join us in our 2022 Soaring Safari and fly among the purist. Old Bob
>
The "stance" of the pilots I know, motorized or not, is "You have a glider, I have a glider,
let's go fly!" No one seems care much about the make, model, or launch method. The US contest
rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have separate record classes for them, so
why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't care, and are just happy to see someone
show up at the airport and fly with us?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 13th 21, 02:54 PM

BobWa43 wrote on 4/11/2021 3:00 PM:
> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-4, BobWa43 wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:17:08 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
>>> It would make more sense to stratify OLC results on glider price, than motor/no motor. Dinging a guy with a Pik20E compared to a JS1 is plain silly. A separate class or handicap for motorgliders is either a wealth or convenience tax - not a performance tax. And certainly not a testosterone measure. Probably, anyone who has to get on a public forum and boast of testosterone levels, is lacking same.
>>>
>>....
>>>>>> should compete against motor gliders on OLC.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I had flown 2000 hours in unpowered sailplanes when I switched to a
>>>>> motorglider, and I did not feel I had a huge psychological advantage.
>>>>> And when I fly at the Parowan motorglider event each year, somehow my
>>>>> "huge psychological advantage" isn't enough to keep pilots like Rami
>>>>> Yanetz and Thorsten Streple from clobbering me on the OLC! There is some
>>>>> advantage, but it's not huge, or even big.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, of all the factors that go into an OLC score, why do you focus only
>>>>> on the motor? The place has a much larger effect, I think. Who has the
>>>>> greater advantage: the sustainer pilot launching from Seminole lake, or
>>>>> the pilot launching from Ridge Soaring on a good ridge day? Or a pilot
>>>>> in South Africa?
>>>>>
> At Dan "When you start the engine the flight is over" true, but as the man in the earlier referenced video said most times you don't have to start the engine. You get to take the chance on whether there will be lift under that distant cloud with no real penalty if there isn't. If that is not a great advantage, I don't what is. If you would agree to disable the engine after take off then it would be a level playing field. It currently is not. Why do motor glider pilots resist the idea of a separate competition group?

The "penalty" is the scoring of the flight ends when the motor starts. If you want to be
competitive, you avoid that risk; if you are flying recreationally, maybe you take the risk
because you don't care about the score.

I'm having trouble understanding your concerns, because these issues haven been worked on (at
least in the US) for at least the 25 years I've owned a motorglider, and the current rules
reflect the consensus of pilots flying competitions, whether it's Regionals, Nationals, or even
SSA records. The OLC doesn't have separate classes, either. There doesn't seem to be any need
to "resist the idea of a separate competition group", because I'm not aware of any formal (or
informal, either) attempts to change the competition classes into motor/non-motor.

We might be able to respond better to your comments if we knew what's driving this discontent
with the current situation: is it being beaten by motorized gliders in Regional and National
contests? A low ranking on the OLC because of all the motorgliders that scored better than you?
Or something else entirely?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

jfitch

April 13th 21, 04:04 PM

Thank you for confirming your inexperience with motorglider operation, and your ignorance of them. People are often afraid of things they don't understand.

You might want to review my post and point out specifically the "anger and personal attacks". All I said was you were ignorant of motorglider operations, which you admit. That isn't personal attack, just a fact, which you could easily correct if you chose.

On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 5:11:09 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 10:29:16 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Anger? Personal attacks? Not from me...I only observe. But the same couple of people start thread after thread on this subject, and it does get tiresome. I wish Old Bob would fly a few thousand miles crosscountry in a motorglider, then report back on the experience. We could then discuss the pros and cons intelligently.
> Just might want to review your post a bit more carefully, the old "Who Not Me", doesn't seem to apply. Now about that motorglider, Old Bob has flown quiet a bit in my lifetime, been places in my pure glider that most would never go, so experience is something that I am not lacking. I get a kick out of the motorglider guys and gals defending their stance on motorglider vs purist. So, Fitch, here is a special invitation to you to come on down to Vero Beach, join us in our 2022 Soaring Safari and fly among the purist. Old Bob
> > On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 12:19:12 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 12:47:05 PM UTC-4, Guy Acheson wrote:
> > > > Sounds like it is time to end this conversation.
> > > > Why does it always end up with personal attacks?
> > > Guy, don't worry I have thick skin, Fitch is just being Fitch. COVID has brought out all the anger in these motorglider pilots, hopefully they will get all their vaccinations soon.

Dan Marotta

April 13th 21, 04:45 PM

Probably the motorgliders had a better day THAT day. But what if one
had crashed in the mountains (possibly fatally) because his engine
wouldn't start?

The engine is a double edged sword. Use it well and it will be a great
benefit to your soaring experience. Rely on it too heavily and it will
rise up and bite thine ass.

Dan
5J

On 4/12/21 7:39 PM, Wallace Berry wrote:
> ust a sort of relevant anecdote: Was flying a contest at Uvalde where the task area has both flat land and mountains. One day a MAT task was called. It was almost totally blue over the flat ground but cu's were popping in the mountains. The motorgliders pretty much all went into the mountains to fly their extra turns. The non-motors stayed in the flats. Guess who had the better day.

Wallace Berry[_2_]

April 13th 21, 07:49 PM

On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 10:45:17 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Probably the motorgliders had a better day THAT day. But what if one
> had crashed in the mountains (possibly fatally) because his engine
> wouldn't start?
>
> The engine is a double edged sword. Use it well and it will be a great
> benefit to your soaring experience. Rely on it too heavily and it will
> rise up and bite thine ass.
>
> Dan
> 5J
> On 4/12/21 7:39 PM, Wallace Berry wrote:
> > Just a sort of relevant anecdote: Was flying a contest at Uvalde where the task area has both flat land and mountains. One day a MAT task was called. It was almost totally blue over the flat ground but cu's were popping in the mountains. The motorgliders pretty much all went into the mountains to fly their extra turns. The non-motors stayed in the flats. Guess who had the better day.

Yes, I fully understand the risks depending on the MOP. Has happened to a number of people I know with varying consequences from complete destruction of the glider with severe personal injury, to last-minute-last-ditch ground loop landings in brushy pea patches, to normal off-field landings. My point is: In that competition situation, it was less risky for the motorgliders to go up into the hills than it was for the pure gliders. So much so that the pure gliders just didn't go there. The motorgliders gained a distinct competitive advantage. I am not a particularly serious race guy, so doesn't bother me much. I do get a bit tired of the "motorgliders have no competitive advantage in racing" refrain. Would I penalize motorgliders or banish them back to a motorglider class? Heavens, no. We are having enough problems getting contests to fill up as it is. Besides, the technological race going on between IC, electric, and jet MOP is interesting. Before I understood some of the tech problems, I even made serious inquiries into having my glider modified with electric propulsion.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 13th 21, 08:15 PM

Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 11:49 AM:
> On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 10:45:17 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Probably the motorgliders had a better day THAT day. But what if one
>> had crashed in the mountains (possibly fatally) because his engine
>> wouldn't start?
>>
>> The engine is a double edged sword. Use it well and it will be a great
>> benefit to your soaring experience. Rely on it too heavily and it will
>> rise up and bite thine ass.
>>
>> Dan
>> 5J
>> On 4/12/21 7:39 PM, Wallace Berry wrote:
>>> Just a sort of relevant anecdote: Was flying a contest at Uvalde where the task area has both flat land and mountains. One day a MAT task was called. It was almost totally blue over the flat ground but cu's were popping in the mountains. The motorgliders pretty much all went into the mountains to fly their extra turns. The non-motors stayed in the flats. Guess who had the better day.
>
> Yes, I fully understand the risks depending on the MOP. Has happened to a number of people I know with varying consequences from complete destruction of the glider with severe personal injury, to last-minute-last-ditch ground loop landings in brushy pea patches, to normal off-field landings. My point is: In that competition situation, it was less risky for the motorgliders to go up into the hills than it was for the pure gliders. So much so that the pure gliders just didn't go there. The motorgliders gained a distinct competitive advantage. I am not a particularly serious race guy, so doesn't bother me much. I do get a bit tired of the "motorgliders have no competitive advantage in racing" refrain. Would I penalize motorgliders or banish them back to a motorglider class? Heavens, no. We are having enough problems getting contests to fill up as it is. Besides, the technological race going on between IC, electric, and jet MOP is interesting. Before I understood some of the tech problems, I even made serious inquiries into having my glider modified with electric propulsion.

" My point is: In that competition situation, it was less risky for the motorgliders to go up
into the hills than it was for the pure gliders."

That's an unusual situation to me, so I'd like to learn more about it. Can you tell me what
contest and what day that was? And specifically, what made it "less risky" for the powered
gliders: less safety risk, less scoring risk, less risk of a long retrieve, or something else?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

BobWa43

April 14th 21, 12:06 AM

On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 12:00:02 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> On starting the engine in flight...
>
> I recall a flight several years back with the late (and very missed) Tom
> Bjork in his ASH-30mi. I was struggling mightily to keep the glider in
> the air as Tom was working furiously to get the engine started to
> prevent a land out. I was turning base to a private strip (with Xs
> painted on both ends; Zorro Ranch for the Moriarty guys) when the engine
> finally came to life and the flight was saved. Had that just been
> desert and the engine not started, things would have been very inconvenient.
>
> Dan
> 5J
> On 4/12/21 8:57 AM, jfitch wrote:
> > That is some very convoluted logic. Once airborne, there are no significant operational differences between a sustainer and a self launch. Either *might* save you from unlandable terrain, however this behavior has severe negative feedback and is self limiting. I do know of a couple of pilots who behaved that way, both of them hung their gliders in trees and no longer fly.
> >
> > What you are proving is that you have never flown a motorglider cross country, and have no idea what the mindset is and how they are operated. If anything, a motorglider has a performance disadvantage compared to a motorless, because the ballast choices are limited. It is operationally more complicated during a landout, as everything the "purist" must consider has to be considered, along with deploying and starting an engine. Abandoning further cross country flight has to be done earlier and higher, a disadvantage.
> >
> > A motor is a convenience, like a pee tube or a fancy glide computer. It saves you from having to round up a tow plane to launch, and a retrieve crew to retrieve. That's it. If you want a separate class that includes motorgliders and any pilot with a retrieve crew, then at least that would be logically consistent. Or if you want a separate class that uses no engine power for launch or retrieve, that would be logically consistent (though limited to hang gliders).
> >
> > I've flown "pure" gliders many thousands of cross country miles. Have you flown a motorglider cross country at all? Your posts suggest you have not, as they are ignorant of the most basic facts.
> >
> > On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:06:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 6:00:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-4, BobWa43 wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:17:08 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> >>>>> It would make more sense to stratify OLC results on glider price, than motor/no motor. Dinging a guy with a Pik20E compared to a JS1 is plain silly. A separate class or handicap for motorgliders is either a wealth or convenience tax - not a performance tax. And certainly not a testosterone measure. Probably, anyone who has to get on a public forum and boast of testosterone levels, is lacking same.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I continue to find that nearly every glider pilot who is deprecating of motorgliders for how they are operated or the advantage they have, has never operated one for any length of time. The actual advantage has everything to do with convenience and nothing to do with performance.
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:39:42 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >>>>>> Your OLC (or FAI for that matter) flight ends when you start the engine
> >>>>>> so the only advantage is that of not having to wait for a trailer. I
> >>>>>> recall a flight in a friend's ASW-24E where I flew far into
> >>>>>> deteriorating lift. No worries! I'll just start the engine and fly
> >>>>>> back to the lift. It started just fine and then quit within minutes due
> >>>>>> to lack of fuel. Had to drive around Pike's Peak to get back to the
> >>>>>> airport.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the case of the Stemme, I don't have a trailer and, though it's never
> >>>>>> failed me, I won't trust the engine to save me; it's strictly for launch
> >>>>>> or travel to another location.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>> 5J
> >>>>>> On 4/11/21 6:54 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >>>>>>> BobWa43 wrote on 4/11/2021 5:19 AM:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:10:18 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Eric Greenwell wrote on 4/10/2021 8:32 PM:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I guess being in the Kuiper belt is not that bad. I guess us purist
> >>>>>>>>>>> have a distinct habit of
> >>>>>>>>>>> staying away from home. I guess next year we will name or gathering
> >>>>>>>>>>> the Kuiper Safari.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Don't read too much into the Pluto part: I just wanted some
> >>>>>>>>>> alliteration - Pluto/Purist,
> >>>>>>>>>> Mars/Motorglider. :^)
> >>>>>>>>> I suggest "Kuiper Kamp" to keep the alliteration going.
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> >>>>>>>>> email me)
> >>>>>>>>> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> >>>>>>>>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do I think that having or not having an engine is a predictor of
> >>>>>>>> piloting skills or testosterone levels? No, absolutely not. Do I
> >>>>>>>> think that having an engine provides a significant advantage in
> >>>>>>>> scoring OLC points? Absolutely, Yes. I have nothing against motor
> >>>>>>>> gliders, particularly the self launching variety,(I would like to own
> >>>>>>>> one except for the expense) but you have to admit that the sustainers
> >>>>>>>> have only one purpose and that is to save a flight that would
> >>>>>>>> otherwise end in landing out. How can anyone deny that this is a huge
> >>>>>>>> psychological advantage on the average OLC flight where there is
> >>>>>>>> nothing at stake but bragging rights. Bottom line, motor gliders
> >>>>>>>> should compete against motor gliders on OLC.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I had flown 2000 hours in unpowered sailplanes when I switched to a
> >>>>>>> motorglider, and I did not feel I had a huge psychological advantage.
> >>>>>>> And when I fly at the Parowan motorglider event each year, somehow my
> >>>>>>> "huge psychological advantage" isn't enough to keep pilots like Rami
> >>>>>>> Yanetz and Thorsten Streple from clobbering me on the OLC! There is some
> >>>>>>> advantage, but it's not huge, or even big.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, of all the factors that go into an OLC score, why do you focus only
> >>>>>>> on the motor? The place has a much larger effect, I think. Who has the
> >>>>>>> greater advantage: the sustainer pilot launching from Seminole lake, or
> >>>>>>> the pilot launching from Ridge Soaring on a good ridge day? Or a pilot
> >>>>>>> in South Africa?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> At Dan "When you start the engine the flight is over" true, but as the man in the earlier referenced video said most times you don't have to start the engine. You get to take the chance on whether there will be lift under that distant cloud with no real penalty if there isn't. If that is not a great advantage, I don't what is. If you would agree to disable the engine after take off then it would be a level playing field. It currently is not. Why do motor glider pilots resist the idea of a separate competition group?
> >> It is very much of an advantage to the motorglider pilot, the self launch I can accept as an equal, only if the engine is retracted and not started again. On the other hand the sustainer is different in how it is utilized to continue a flight that would otherwise be terminated. The mindset for the motorglider pilot changes just after release from tow, there is always a safety cushion, us purist do not have that cushion.
> >> Went to Home Depot today and bought that white Gorilla Tape so if some of these motorglider enthusiast come down and fly in the Safari next year I can tape their motor doors shut and we will all go for a flight.
At Dan: Landing at Zorro Ranch no big deal.

Jonathan St. Cloud

April 14th 21, 12:43 AM

With Cu's over the higher ground I would expect those pilots to do better. There are no mountains in the Uvalde flight area, hills.
On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 6:39:17 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 4:59:35 PM UTC-5, waremark wrote:
> > "If anything, a motorglider has a performance disadvantage compared to a motorless, because the ballast choices are limited. It is operationally more complicated during a landout, as everything the "purist" must consider has to be considered, along with deploying and starting an engine. Abandoning further cross country flight has to be done earlier and higher, a disadvantage."
> > All that is true, and I think in a competition the motorglider therefore has a net disadvantage, and more so for a self-launcher with its higher minimum wing loading. On the other hand, for what I might call the relaxed leisure pilot, motorglider pilots at my club tend to attempt flights further away from home or in more dubious conditions than pilots of pure gliders - because for a relaxed leisure flight pilots are less keen to risk a landout far from home. I accept that there must be pilots with enthusiastic crews who are more bold, but I don't know them!
> >
> > Most of the pilots at my club who now fly motorgliders were being rude about motorglider pilots 20 years ago. But virtually everyone who has bought a new glider in the last 10 years has bought it with an engine, whether internal combustion, jet or electric.
> >
> > Both in my club and on the UK BGA Ladder there is a trophy for the best result in a 'non MOP' glider.
> Just a sort of relevant anecdote: Was flying a contest at Uvalde where the task area has both flat land and mountains. One day a MAT task was called.. It was almost totally blue over the flat ground but cu's were popping in the mountains. The motorgliders pretty much all went into the mountains to fly their extra turns. The non-motors stayed in the flats. Guess who had the better day.

Wallace Berry[_2_]

April 14th 21, 02:32 AM

OK, yes. The "Hill Country". Beautiful place. For the purposes of this conversation, does it matter whether it's technically a mountain or a hill if landing out there means you crash and probably die?

The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?

This was at the Sports Nats at Uvalde a few years ago. Maybe not every motorglider went up in the hills that day, but I seem to remember that most did.. There may have been a pure glider or two that chanced the hills.

The point is: Tasking and terrain can significantly favor motorgliders. Not sure there's a situation where tasking and terrain ever favors the pure glider. Only on weak lift days do pure gliders have any potential advantage. Again, it doesn't matter very much to me from a competition standpoint. I just wish the motorglider guys would quit saying they have no competitive advantages.

April 14th 21, 04:46 AM

On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 6:54:16 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> ...
> I'm having trouble understanding your concerns, because these issues haven been worked on (at
> least in the US) for at least the 25 years I've owned a motorglider, and the current rules
> reflect the consensus of pilots flying competitions, whether it's Regionals, Nationals, or even
> SSA records. The OLC doesn't have separate classes, either. There doesn't seem to be any need
> to "resist the idea of a separate competition group", because I'm not aware of any formal (or
> informal, either) attempts to change the competition classes into motor/non-motor.

Actually, the OLC has created a rule to "penalize" motorglider pilots in the speed league. One must begin a soaring flight within 15 km of the takeoff airport.

At California City we would often tow to the hills about 20 km away, so had to remember to come back within 15km after getting some altitude in order to score. Folks at Williams, CA, tow much farther, so don't get to compete in the sped league.

5Z

April 14th 21, 04:56 AM

On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 11:50:01 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> My point is: In that competition situation, it was less risky for the motorgliders to go up into the hills than
> it was for the pure gliders. So much so that the pure gliders just didn't go there. The motorgliders gained
> a distinct competitive advantage. I am not a particularly serious race guy, so doesn't bother me much.
> I do get a bit tired of the "motorgliders have no competitive advantage in racing" refrain.

You must have never flown against anyone such as some of the top 10 US racing pilots I flew with back in the 1980's - 1990's. Many would fly their ASW-20, Ventus, etc. deep into tiger country with no hope of a safe landing if no lift was found. On many occasions, I would choose that time to find a different route.

Once at Minden, I was an early starter and got as far south as some high terrain, but couldn't get high enough to clear it safely. After hanging out on a ridge for close to an hour, "the mob" showed up, all a few hundred feet below me. Off they went into the high ground. I followed because I now felt that they would either mark lift, or at least one would land somewhere without breaking their ship, marking a spot for me :-) Several landed in some tiny meadows and amazingly without damage. I completed the task!

5Z

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 14th 21, 05:08 AM

Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?

What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?

Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.

If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.

Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
are/aren't they flying a motorglider.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[email protected]

April 14th 21, 01:17 PM

On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
> > The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?
> What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
> risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
> very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?
>
> Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
> Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
> chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.
>
> If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
> should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
> it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.
>
> Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
> are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
> --
Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.

> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 14th 21, 02:29 PM

wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
>>> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?
>> What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
>> risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
>> very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?
>>
>> Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
>> Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
>> chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.
>>
>> If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
>> should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
>> it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.
>>
>> Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
>> are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
>> --
> Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.

But, you are not making progress. :^)

No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
advantage for contest flying.

What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Airport Bum

April 14th 21, 04:35 PM

Take a look back at the original post that started this whole mess of a string (two actually).... It regarded â€œtestosterone levelsâ€ in â€œpuristsâ€ vs motorized glider pilots. Zero useful or meaningful information or questions there. Obvious trolling....

Iâ€™m with Guy, time to wrap up this (and the other) post. And time to stop responding to and start ignoring trolling expeditions in general.

Signed,
Jim J6
A motorglider pilot who flys his â€˜26 like a glider and considers every engine start a â€œpleasant surpriseâ€

On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 8:29:42 AM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
> > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
> >>> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?
> >> What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
> >> risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
> >> very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?
> >>
> >> Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
> >> Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
> >> chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.
> >>
> >> If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
> >> should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
> >> it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.
> >>
> >> Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
> >> are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
> >> --
> > Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.
> But, you are not making progress. :^)
>
> No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
> for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
> pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
> advantage for contest flying.
>
> What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
> fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
> separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
> care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
> trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?
>
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Dan Marotta

April 14th 21, 04:54 PM

At Dan: Landing at Zorro Ranch no big deal.

True dat, Bob, buy reread my last sentence (quoted below).

Dan
5J

On 4/13/21 5:06 PM, BobWa43 wrote:
> Had that just been
> desert and the engine not started, things would have been very inconvenient.

[email protected]

April 14th 21, 07:35 PM

On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 9:29:42 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
> > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
> >>> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?
> >> What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
> >> risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
> >> very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?
> >>
> >> Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
> >> Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
> >> chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.
> >>
> >> If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
> >> should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
> >> it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.
> >>
> >> Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
> >> are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
> >> --
> > Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.
> But, you are not making progress. :^)
>
> No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
> for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
> pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
> advantage for contest flying.
>
> What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
> fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
> separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
> care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
> trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?
>
What I have pointed out is that there is a completely different mindset between the purist and the motorglider pilot, it kind of baffles me that so many MGP's are in disagreement with that theory. Very early on I stated that there should be consideration changes between MG vs the purist in OLC scoring. Not long ago a MGP flew with us and had engine problems, unfortunately or fortunately I was there to provide a tow. After the flight the MPG told me that they had to fly with a different mindset, I found that to be a very honest statement, actually I was impressed by the performance of the self launch glider.
Now I realize that you and J6 have real issues with my opinion, I hope that I have somewhat made you more cognizant of the mindset difference. When you make that trip to Florida please come to Vero Beach and fly with us old guys. Old Bob
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

jfitch

April 14th 21, 08:01 PM

Again, you *assume* there is a "completely different mindset" between motor and non-motorglider pilots. Your assumption is incorrect for the vast majority of motorglider pilots. We know this because we have flown - and some continue to fly - non-motorgliders. The difference in mindset is *only* in considering the inconvenience of a retrieve, *not* in the safety of an out landing which might occur with either. You do not know this because you have never flown motorgliders. Does it affect OLC scores? Probably, because a purist may shy away from a direction or distance that involves a greater chance of a retrieve, and they don't want the inconvenience. If either pilot flies low over unlandable terrain, the result for either - eventually - will be the same. The purist can mitigate the inconvenience by hiring a crew for the possible retrieve, and as I have pointed out in the past this is more cost effective than buying a motorglider, with the same result. But rather than paying the money (for either the motor or the crew) a few purists simply whinge on about it. You made your choice to save money and buy a motorless glider and not have a crew for retrieves. Live with it. In real competition (as distinct from OLC) a motorglider is at a disadvantage.

On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 9:29:42 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
> > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > >> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
> > >>> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?
> > >> What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
> > >> risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
> > >> very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?
> > >>
> > >> Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
> > >> Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
> > >> chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.
> > >>
> > >> If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
> > >> should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
> > >> it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.
> > >>
> > >> Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
> > >> are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
> > >> --
> > > Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.
> > But, you are not making progress. :^)
> >
> > No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
> > for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
> > pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
> > advantage for contest flying.
> >
> > What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
> > fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
> > separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
> > care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
> > trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?
> >
> What I have pointed out is that there is a completely different mindset between the purist and the motorglider pilot, it kind of baffles me that so many MGP's are in disagreement with that theory. Very early on I stated that there should be consideration changes between MG vs the purist in OLC scoring. Not long ago a MGP flew with us and had engine problems, unfortunately or fortunately I was there to provide a tow. After the flight the MPG told me that they had to fly with a different mindset, I found that to be a very honest statement, actually I was impressed by the performance of the self launch glider.
> Now I realize that you and J6 have real issues with my opinion, I hope that I have somewhat made you more cognizant of the mindset difference. When you make that trip to Florida please come to Vero Beach and fly with us old guys. Old Bob
> >
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 14th 21, 08:58 PM

wrote on 4/14/2021 11:35 AM:
> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 9:29:42 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
>>> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
>>>>> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders h I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.
>> But, you are not making progress. :^)
>>
>> No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
>> for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
>> pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
>> advantage for contest flying.
>>
>> What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
>> fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
>> separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
>> care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
>> trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?
>>
> What I have pointed out is that there is a completely different mindset between the purist and the motorglider pilot, it kind of baffles me that so many MGP's are in disagreement with that theory. Very early on I stated that there should be consideration changes between MG vs the purist in OLC scoring. Not long ago a MGP flew with us and had engine problems, unfortunately or fortunately I was there to provide a tow. After the flight the MPG told me that they had to fly with a different mindset, I found that to be a very honest statement, actually I was impressed by the performance of the self launch glider.
> Now I realize that you and J6 have real issues with my opinion, I hope that I have somewhat made you more cognizant of the mindset difference. When you make that trip to Florida please come to Vero Beach and fly with us old guys. Old Bob
>>

A pilot's "mindset" differs widely, depending the personal circumstances; eg, between a 1-26
pilot and a Nimbus 4 pilot, between me in my Phoenix and me in my ASH26E; between the pilot
with an eager crew and the pilot that's crewless (and not sure anyone will come get him);
between the pilot that thinks a $200 towplane retrieve is a super bargain and the pilot that
can hardly afford a 1500' tow. What's disturbing to a lot of us is you won't recognize all the
variety in soaring circumstances, and focus unnecessarily, and often rudely, on a single
factor: the motor. "I hope that I have somewhat made you more cognizant of the mindset
difference", that the mindset differences within a group (motored or towed) can vary more than
the differences between the two groups.

I can't explain it any better, so I'm done. If you have questions about operating a motorglider
safely and enjoyably, please read my Guide (link below). If you still have questions, email me
at

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[email protected]

April 14th 21, 09:17 PM

On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 3:58:20 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote on 4/14/2021 11:35 AM:
> > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 9:29:42 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >>>> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
> >>>>> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders h I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.
> >> But, you are not making progress. :^)
> >>
> >> No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
> >> for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
> >> pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
> >> advantage for contest flying.
> >>
> >> What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
> >> fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
> >> separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
> >> care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
> >> trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?
> >>
> > What I have pointed out is that there is a completely different mindset between the purist and the motorglider pilot, it kind of baffles me that so many MGP's are in disagreement with that theory. Very early on I stated that there should be consideration changes between MG vs the purist in OLC scoring. Not long ago a MGP flew with us and had engine problems, unfortunately or fortunately I was there to provide a tow. After the flight the MPG told me that they had to fly with a different mindset, I found that to be a very honest statement, actually I was impressed by the performance of the self launch glider.
> > Now I realize that you and J6 have real issues with my opinion, I hope that I have somewhat made you more cognizant of the mindset difference. When you make that trip to Florida please come to Vero Beach and fly with us old guys. Old Bob
> >>
> A pilot's "mindset" differs widely, depending the personal circumstances; eg, between a 1-26
> pilot and a Nimbus 4 pilot, between me in my Phoenix and me in my ASH26E; between the pilot
> with an eager crew and the pilot that's crewless (and not sure anyone will come get him);
> between the pilot that thinks a $200 towplane retrieve is a super bargain and the pilot that
> can hardly afford a 1500' tow. What's disturbing to a lot of us is you won't recognize all the
> variety in soaring circumstances, and focus unnecessarily, and often rudely, on a single
> factor: the motor. "I hope that I have somewhat made you more cognizant of the mindset
> difference", that the mindset differences within a group (motored or towed) can vary more than
> the differences between the two groups.
>
> I can't explain it any better, so I'm done. If you have questions about operating a motorglider
> safely and enjoyably, please read my Guide (link below). If you still have questions, email me
> at
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Eric, I am going to miss you. Old Bob

waremark

April 14th 21, 11:40 PM

On Wednesday, 14 April 2021 at 04:46:05 UTC+1, 5Z wrote:

> Actually, the OLC has created a rule to "penalize" motorglider pilots in the speed league. One must begin a soaring flight within 15 km of the takeoff airport.
>
> At California City we would often tow to the hills about 20 km away, so had to remember to come back within 15km after getting some altitude in order to score. Folks at Williams, CA, tow much farther, so don't get to compete in the sped league.
>
> 5Z

I find that a strange rule. It certainly should not differentiate between motor gliders and pure gliders - pure glider pilots can and do tow to remote start points. But why differentiate between a pilot who tows or motors to a better soaring location, and a pilot who trailers the glider nearer to the better soaring and launches from a closer airport?

Having said that, anecdotally I will mention a friend who motored upwind in his ASG 31 before soaring conditions started, and finished downwind, in a successful attempt to achieve the UK Free 3 turnpoint distance record. Very creative, but it could have been done with an aerotow. Incidentally, he dropped out of a competition in order to attempt the record flight.

I just looked at the list of UK record holders. Of 19 records achieved since 2000, every one was achieved in a motorglider. I think that is more of a reflection of the gliders record breakers buy than of their mindset. In several cases the pilots were setting records in pure gliders before they bought motor gliders.

Mark Burton

[email protected]

April 15th 21, 12:44 AM

On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 11:46:05 PM UTC-4, 5Z wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 6:54:16 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > ...
> > I'm having trouble understanding your concerns, because these issues haven been worked on (at
> > least in the US) for at least the 25 years I've owned a motorglider, and the current rules
> > reflect the consensus of pilots flying competitions, whether it's Regionals, Nationals, or even
> > SSA records. The OLC doesn't have separate classes, either. There doesn't seem to be any need
> > to "resist the idea of a separate competition group", because I'm not aware of any formal (or
> > informal, either) attempts to change the competition classes into motor/non-motor.
> Actually, the OLC has created a rule to "penalize" motorglider pilots in the speed league. One must begin a soaring flight within 15 km of the takeoff airport.
>
> At California City we would often tow to the hills about 20 km away, so had to remember to come back within 15km after getting some altitude in order to score. Folks at Williams, CA, tow much farther, so don't get to compete in the sped league.
>
> 5Z
So you had to backtrack 5 km, 3.1 miles and that was a big disadvantage, and you are flying a 50/1 sailplane ?

Jonathan St. Cloud

April 16th 21, 02:26 PM

Just to be clear. Have YOU ever owned and flown a motorglider or sustainer? Or have your opinions been formed with no personal knowledge.
On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 9:29:42 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
> > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > >> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
> > >>> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?
> > >> What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
> > >> risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
> > >> very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?
> > >>
> > >> Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
> > >> Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
> > >> chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.
> > >>
> > >> If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
> > >> should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
> > >> it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.
> > >>
> > >> Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
> > >> are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
> > >> --
> > > Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.
> > But, you are not making progress. :^)
> >
> > No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
> > for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
> > pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
> > advantage for contest flying.
> >
> > What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
> > fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
> > separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
> > care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
> > trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?
> >
> What I have pointed out is that there is a completely different mindset between the purist and the motorglider pilot, it kind of baffles me that so many MGP's are in disagreement with that theory. Very early on I stated that there should be consideration changes between MG vs the purist in OLC scoring. Not long ago a MGP flew with us and had engine problems, unfortunately or fortunately I was there to provide a tow. After the flight the MPG told me that they had to fly with a different mindset, I found that to be a very honest statement, actually I was impressed by the performance of the self launch glider.
> Now I realize that you and J6 have real issues with my opinion, I hope that I have somewhat made you more cognizant of the mindset difference. When you make that trip to Florida please come to Vero Beach and fly with us old guys. Old Bob
> >
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[email protected]

April 16th 21, 03:01 PM

On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 9:26:58 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Just to be clear. Have YOU ever owned and flown a motorglider or sustainer? Or have your opinions been formed with no personal knowledge.
> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 9:29:42 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > >> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
> > > >>> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?
> > > >> What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
> > > >> risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
> > > >> very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?
> > > >>
> > > >> Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
> > > >> Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
> > > >> chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.
> > > >>
> > > >> If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
> > > >> should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
> > > >> it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.
> > > >>
> > > >> Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
> > > >> are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
> > > >> --
> > > > Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.
> > > But, you are not making progress. :^)
> > >
> > > No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
> > > for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
> > > pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
> > > advantage for contest flying.
> > >
> > > What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
> > > fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
> > > separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
> > > care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
> > > trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?
> > >
> > What I have pointed out is that there is a completely different mindset between the purist and the motorglider pilot, it kind of baffles me that so many MGP's are in disagreement with that theory. Very early on I stated that there should be consideration changes between MG vs the purist in OLC scoring. Not long ago a MGP flew with us and had engine problems, unfortunately or fortunately I was there to provide a tow. After the flight the MPG told me that they had to fly with a different mindset, I found that to be a very honest statement, actually I was impressed by the performance of the self launch glider.
> > Now I realize that you and J6 have real issues with my opinion, I hope that I have somewhat made you more cognizant of the mindset difference. When you make that trip to Florida please come to Vero Beach and fly with us old guys. Old Bob
> > >
> > > --
> > > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
Jonathan, YES, I have flown a motorglider! Logged over 3K hours in excellent glass ships, flown places that even you MGP's would never go even with a motor, 1983, documented 25 miles offshore out over the Atlantic. I guess you MGP's will be shocked if I buy a self launch. Old Bob

jfitch

April 16th 21, 04:02 PM

Jonathan - having flown a motorglider, and having flown one cross country a few thousand miles, are different things. The latter would qualify him as having some experience. Just tooling around the airport once or twice doesn't count, certainly not enough to expound collectively about "mindset". Old Bob has been a prolific poster on OLC over the last couple of years, all in an ASW27 and 24 from the same airport, none in a motorglider, and most of the flights <200km which out west we would consider a local flight.

On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 6:26:58 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Just to be clear. Have YOU ever owned and flown a motorglider or sustainer? Or have your opinions been formed with no personal knowledge.
> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 9:29:42 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > >> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
> > > >>> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?
> > > >> What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
> > > >> risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
> > > >> very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?
> > > >>
> > > >> Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
> > > >> Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
> > > >> chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.
> > > >>
> > > >> If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
> > > >> should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
> > > >> it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.
> > > >>
> > > >> Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
> > > >> are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
> > > >> --
> > > > Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.
> > > But, you are not making progress. :^)
> > >
> > > No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
> > > for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
> > > pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
> > > advantage for contest flying.
> > >
> > > What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
> > > fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
> > > separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
> > > care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
> > > trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?
> > >
> > What I have pointed out is that there is a completely different mindset between the purist and the motorglider pilot, it kind of baffles me that so many MGP's are in disagreement with that theory. Very early on I stated that there should be consideration changes between MG vs the purist in OLC scoring. Not long ago a MGP flew with us and had engine problems, unfortunately or fortunately I was there to provide a tow. After the flight the MPG told me that they had to fly with a different mindset, I found that to be a very honest statement, actually I was impressed by the performance of the self launch glider.
> > Now I realize that you and J6 have real issues with my opinion, I hope that I have somewhat made you more cognizant of the mindset difference. When you make that trip to Florida please come to Vero Beach and fly with us old guys. Old Bob
> > >
> > > --
> > > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[email protected]

April 16th 21, 10:02 PM

On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:02:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> Jonathan - having flown a motorglider, and having flown one cross country a few thousand miles, are different things. The latter would qualify him as having some experience. Just tooling around the airport once or twice doesn't count, certainly not enough to expound collectively about "mindset". Old Bob has been a prolific poster on OLC over the last couple of years, all in an ASW27 and 24 from the same airport, none in a motorglider, and most of the flights <200km which out west we would consider a local flight.
> On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 6:26:58 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Just to be clear. Have YOU ever owned and flown a motorglider or sustainer? Or have your opinions been formed with no personal knowledge.
> > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 9:29:42 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > >> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
> > > > >>> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?
> > > > >> What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
> > > > >> risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
> > > > >> very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
> > > > >> Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
> > > > >> chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
> > > > >> should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
> > > > >> it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
> > > > >> are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
> > > > >> --
> > > > > Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.
> > > > But, you are not making progress. :^)
> > > >
> > > > No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
> > > > for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
> > > > pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
> > > > advantage for contest flying.
> > > >
> > > > What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
> > > > fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
> > > > separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
> > > > care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
> > > > trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?
> > > >
> > > What I have pointed out is that there is a completely different mindset between the purist and the motorglider pilot, it kind of baffles me that so many MGP's are in disagreement with that theory. Very early on I stated that there should be consideration changes between MG vs the purist in OLC scoring. Not long ago a MGP flew with us and had engine problems, unfortunately or fortunately I was there to provide a tow. After the flight the MPG told me that they had to fly with a different mindset, I found that to be a very honest statement, actually I was impressed by the performance of the self launch glider.
> > > Now I realize that you and J6 have real issues with my opinion, I hope that I have somewhat made you more cognizant of the mindset difference. When you make that trip to Florida please come to Vero Beach and fly with us old guys. Old Bob
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > > > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > > > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
Fitch, I am in your head, I certainly have captured your imagination, long before OLC we did it with a baragraph and turnpoint cameras. You are probably way too young to remember those days. I would really like to have you join me here in Florida for a nice fun flight somewhere deep into the swamp. Come on down, we will Gorilla Tape those motor doors shut and go on a nice safari that would even make Greenwell proud. I must really be in your head, ease up a bit Fitch, things could be worse, I could be flying one of those motorgliders. Motorgliders are like kissing your sister, you cold do better or you could do worse.

[email protected]

April 16th 21, 10:30 PM

On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 5:02:35 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:02:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Jonathan - having flown a motorglider, and having flown one cross country a few thousand miles, are different things. The latter would qualify him as having some experience. Just tooling around the airport once or twice doesn't count, certainly not enough to expound collectively about "mindset". Old Bob has been a prolific poster on OLC over the last couple of years, all in an ASW27 and 24 from the same airport, none in a motorglider, and most of the flights <200km which out west we would consider a local flight.
> > On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 6:26:58 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > Just to be clear. Have YOU ever owned and flown a motorglider or sustainer? Or have your opinions been formed with no personal knowledge.
> > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 9:29:42 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > >> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
> > > > > >>> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?
> > > > > >> What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
> > > > > >> risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
> > > > > >> very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
> > > > > >> Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
> > > > > >> chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
> > > > > >> should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
> > > > > >> it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
> > > > > >> are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > > Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay..
> > > > > But, you are not making progress. :^)
> > > > >
> > > > > No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
> > > > > for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
> > > > > pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
> > > > > advantage for contest flying.
> > > > >
> > > > > What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
> > > > > fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
> > > > > separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
> > > > > care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
> > > > > trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?
> > > > >
> > > > What I have pointed out is that there is a completely different mindset between the purist and the motorglider pilot, it kind of baffles me that so many MGP's are in disagreement with that theory. Very early on I stated that there should be consideration changes between MG vs the purist in OLC scoring. Not long ago a MGP flew with us and had engine problems, unfortunately or fortunately I was there to provide a tow. After the flight the MPG told me that they had to fly with a different mindset, I found that to be a very honest statement, actually I was impressed by the performance of the self launch glider.
> > > > Now I realize that you and J6 have real issues with my opinion, I hope that I have somewhat made you more cognizant of the mindset difference. When you make that trip to Florida please come to Vero Beach and fly with us old guys. Old Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > > > > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> Fitch, I am in your head, I certainly have captured your imagination, long before OLC we did it with a baragraph and turnpoint cameras. You are probably way too young to remember those days. I would really like to have you join me here in Florida for a nice fun flight somewhere deep into the swamp.. Come on down, we will Gorilla Tape those motor doors shut and go on a nice safari that would even make Greenwell proud. I must really be in your head, ease up a bit Fitch, things could be worse, I could be flying one of those motorgliders. Motorgliders are like kissing your sister, you cold do better or you could do worse.
Fitch, I almost forgot, if I flew a motorglider I would have to cross dress and the guys at the gliderport would be really surprised at Old Bob. Usually I wear shorts a flowered shirt and flip flops. Do your high heels get in the way of tour rudder peddals? Old Bob

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 17th 21, 12:59 AM

On 4/16/2021 2:30 PM, wrote:
> On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 5:02:35 PM UTC-4, wrote:
....tion"
>>>>>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
>> Fitch, I am in your head, I certainly have captured your imagination, long before OLC we did it with a baragraph and turnpoint cameras. You are probably way too young to remember those days. I would really like to have you join me here in Florida for a nice fun flight somewhere deep into the swamp. Come on down, we will Gorilla Tape those motor doors shut and go on a nice safari that would even make Greenwell proud. I must really be in your head, ease up a bit Fitch, things could be worse, I could be flying one of those motorgliders. Motorgliders are like kissing your sister, you cold do better or you could do worse.
> Fitch, I almost forgot, if I flew a motorglider I would have to cross dress and the guys at the gliderport would be really surprised at Old Bob. Usually I wear shorts a flowered shirt and flip flops. Do your high heels get in the way of tour rudder peddals? Old Bob

You are not making a "safari" at Vero Beach seem very appealing.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

jfitch

April 17th 21, 02:03 AM

And someone upthread accused me of personal attacks.....

BTW, I soloed in gliders 52 years ago now, so not brand new to the sport.

On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 2:30:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 5:02:35 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:02:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > Jonathan - having flown a motorglider, and having flown one cross country a few thousand miles, are different things. The latter would qualify him as having some experience. Just tooling around the airport once or twice doesn't count, certainly not enough to expound collectively about "mindset". Old Bob has been a prolific poster on OLC over the last couple of years, all in an ASW27 and 24 from the same airport, none in a motorglider, and most of the flights <200km which out west we would consider a local flight.
> > > On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 6:26:58 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > Just to be clear. Have YOU ever owned and flown a motorglider or sustainer? Or have your opinions been formed with no personal knowledge.
> > > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 9:29:42 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > >> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
> > > > > > >>> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?
> > > > > > >> What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
> > > > > > >> risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
> > > > > > >> very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
> > > > > > >> Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
> > > > > > >> chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
> > > > > > >> should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
> > > > > > >> it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
> > > > > > >> are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.
> > > > > > But, you are not making progress. :^)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
> > > > > > for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
> > > > > > pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
> > > > > > advantage for contest flying.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
> > > > > > fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
> > > > > > separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
> > > > > > care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
> > > > > > trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > What I have pointed out is that there is a completely different mindset between the purist and the motorglider pilot, it kind of baffles me that so many MGP's are in disagreement with that theory. Very early on I stated that there should be consideration changes between MG vs the purist in OLC scoring. Not long ago a MGP flew with us and had engine problems, unfortunately or fortunately I was there to provide a tow. After the flight the MPG told me that they had to fly with a different mindset, I found that to be a very honest statement, actually I was impressed by the performance of the self launch glider.
> > > > > Now I realize that you and J6 have real issues with my opinion, I hope that I have somewhat made you more cognizant of the mindset difference. When you make that trip to Florida please come to Vero Beach and fly with us old guys. Old Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > > > > > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> > Fitch, I am in your head, I certainly have captured your imagination, long before OLC we did it with a baragraph and turnpoint cameras. You are probably way too young to remember those days. I would really like to have you join me here in Florida for a nice fun flight somewhere deep into the swamp. Come on down, we will Gorilla Tape those motor doors shut and go on a nice safari that would even make Greenwell proud. I must really be in your head, ease up a bit Fitch, things could be worse, I could be flying one of those motorgliders. Motorgliders are like kissing your sister, you cold do better or you could do worse.
> Fitch, I almost forgot, if I flew a motorglider I would have to cross dress and the guys at the gliderport would be really surprised at Old Bob. Usually I wear shorts a flowered shirt and flip flops. Do your high heels get in the way of tour rudder peddals? Old Bob

[email protected]

April 17th 21, 12:53 PM

On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 9:03:34 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> And someone upthread accused me of personal attacks.....
>
> BTW, I soloed in gliders 52 years ago now, so not brand new to the sport.
> On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 2:30:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 5:02:35 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:02:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Jonathan - having flown a motorglider, and having flown one cross country a few thousand miles, are different things. The latter would qualify him as having some experience. Just tooling around the airport once or twice doesn't count, certainly not enough to expound collectively about "mindset". Old Bob has been a prolific poster on OLC over the last couple of years, all in an ASW27 and 24 from the same airport, none in a motorglider, and most of the flights <200km which out west we would consider a local flight..
> > > > On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 6:26:58 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > Just to be clear. Have YOU ever owned and flown a motorglider or sustainer? Or have your opinions been formed with no personal knowledge.
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 9:29:42 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
> > > > > > > >>> The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?
> > > > > > > >> What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
> > > > > > > >> risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
> > > > > > > >> very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
> > > > > > > >> Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
> > > > > > > >> chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
> > > > > > > >> should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
> > > > > > > >> it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
> > > > > > > >> are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
> > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.
> > > > > > > But, you are not making progress. :^)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
> > > > > > > for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
> > > > > > > pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
> > > > > > > advantage for contest flying.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
> > > > > > > fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
> > > > > > > separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
> > > > > > > care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
> > > > > > > trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > What I have pointed out is that there is a completely different mindset between the purist and the motorglider pilot, it kind of baffles me that so many MGP's are in disagreement with that theory. Very early on I stated that there should be consideration changes between MG vs the purist in OLC scoring. Not long ago a MGP flew with us and had engine problems, unfortunately or fortunately I was there to provide a tow. After the flight the MPG told me that they had to fly with a different mindset, I found that to be a very honest statement, actually I was impressed by the performance of the self launch glider.
> > > > > > Now I realize that you and J6 have real issues with my opinion, I hope that I have somewhat made you more cognizant of the mindset difference. When you make that trip to Florida please come to Vero Beach and fly with us old guys. Old Bob
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > > > > > > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > > > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> > > Fitch, I am in your head, I certainly have captured your imagination, long before OLC we did it with a baragraph and turnpoint cameras. You are probably way too young to remember those days. I would really like to have you join me here in Florida for a nice fun flight somewhere deep into the swamp. Come on down, we will Gorilla Tape those motor doors shut and go on a nice safari that would even make Greenwell proud. I must really be in your head, ease up a bit Fitch, things could be worse, I could be flying one of those motorgliders. Motorgliders are like kissing your sister, you cold do better or you could do worse.
> > Fitch, I almost forgot, if I flew a motorglider I would have to cross dress and the guys at the gliderport would be really surprised at Old Bob. Usually I wear shorts a flowered shirt and flip flops. Do your high heels get in the way of tour rudder peddals? Old Bob

Fitch congratulations on being one of us old guys, my apologies are in order. I had completely mistaken you for one of the new MG generation glider pilots. Old Bob

waremark

April 18th 21, 12:19 AM

On Saturday, 17 April 2021 at 12:53:45 UTC+1, wrote:
> Fitch congratulations on being one of us old guys, my apologies are in order. I had completely mistaken you for one of the new MG generation glider pilots. Old Bob

Where I fly the new generation generally cannot afford motor gliders. I may have commented earlier that some of the folk flying motorgliders nowadays are the same folk who were rude about motorgliders 20 years ago.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 18th 21, 03:17 PM

On 4/17/2021 4:19 PM, waremark wrote:
> On Saturday, 17 April 2021 at 12:53:45 UTC+1, wrote:
>> Fitch congratulations on being one of us old guys, my apologies are in order. I had completely mistaken you for one of the new MG generation glider pilots. Old Bob
>
> Where I fly the new generation generally cannot afford motor gliders. I may have commented earlier that some of the folk flying motorgliders nowadays are the same folk who were rude about motorgliders 20 years ago.
>
I began flying motorglider about 25 years ago. Back then, unpowered
pilots would ask me "did you have to use the motor?" when sitting around
after flying, drinking a beer. Now, the question is "where did you go?".
Attitudes have changed lot since then, with motorgliders now accepted as
much as unpowered gliders, but unfortunately too expensive for many pilots.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[email protected]

April 19th 21, 12:29 AM

On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 10:17:08 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 4/17/2021 4:19 PM, waremark wrote:
> > On Saturday, 17 April 2021 at 12:53:45 UTC+1, wrote:
> >> Fitch congratulations on being one of us old guys, my apologies are in order. I had completely mistaken you for one of the new MG generation glider pilots. Old Bob
> >
> > Where I fly the new generation generally cannot afford motor gliders. I may have commented earlier that some of the folk flying motorgliders nowadays are the same folk who were rude about motorgliders 20 years ago.
> >
> I began flying motorglider about 25 years ago. Back then, unpowered
> pilots would ask me "did you have to use the motor?" when sitting around
> after flying, drinking a beer. Now, the question is "where did you go?".
> Attitudes have changed lot since then, with motorgliders now accepted as
> much as unpowered gliders, but unfortunately too expensive for many pilots.
> --
> Eric Greenwell - USA
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Eric, not quiet as well accepted as you might think, go ahead and toot your own horn, but the purist are the real glider pilots. Old Bob

[email protected]

April 19th 21, 01:49 AM

> >
> > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> Eric, not quiet as well accepted as you might think, go ahead and toot your own horn, but the purist are the real glider pilots. Old Bob

Old Bob,
Thanks for the laugh. Tooting your own horn is a classic line as we all can see that "real glider pilots" would never do that.

Steve

April 19th 21, 02:07 PM

> Jonathan, YES, I have flown a motorglider! Logged over 3K hours in excellent glass ships, flown places that even you MGP's would never go even with a motor, 1983, documented 25 miles offshore out over the Atlantic. I guess you MGP's will be shocked if I buy a self launch. Old Bob

I realize this thread is trolling, but it is perpetrating a dangerous myth. Bob has made many references to the motor saving your bacon. That motor glider pilots fly without fear over unlandable terrain. And perhaps Bob, who like to brag about his daring do might fly one that way, it is unsafe to do so.

Now there is a mindset diference when flying a glider with self retrieve capability. It is not as Bob sugest no fear over "the swamp". It is reduced concern that you will inconvenience a bunch of folks to come get you at the end of the day. This is an important distinction.

As for the olc advantage of going for the distant clouds with the chance of a landout, that is true. But is foolish at best if it is not landable under those clouds.

So yes there are psychological advantages to having a good chance to avoid a retrieve but not from the unlandable pucker factor. So are there advantages to a self launch or self retrieving glider? There damn well better be to pay the upcharge for the convenience, but is it a true fear reducer? You best check yourself if you fly like it is...

Mark Mocho

April 19th 21, 03:05 PM

"I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."

However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.

[email protected]

April 20th 21, 08:55 PM

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
>
> However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob

[email protected]

April 22nd 21, 12:54 PM

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> >
> > However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob

Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob

jfitch

April 22nd 21, 03:58 PM

I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.

You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.

If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > > "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > >
> > > However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> > Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob

John Foster

April 22nd 21, 05:18 PM

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
> I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
>
> You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
>
> If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > > > "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > > >
> > > > However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists.." This thread should die.
> > > Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> > Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob

I'm a new glider pilot, who has no significant experience with motorgliders (other than going for a flight in a Dimona TMG). One of the things my (recent) training emphasized with regard to flying a MG was that you should NEVER fly to an area that you would need the motor to get out of if there were no safe land-out options available. In other words, your mindset, when flying a motorglider, should be the SAME as when flying a "pure" glider, because you can not 100% depend on the reliability of the motor to start. I believe this is the point many are making here.

However, it would seem that in reality this is not always the case. This has been evidenced by a few recent high-profile crashes, including that of Sebastian Kawa. The reality is that having a motor seems to give some pilots (not all, admittedly), a sense of security that allows them to take additional risks, and thus get an advantage from it. Technology continues to improve, and reliability of these motors seems to be getting better, at least what I can tell from reading. And as such, "Old Bob" does make a valid point. The question I have is "how many MG pilots, in actual practice, fly their MG like a pure sailplane, not putting themselves in situations where they would need to depend on their motor?"

[email protected]

April 22nd 21, 06:10 PM

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:58:06 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
>
> You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
>
> If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > > > "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > > >
> > > > However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists.." This thread should die.
> > > Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> > Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
Good morning Fitch, no, the comment was not a revelation, it was a much appreciated comment from a motorglider pilot. It further confirms that there is an advantage from the motorglider vs the purist, maybe you should not abrogate the fact that there is an advantage. Your friend, Old Bob

Janet Gieseke

April 22nd 21, 09:02 PM

I would say that there is some advantage to a MG over a pure glider, all other things being equal.

I liken the issue to a nail driving competition. Lets drive a nails into a 4x4, one lick with a hammer and see whos nail goes the deepest. Some contestants get to hold their nails with needle nose pliers, others hold the nails with their fingers.

Janet Gieseke

April 22nd 21, 09:15 PM

I would say that there is some advantage to the pilot of a MG over the pilot of a pure glider, all other things being equal.

I liken the issue to a nail driving competition. Lets drive nails into a 4x4, one lick with a hammer and see whos nail goes the deepest. Some contestants get to hold their nails with needle nose pliers, others hold the nails with their fingers.

Andrzej Kobus

April 22nd 21, 11:18 PM

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 12:19:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
> > I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
> >
> > You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
> >
> > If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > > > > "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> > > > Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> > > Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
> I'm a new glider pilot, who has no significant experience with motorgliders (other than going for a flight in a Dimona TMG). One of the things my (recent) training emphasized with regard to flying a MG was that you should NEVER fly to an area that you would need the motor to get out of if there were no safe land-out options available. In other words, your mindset, when flying a motorglider, should be the SAME as when flying a "pure" glider, because you can not 100% depend on the reliability of the motor to start. I believe this is the point many are making here.
>
> However, it would seem that in reality this is not always the case. This has been evidenced by a few recent high-profile crashes, including that of Sebastian Kawa. The reality is that having a motor seems to give some pilots (not all, admittedly), a sense of security that allows them to take additional risks, and thus get an advantage from it. Technology continues to improve, and reliability of these motors seems to be getting better, at least what I can tell from reading. And as such, "Old Bob" does make a valid point. The question I have is "how many MG pilots, in actual practice, fly their MG like a pure sailplane, not putting themselves in situations where they would need to depend on their motor?"

I actually fly more conservatively than I flew pure gliders. The main reason is that a MG is heavier and needs a better field. Also in weak conditions pure gliders have huge advantage. Saying that MG have advantage is a pile of BS. It is not a MG that gives people advantage is the mindset of being lucky, many pure glider pilot have the same mindset that is based on the way they think rather than reality. I am sure there is someone out there thinking that a picture of Jesus in the glider will bring that person home. Neither has bases in reality.

waremark

April 23rd 21, 01:21 AM

"The question I have is "how many MG pilots, in actual practice, fly their MG like a pure sailplane, not putting themselves in situations where they would need to depend on their motor?"

It depends what you mean. I don't put myself in a situation where I don't believe there is a safe landing option - in 14 seasons of flying a motorglider the engine failed to start on just one occasion, as normal I had raised the prop on a high downwind to land in a field and I proceeded to land safely in the field. On the other hand when not in a competition I would sometimes set a shorter task or give up sooner and glide home if I didn't have the engine. In a competition, I wouldn't give up sooner without an engine, and with it I suffer from the higher decision height to give up and the higher minimum wing loading. Those are the disadvantages, the advantage is that you get home rapidly after abandoning a task, and don't experience the fatigue of a difficult or late retrieve.

RW[_2_]

April 23rd 21, 05:19 AM

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 3:18:49 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 12:19:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
> > >
> > > You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
> > >
> > > If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > > > > > "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> > > > > Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> > > > Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
> > I'm a new glider pilot, who has no significant experience with motorgliders (other than going for a flight in a Dimona TMG). One of the things my (recent) training emphasized with regard to flying a MG was that you should NEVER fly to an area that you would need the motor to get out of if there were no safe land-out options available. In other words, your mindset, when flying a motorglider, should be the SAME as when flying a "pure" glider, because you can not 100% depend on the reliability of the motor to start. I believe this is the point many are making here.
> >
> > However, it would seem that in reality this is not always the case. This has been evidenced by a few recent high-profile crashes, including that of Sebastian Kawa. The reality is that having a motor seems to give some pilots (not all, admittedly), a sense of security that allows them to take additional risks, and thus get an advantage from it. Technology continues to improve, and reliability of these motors seems to be getting better, at least what I can tell from reading. And as such, "Old Bob" does make a valid point. The question I have is "how many MG pilots, in actual practice, fly their MG like a pure sailplane, not putting themselves in situations where they would need to depend on their motor?"
> I actually fly more conservatively than I flew pure gliders. The main reason is that a MG is heavier and needs a better field. Also in weak conditions pure gliders have huge advantage. Saying that MG have advantage is a pile of BS. It is not a MG that gives people advantage is the mindset of being lucky, many pure glider pilot have the same mindset that is based on the way they think rather than reality. I am sure there is someone out there thinking that a picture of Jesus in the glider will bring that person home. Neither has bases in reality.
I agree with my country man Andrzej.
I fly both, pure and MG.
Al and I are those who one of you said roam Uvalde Hills in 2016 Sports.
You all didnt notice for this 570km task we took only one thermal on the flat south lands. All flight was 800-2000 ft below cloud base to read the clouds and plan, sometimes argue easier way. All the Hills flight we had security of the airfield( 1000ft arrival).
Old Bob in my pure SZD55 I plan for 500ft agl to my new home base (I keep switching them like my girlfriends in the past (I know I'm beatifull, and if you don't believe me call my mother 01148781286679)):) :) :)
Ryszard

jfitch

April 23rd 21, 06:09 AM

Bob, you keep saying "there is an advantage". What advantage, exactly? Are you suggesting that in this case, the MG pilot was too low to reach a safe landing site when he started his motor? If so give us the link to his IGC file (or date and name), so that we may see this. I doubt you will because I doubt you can. "A much appreciated comment..." - do your MG friends commonly lie about starting the motor? It is right there in the IGC file for anyone to see. I'd be more than happy with a low save rule for contests where starting your motor - or thermaling - too low for a safe landing meant a DSQ, the so called 'hard deck' rule. It would affect more purists than MG pilots, I'll wager.

Of course there are pilots who fly low into unlandable terrain. I knew two, they did the same thing while flying non MG gliders and eventually came to grief. The motor didn't change their attitude, at most it delayed the inevitable. Kawa's accident isn't really a surprise, his risk tolerance is self documented.

I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it..
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:10:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:58:06 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
> >
> > You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
> >
> > If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > > > > "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> > > > Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> > > Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
> Good morning Fitch, no, the comment was not a revelation, it was a much appreciated comment from a motorglider pilot. It further confirms that there is an advantage from the motorglider vs the purist, maybe you should not abrogate the fact that there is an advantage. Your friend, Old Bob

[email protected]

April 23rd 21, 12:41 PM

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:09:58 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> Bob, you keep saying "there is an advantage". What advantage, exactly? Are you suggesting that in this case, the MG pilot was too low to reach a safe landing site when he started his motor? If so give us the link to his IGC file (or date and name), so that we may see this. I doubt you will because I doubt you can. "A much appreciated comment..." - do your MG friends commonly lie about starting the motor? It is right there in the IGC file for anyone to see. I'd be more than happy with a low save rule for contests where starting your motor - or thermaling - too low for a safe landing meant a DSQ, the so called 'hard deck' rule. It would affect more purists than MG pilots, I'll wager.
>
> Of course there are pilots who fly low into unlandable terrain. I knew two, they did the same thing while flying non MG gliders and eventually came to grief. The motor didn't change their attitude, at most it delayed the inevitable. Kawa's accident isn't really a surprise, his risk tolerance is self documented.
>
> I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:10:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:58:06 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
> > >
> > > You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
> > >
> > > If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > > > > > "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> > > > > Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> > > > Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
> > Good morning Fitch, no, the comment was not a revelation, it was a much appreciated comment from a motorglider pilot. It further confirms that there is an advantage from the motorglider vs the purist, maybe you should not abrogate the fact that there is an advantage. Your friend, Old Bob
Good morning my friend Fitch, hopefully you got a good night sleep and had no nightmares of a purist recovering from a low save to make it home for dinner. Just yesterday I got a call from Puerto Rico, it was a motorglider friend who offered to let me fly his JS3 MJ. I very quickly told him NO, why, because he would take a picture of me in his motorglider and send it to Seminole Lakes Motorglider Club and all the MG pilots would fall over laughing.
Seriously, IMHO there is a big advantage to the MG, being able to stretch it out a bit further to gain an advantage is a big plus on the side of the motorglider, simply stated, it prolongs a flight in certain situations, increases the ability to complete task or objectives without otherwise terminating the flight, that in and of itself is a huge advantage. Motorgliders and sustainers need to be scored in a class by themselves. Your friend and purist, Old Bob

Glenn Betzoldt[_2_]

April 23rd 21, 01:32 PM

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:41:24 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:09:58 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Bob, you keep saying "there is an advantage". What advantage, exactly? Are you suggesting that in this case, the MG pilot was too low to reach a safe landing site when he started his motor? If so give us the link to his IGC file (or date and name), so that we may see this. I doubt you will because I doubt you can. "A much appreciated comment..." - do your MG friends commonly lie about starting the motor? It is right there in the IGC file for anyone to see. I'd be more than happy with a low save rule for contests where starting your motor - or thermaling - too low for a safe landing meant a DSQ, the so called 'hard deck' rule. It would affect more purists than MG pilots, I'll wager.
> >
> > Of course there are pilots who fly low into unlandable terrain. I knew two, they did the same thing while flying non MG gliders and eventually came to grief. The motor didn't change their attitude, at most it delayed the inevitable. Kawa's accident isn't really a surprise, his risk tolerance is self documented.
> >
> > I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
> > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:10:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:58:06 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
> > > >
> > > > You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
> > > >
> > > > If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> > > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > > > > > > "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> > > > > > Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> > > > > Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home.. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
> > > Good morning Fitch, no, the comment was not a revelation, it was a much appreciated comment from a motorglider pilot. It further confirms that there is an advantage from the motorglider vs the purist, maybe you should not abrogate the fact that there is an advantage. Your friend, Old Bob
> Good morning my friend Fitch, hopefully you got a good night sleep and had no nightmares of a purist recovering from a low save to make it home for dinner. Just yesterday I got a call from Puerto Rico, it was a motorglider friend who offered to let me fly his JS3 MJ. I very quickly told him NO, why, because he would take a picture of me in his motorglider and send it to Seminole Lakes Motorglider Club and all the MG pilots would fall over laughing.
> Seriously, IMHO there is a big advantage to the MG, being able to stretch it out a bit further to gain an advantage is a big plus on the side of the motorglider, simply stated, it prolongs a flight in certain situations, increases the ability to complete task or objectives without otherwise terminating the flight, that in and of itself is a huge advantage. Motorgliders and sustainers need to be scored in a class by themselves. Your friend and purist, Old Bob

Since you have never flown a motor glider you real don't know much about them . You have the advantage because you can drop your ballast when things get weak at the end of the day, we have to carry our box of nuts and bolts back home. Also they are scored the same way as you, when we start the engine the flight is over just like your flight when you land out. It's just we can fly home and park it. You have a bigger advantage than someone who has no crew and has to call a uber for a ride back to get car and trailer then drive back to get glider (right Tony). You should be scored in a different class than the guy with no crew. Also I'm sure you are familiar with the saying " the only time you can have too much fuel onboard is when you are on fire"
Bob why don't you come up with another more positive topic to vent on instead of try to alienate the glider community.
Glennnnnnnnnnnnn

Mark Mocho

April 23rd 21, 03:12 PM

> Bob why don't you come up with another more positive topic to vent on instead of try to alienate the glider community.

I Second the Motion. Let this thread DIE!

jfitch

April 23rd 21, 03:36 PM

Good morning Bob (you can call me Jon, we should be on a first name basis by now). You keep talking of this mysterious ethereal "advantage", and are never able to actually describe it. How does an MG 'prolong a flight in certain situations' or "complete task...without otherwise terminating the flight"? The soaring flight terminates the instant the motor is started. The motor should only be started with a landing site within sure glide range. The continue vs. start engine/start pattern decision making is identical, in many cases favoring the non glider due to the increased time and pilot workload involved in the motor. Yes, a MG can continue beyond the last safe landing site, as can a purist - insurance claims are riddled with both.

You have repeatedly made an assertion without a shred of evidence - evidence that should be easy to find for such "a huge advantage", and you assert it while admitting no experience or knowledge of the subject. If what you said were true, the podium at nationals would be crowded with MG pilots. How many MGs were represented on the podium (or even the top 5) in the last several 18 meter nationals? (hint: none).
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 4:41:24 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:09:58 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Bob, you keep saying "there is an advantage". What advantage, exactly? Are you suggesting that in this case, the MG pilot was too low to reach a safe landing site when he started his motor? If so give us the link to his IGC file (or date and name), so that we may see this. I doubt you will because I doubt you can. "A much appreciated comment..." - do your MG friends commonly lie about starting the motor? It is right there in the IGC file for anyone to see. I'd be more than happy with a low save rule for contests where starting your motor - or thermaling - too low for a safe landing meant a DSQ, the so called 'hard deck' rule. It would affect more purists than MG pilots, I'll wager.
> >
> > Of course there are pilots who fly low into unlandable terrain. I knew two, they did the same thing while flying non MG gliders and eventually came to grief. The motor didn't change their attitude, at most it delayed the inevitable. Kawa's accident isn't really a surprise, his risk tolerance is self documented.
> >
> > I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
> > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:10:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:58:06 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
> > > >
> > > > You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
> > > >
> > > > If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> > > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > > > > > > "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> > > > > > Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> > > > > Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home.. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
> > > Good morning Fitch, no, the comment was not a revelation, it was a much appreciated comment from a motorglider pilot. It further confirms that there is an advantage from the motorglider vs the purist, maybe you should not abrogate the fact that there is an advantage. Your friend, Old Bob
> Good morning my friend Fitch, hopefully you got a good night sleep and had no nightmares of a purist recovering from a low save to make it home for dinner. Just yesterday I got a call from Puerto Rico, it was a motorglider friend who offered to let me fly his JS3 MJ. I very quickly told him NO, why, because he would take a picture of me in his motorglider and send it to Seminole Lakes Motorglider Club and all the MG pilots would fall over laughing.
> Seriously, IMHO there is a big advantage to the MG, being able to stretch it out a bit further to gain an advantage is a big plus on the side of the motorglider, simply stated, it prolongs a flight in certain situations, increases the ability to complete task or objectives without otherwise terminating the flight, that in and of itself is a huge advantage. Motorgliders and sustainers need to be scored in a class by themselves. Your friend and purist, Old Bob

[email protected]

April 23rd 21, 08:46 PM

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 10:36:48 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> Good morning Bob (you can call me Jon, we should be on a first name basis by now). You keep talking of this mysterious ethereal "advantage", and are never able to actually describe it. How does an MG 'prolong a flight in certain situations' or "complete task...without otherwise terminating the flight"? The soaring flight terminates the instant the motor is started. The motor should only be started with a landing site within sure glide range. The continue vs. start engine/start pattern decision making is identical, in many cases favoring the non glider due to the increased time and pilot workload involved in the motor. Yes, a MG can continue beyond the last safe landing site, as can a purist - insurance claims are riddled with both.
>
> You have repeatedly made an assertion without a shred of evidence - evidence that should be easy to find for such "a huge advantage", and you assert it while admitting no experience or knowledge of the subject. If what you said were true, the podium at nationals would be crowded with MG pilots. How many MGs were represented on the podium (or even the top 5) in the last several 18 meter nationals? (hint: none).
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 4:41:24 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:09:58 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > Bob, you keep saying "there is an advantage". What advantage, exactly? Are you suggesting that in this case, the MG pilot was too low to reach a safe landing site when he started his motor? If so give us the link to his IGC file (or date and name), so that we may see this. I doubt you will because I doubt you can. "A much appreciated comment..." - do your MG friends commonly lie about starting the motor? It is right there in the IGC file for anyone to see. I'd be more than happy with a low save rule for contests where starting your motor - or thermaling - too low for a safe landing meant a DSQ, the so called 'hard deck' rule. It would affect more purists than MG pilots, I'll wager.
> > >
> > > Of course there are pilots who fly low into unlandable terrain. I knew two, they did the same thing while flying non MG gliders and eventually came to grief. The motor didn't change their attitude, at most it delayed the inevitable. Kawa's accident isn't really a surprise, his risk tolerance is self documented.
> > >
> > > I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
> > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:10:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:58:06 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
> > > > >
> > > > > You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> > > > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > > > > > > > "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> > > > > > > Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> > > > > > Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
> > > > Good morning Fitch, no, the comment was not a revelation, it was a much appreciated comment from a motorglider pilot. It further confirms that there is an advantage from the motorglider vs the purist, maybe you should not abrogate the fact that there is an advantage. Your friend, Old Bob
> > Good morning my friend Fitch, hopefully you got a good night sleep and had no nightmares of a purist recovering from a low save to make it home for dinner. Just yesterday I got a call from Puerto Rico, it was a motorglider friend who offered to let me fly his JS3 MJ. I very quickly told him NO, why, because he would take a picture of me in his motorglider and send it to Seminole Lakes Motorglider Club and all the MG pilots would fall over laughing.
> > Seriously, IMHO there is a big advantage to the MG, being able to stretch it out a bit further to gain an advantage is a big plus on the side of the motorglider, simply stated, it prolongs a flight in certain situations, increases the ability to complete task or objectives without otherwise terminating the flight, that in and of itself is a huge advantage. Motorgliders and sustainers need to be scored in a class by themselves. Your friend and purist, Old Bob

Thanks for the reply Jon, I must say that some of these MG guys have really thin skin and seem to be somewhat upset that someone carries a different opinion, I guess they still believe in a flat earth.
I have flown a motorglider, I cannot see myself ever doing it again, I just think that that platform has degraded the sport! I admit that it has advantages as compared to the purist sailplane and they give the glider pilot the advantage not only in getting home at the end of the day, but extending a flight that would most often be terminated. I do not have that luxury, I have to play the cards that I am dealt, I cannot pull an ace from my back pocket and stay in the game. Your friend, Old Bob

Andrzej Kobus

April 24th 21, 12:48 AM

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 3:46:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 10:36:48 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Good morning Bob (you can call me Jon, we should be on a first name basis by now). You keep talking of this mysterious ethereal "advantage", and are never able to actually describe it. How does an MG 'prolong a flight in certain situations' or "complete task...without otherwise terminating the flight"? The soaring flight terminates the instant the motor is started. The motor should only be started with a landing site within sure glide range. The continue vs. start engine/start pattern decision making is identical, in many cases favoring the non glider due to the increased time and pilot workload involved in the motor. Yes, a MG can continue beyond the last safe landing site, as can a purist - insurance claims are riddled with both.
> >
> > You have repeatedly made an assertion without a shred of evidence - evidence that should be easy to find for such "a huge advantage", and you assert it while admitting no experience or knowledge of the subject. If what you said were true, the podium at nationals would be crowded with MG pilots. How many MGs were represented on the podium (or even the top 5) in the last several 18 meter nationals? (hint: none).
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 4:41:24 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:09:58 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Bob, you keep saying "there is an advantage". What advantage, exactly? Are you suggesting that in this case, the MG pilot was too low to reach a safe landing site when he started his motor? If so give us the link to his IGC file (or date and name), so that we may see this. I doubt you will because I doubt you can. "A much appreciated comment..." - do your MG friends commonly lie about starting the motor? It is right there in the IGC file for anyone to see. I'd be more than happy with a low save rule for contests where starting your motor - or thermaling - too low for a safe landing meant a DSQ, the so called 'hard deck' rule. It would affect more purists than MG pilots, I'll wager.
> > > >
> > > > Of course there are pilots who fly low into unlandable terrain. I knew two, they did the same thing while flying non MG gliders and eventually came to grief. The motor didn't change their attitude, at most it delayed the inevitable. Kawa's accident isn't really a surprise, his risk tolerance is self documented.
> > > >
> > > > I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
> > > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:10:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:58:06 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> > > > > > > > Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> > > > > > > Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
> > > > > Good morning Fitch, no, the comment was not a revelation, it was a much appreciated comment from a motorglider pilot. It further confirms that there is an advantage from the motorglider vs the purist, maybe you should not abrogate the fact that there is an advantage. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > Good morning my friend Fitch, hopefully you got a good night sleep and had no nightmares of a purist recovering from a low save to make it home for dinner. Just yesterday I got a call from Puerto Rico, it was a motorglider friend who offered to let me fly his JS3 MJ. I very quickly told him NO, why, because he would take a picture of me in his motorglider and send it to Seminole Lakes Motorglider Club and all the MG pilots would fall over laughing.
> > > Seriously, IMHO there is a big advantage to the MG, being able to stretch it out a bit further to gain an advantage is a big plus on the side of the motorglider, simply stated, it prolongs a flight in certain situations, increases the ability to complete task or objectives without otherwise terminating the flight, that in and of itself is a huge advantage. Motorgliders and sustainers need to be scored in a class by themselves. Your friend and purist, Old Bob
> Thanks for the reply Jon, I must say that some of these MG guys have really thin skin and seem to be somewhat upset that someone carries a different opinion, I guess they still believe in a flat earth.
> I have flown a motorglider, I cannot see myself ever doing it again, I just think that that platform has degraded the sport! I admit that it has advantages as compared to the purist sailplane and they give the glider pilot the advantage not only in getting home at the end of the day, but extending a flight that would most often be terminated. I do not have that luxury, I have to play the cards that I am dealt, I cannot pull an ace from my back pocket and stay in the game. Your friend, Old Bob

Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

waremark

April 24th 21, 01:39 AM

On Friday, 23 April 2021 at 15:36:48 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
> If what you said were true, the podium at nationals would be crowded with MG pilots. How many MGs were represented on the podium (or even the top 5) in the last several 18 meter nationals? (hint: none).

I'm amazed. In the 2019 UK 18m Nationals I believe that every one of the 37 gliders entered had a motor.

> > > I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.

I'm amazed again and impressed. I'm sure you're a brilliant pilot and I'm not. I start my engine for a retrieve several times a season, generally raising the prop at 1,000 foot over a field. If I was over a paved runway, and not conflicting with other traffic, I would probably go lower with the intention of landing if I couldn't soar and taking off again. I believe I am quite prudent compared to other motorglider pilot friends.

Glenn Betzoldt[_2_]

April 24th 21, 02:41 AM

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 8:39:12 PM UTC-4, waremark wrote:
> On Friday, 23 April 2021 at 15:36:48 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
> > If what you said were true, the podium at nationals would be crowded with MG pilots. How many MGs were represented on the podium (or even the top 5) in the last several 18 meter nationals? (hint: none).
> I'm amazed. In the 2019 UK 18m Nationals I believe that every one of the 37 gliders entered had a motor.
> > > > I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
> I'm amazed again and impressed. I'm sure you're a brilliant pilot and I'm not. I start my engine for a retrieve several times a season, generally raising the prop at 1,000 foot over a field. If I was over a paved runway, and not conflicting with other traffic, I would probably go lower with the intention of landing if I couldn't soar and taking off again. I believe I am quite prudent compared to other motorglider pilot friends.
WHAT Jon said

Glenn Betzoldt[_2_]

April 24th 21, 02:58 AM

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 9:41:03 PM UTC-4, Glenn Betzoldt wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 8:39:12 PM UTC-4, waremark wrote:
> > On Friday, 23 April 2021 at 15:36:48 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
> > > If what you said were true, the podium at nationals would be crowded with MG pilots. How many MGs were represented on the podium (or even the top 5) in the last several 18 meter nationals? (hint: none).
> > I'm amazed. In the 2019 UK 18m Nationals I believe that every one of the 37 gliders entered had a motor.
> > > > > I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
> > I'm amazed again and impressed. I'm sure you're a brilliant pilot and I'm not. I start my engine for a retrieve several times a season, generally raising the prop at 1,000 foot over a field. If I was over a paved runway, and not conflicting with other traffic, I would probably go lower with the intention of landing if I couldn't soar and taking off again. I believe I am quite prudent compared to other motorglider pilot friends.
> WHAT Jon said

R5N is over Rea d'em and weep
SPORTS #1 NO, #2 ELECTRIC, #3 ENGINE
OPEN #1 ENGINE (BUTLER) #2 NO #3 ENGINE #4 NO
18 METER #1V3FES #2 JET #3 ENGINE #4 NO #5 FES
FAI No engines or motors.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 24th 21, 03:43 AM

On 4/22/2021 10:09 PM, jfitch wrote:
> The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.

Amen! The fuselage of my ASH 26E weighs over 500 lbs! Getting that out
of a soft field will take more than my wife. She knows the absolute
minimum is two sturdy people to come with her if I ever need a field
retrieve.

And, not only is it too heavy to carry out, it lands pretty damn fast
with an 8.5 lb/ft2 minimum wing loading, compared to the 7 lb/ft2 it
would have without the engine, fuel, and extra battery.

The motor is not a convenience if it fails to start.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[email protected]

April 24th 21, 03:44 AM

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 9:58:26 PM UTC-4, Glenn Betzoldt wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 9:41:03 PM UTC-4, Glenn Betzoldt wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 8:39:12 PM UTC-4, waremark wrote:
> > > On Friday, 23 April 2021 at 15:36:48 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
> > > > If what you said were true, the podium at nationals would be crowded with MG pilots. How many MGs were represented on the podium (or even the top 5) in the last several 18 meter nationals? (hint: none).
> > > I'm amazed. In the 2019 UK 18m Nationals I believe that every one of the 37 gliders entered had a motor.
> > > > > > I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
> > > I'm amazed again and impressed. I'm sure you're a brilliant pilot and I'm not. I start my engine for a retrieve several times a season, generally raising the prop at 1,000 foot over a field. If I was over a paved runway, and not conflicting with other traffic, I would probably go lower with the intention of landing if I couldn't soar and taking off again. I believe I am quite prudent compared to other motorglider pilot friends.
> > WHAT Jon said
> R5N is over Rea d'em and weep
> SPORTS #1 NO, #2 ELECTRIC, #3 ENGINE
> OPEN #1 ENGINE (BUTLER) #2 NO #3 ENGINE #4 NO
> 18 METER #1V3FES #2 JET #3 ENGINE #4 NO #5 FES
> FAI No engines or motors.
Glenn, from some of the flights that I saw out of Perry I would not be boasting too much about motorgliders, say you?

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 24th 21, 04:04 AM

On 4/23/2021 4:41 AM, wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:09:58 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
>> Bob, you keep saying "there is an advantage". What advantage, exactly? Are you suggesting that in this case, the MG pilot was too low to reach a safe landing site when he started his motor? If so give us the link to his IGC file (or date and name), so that we may see this. I doubt you will because I doubt you can. "A much appreciated comment..." - do your MG friends commonly lie about starting the motor? It is right there in the IGC file for anyone to see. I'd be more than happy with a low save rule for contests where starting your motor - or thermaling - too low for a safe landing meant a DSQ, the so called 'hard deck' rule. It would affect more purists than MG pilots, I'll wager.
>>
>> Of course there are pilots who fly low into unlandable terrain. I knew two, they did the same thing while flying non MG gliders and eventually came to grief. The motor didn't change their attitude, at most it delayed the inevitable. Kawa's accident isn't really a surprise, his risk tolerance is self documented.
>>
>> I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:10:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:58:06 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
>>>> I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
>>>>
>>>> You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
>>>>
>>>> If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
>>>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
>>>>>>> "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
>>>>>> Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
>>>>> Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
>>> Good morning Fitch, no, the comment was not a revelation, it was a much appreciated comment from a motorglider pilot. It further confirms that there is an advantage from the motorglider vs the purist, maybe you should not abrogate the fact that there is an advantage. Your friend, Old Bob
> Good morning my friend Fitch, hopefully you got a good night sleep and had no nightmares of a purist recovering from a low save to make it home for dinner. Just yesterday I got a call from Puerto Rico, it was a motorglider friend who offered to let me fly his JS3 MJ. I very quickly told him NO, why, because he would take a picture of me in his motorglider and send it to Seminole Lakes Motorglider Club and all the MG pilots would fall over laughing.
> Seriously, IMHO there is a big advantage to the MG, being able to stretch it out a bit further to gain an advantage is a big plus on the side of the motorglider, simply stated, it prolongs a flight in certain situations, increases the ability to complete task or objectives without otherwise terminating the flight, that in and of itself is a huge advantage. Motorgliders and sustainers need to be scored in a class by themselves. Your friend and purist, Old Bob

I gotta say, this motorglider pilot would leap at the chance to fly a
JS3, even if it DIDN'T have a motor!

You seem a fool to pass up flying such a magnificent sailplane. You
could have learned so much about motorgliders that you are only now
guessing about. Call him back, tell you what to fly it, but just with
tows. It's a start to shedding your ignorance. If you feel comfortable
with it after a few flights, the next step is to think about using the
motor to launch in the JS3 after you've towed all the other gliders. And
think how much more credible you'd be, with actual experience.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[email protected]

April 24th 21, 10:44 AM

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:04:07 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 4/23/2021 4:41 AM, wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:09:58 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> >> Bob, you keep saying "there is an advantage". What advantage, exactly? Are you suggesting that in this case, the MG pilot was too low to reach a safe landing site when he started his motor? If so give us the link to his IGC file (or date and name), so that we may see this. I doubt you will because I doubt you can. "A much appreciated comment..." - do your MG friends commonly lie about starting the motor? It is right there in the IGC file for anyone to see. I'd be more than happy with a low save rule for contests where starting your motor - or thermaling - too low for a safe landing meant a DSQ, the so called 'hard deck' rule. It would affect more purists than MG pilots, I'll wager.
> >>
> >> Of course there are pilots who fly low into unlandable terrain. I knew two, they did the same thing while flying non MG gliders and eventually came to grief. The motor didn't change their attitude, at most it delayed the inevitable. Kawa's accident isn't really a surprise, his risk tolerance is self documented.
> >>
> >> I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
> >> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:10:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:58:06 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> >>>> I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
> >>>>
> >>>> You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> >>>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> >>>>>>> "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> >>>>>> Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> >>>>> Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
> >>> Good morning Fitch, no, the comment was not a revelation, it was a much appreciated comment from a motorglider pilot. It further confirms that there is an advantage from the motorglider vs the purist, maybe you should not abrogate the fact that there is an advantage. Your friend, Old Bob
> > Good morning my friend Fitch, hopefully you got a good night sleep and had no nightmares of a purist recovering from a low save to make it home for dinner. Just yesterday I got a call from Puerto Rico, it was a motorglider friend who offered to let me fly his JS3 MJ. I very quickly told him NO, why, because he would take a picture of me in his motorglider and send it to Seminole Lakes Motorglider Club and all the MG pilots would fall over laughing.
> > Seriously, IMHO there is a big advantage to the MG, being able to stretch it out a bit further to gain an advantage is a big plus on the side of the motorglider, simply stated, it prolongs a flight in certain situations, increases the ability to complete task or objectives without otherwise terminating the flight, that in and of itself is a huge advantage. Motorgliders and sustainers need to be scored in a class by themselves. Your friend and purist, Old Bob
> I gotta say, this motorglider pilot would leap at the chance to fly a
> JS3, even if it DIDN'T have a motor!
>
> You seem a fool to pass up flying such a magnificent sailplane. You
> could have learned so much about motorgliders that you are only now
> guessing about. Call him back, tell you what to fly it, but just with
> tows. It's a start to shedding your ignorance. If you feel comfortable
> with it after a few flights, the next step is to think about using the
> motor to launch in the JS3 after you've towed all the other gliders. And
> think how much more credible you'd be, with actual experience.
> --
> Eric Greenwell - USA
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Eric, obviously you don't know very much about motorgliders, how do you self launch in a JS3 MJ? Your lack of knowledge is showing, I would suggest doing a bit of research on motorgliders especially the JS3 Jet. I have an idea, in your next book you should write a chapter on self launching a sustainer. Old Bob

Glenn Betzoldt[_2_]

April 24th 21, 03:09 PM

On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 5:44:20 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:04:07 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On 4/23/2021 4:41 AM, wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:09:58 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > >> Bob, you keep saying "there is an advantage". What advantage, exactly? Are you suggesting that in this case, the MG pilot was too low to reach a safe landing site when he started his motor? If so give us the link to his IGC file (or date and name), so that we may see this. I doubt you will because I doubt you can. "A much appreciated comment..." - do your MG friends commonly lie about starting the motor? It is right there in the IGC file for anyone to see. I'd be more than happy with a low save rule for contests where starting your motor - or thermaling - too low for a safe landing meant a DSQ, the so called 'hard deck' rule. It would affect more purists than MG pilots, I'll wager.
> > >>
> > >> Of course there are pilots who fly low into unlandable terrain. I knew two, they did the same thing while flying non MG gliders and eventually came to grief. The motor didn't change their attitude, at most it delayed the inevitable. Kawa's accident isn't really a surprise, his risk tolerance is self documented.
> > >>
> > >> I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
> > >> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:10:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:58:06 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > >>>> I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide..
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> > >>>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > >>>>>>> "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> > >>>>>> Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> > >>>>> Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home.. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
> > >>> Good morning Fitch, no, the comment was not a revelation, it was a much appreciated comment from a motorglider pilot. It further confirms that there is an advantage from the motorglider vs the purist, maybe you should not abrogate the fact that there is an advantage. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > Good morning my friend Fitch, hopefully you got a good night sleep and had no nightmares of a purist recovering from a low save to make it home for dinner. Just yesterday I got a call from Puerto Rico, it was a motorglider friend who offered to let me fly his JS3 MJ. I very quickly told him NO, why, because he would take a picture of me in his motorglider and send it to Seminole Lakes Motorglider Club and all the MG pilots would fall over laughing.
> > > Seriously, IMHO there is a big advantage to the MG, being able to stretch it out a bit further to gain an advantage is a big plus on the side of the motorglider, simply stated, it prolongs a flight in certain situations, increases the ability to complete task or objectives without otherwise terminating the flight, that in and of itself is a huge advantage. Motorgliders and sustainers need to be scored in a class by themselves. Your friend and purist, Old Bob
> > I gotta say, this motorglider pilot would leap at the chance to fly a
> > JS3, even if it DIDN'T have a motor!
> >
> > You seem a fool to pass up flying such a magnificent sailplane. You
> > could have learned so much about motorgliders that you are only now
> > guessing about. Call him back, tell you what to fly it, but just with
> > tows. It's a start to shedding your ignorance. If you feel comfortable
> > with it after a few flights, the next step is to think about using the
> > motor to launch in the JS3 after you've towed all the other gliders. And
> > think how much more credible you'd be, with actual experience.
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - USA
> > - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
> >
> > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> Eric, obviously you don't know very much about motorgliders, how do you self launch in a JS3 MJ? Your lack of knowledge is showing, I would suggest doing a bit of research on motorgliders especially the JS3 Jet. I have an idea, in your next book you should write a chapter on self launching a sustainer. Old Bob
Again Bob you are just talking out your ass. If you did a little research you would see that there are lots of sustainers that can self launch. Bob if it has flaps it can self launch. We even had one based at Seminole that could self launch.
Why don't you get a new topic that you know something about.

Dan Marotta

April 24th 21, 04:09 PM

I'm amazed that other aux powered gliders can start at or below 1,000'
AGL and fly away without trashing their engines. The 4-cylinder
turbocharged Rotax in the Stemme needs several minutes to warm up before
pushing it above idle. That means that, in dead air, more than a few
thousand feet are needed for a save rather than a land out. That's why
I always have a *paved* runway within range so that I can land and warm
up the engine before motoring home. Tell me again how convenient that is?

My engine is for take off only on a soaring flight and for repositioning
the glider otherwise. Ain't got no steenking trailer.

Dan
5J

On 4/23/21 6:39 PM, waremark wrote:
> On Friday, 23 April 2021 at 15:36:48 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
>> If what you said were true, the podium at nationals would be crowded with MG pilots. How many MGs were represented on the podium (or even the top 5) in the last several 18 meter nationals? (hint: none).
>
> I'm amazed. In the 2019 UK 18m Nationals I believe that every one of the 37 gliders entered had a motor.
>
>>>> I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
>
> I'm amazed again and impressed. I'm sure you're a brilliant pilot and I'm not. I start my engine for a retrieve several times a season, generally raising the prop at 1,000 foot over a field. If I was over a paved runway, and not conflicting with other traffic, I would probably go lower with the intention of landing if I couldn't soar and taking off again. I believe I am quite prudent compared to other motorglider pilot friends.
>

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 24th 21, 05:07 PM

On 4/23/2021 5:39 PM, waremark wrote:
> On Friday, 23 April 2021 at 15:36:48 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
>> If what you said were true, the podium at nationals would be crowded with MG pilots. How many MGs were represented on the podium (or even the top 5) in the last several 18 meter nationals? (hint: none).
>
> I'm amazed. In the 2019 UK 18m Nationals I believe that every one of the 37 gliders entered had a motor.
>
>>>> I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
>
> I'm amazed again and impressed. I'm sure you're a brilliant pilot and I'm not. I start my engine for a retrieve several times a season, generally raising the prop at 1,000 foot over a field. If I was over a paved runway, and not conflicting with other traffic, I would probably go lower with the intention of landing if I couldn't soar and taking off again. I believe I am quite prudent compared to other motorglider pilot friends.
> I fly the same way, with several inflight restarts every year. The need
for restarts will depend on several factors besides the pilot's skill,
such as flying area and tasks chosen. For the same distances, O&R
flights will put the pilot farther from home than triangles or multiple
zig-zags. Some areas have more reliable flying weather, so the pilot is
less likely to misjudge it.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

jfitch

April 24th 21, 05:17 PM

Motors are much more popular in Europe, towplanes more popular in the US. This is changing rapidly in the US. How often you start for a retrieve (and how you do it) depends a great deal on where you fly. I fly almost exclusively in the high Sierra desert. In that terrain when you are 4000 ft AGL you are very, very low and looking for a landing site. At 2000 AGL you are well below all the ridges (where the lift is) and likely to be preparing for the pattern. I fly out of Truckee, runway is 5900 ft MSL and surrounding mountains are 11,000 ft. You leave the area only on a good soaring day (which are frequent in season), chances of your getting back are pretty good. Most of the gliders on the field are non motor, and most of them get back every day too. A retrieve involves climbing to 11,000 to get over the surrounding mountains. End of day final glides usually start at 15,500 from 30 miles out, sometimes 18,000 from 60 miles out. Very different (I think - never flown a glider there) from the UK.

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 5:39:12 PM UTC-7, waremark wrote:
> On Friday, 23 April 2021 at 15:36:48 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
> > If what you said were true, the podium at nationals would be crowded with MG pilots. How many MGs were represented on the podium (or even the top 5) in the last several 18 meter nationals? (hint: none).
> I'm amazed. In the 2019 UK 18m Nationals I believe that every one of the 37 gliders entered had a motor.
> > > > I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
> I'm amazed again and impressed. I'm sure you're a brilliant pilot and I'm not. I start my engine for a retrieve several times a season, generally raising the prop at 1,000 foot over a field. If I was over a paved runway, and not conflicting with other traffic, I would probably go lower with the intention of landing if I couldn't soar and taking off again. I believe I am quite prudent compared to other motorglider pilot friends.

jfitch

April 24th 21, 05:25 PM

Yes, a motor can extend a flight that would have been terminated and get you home. That extension is not a soaring flight, does not count for contests including OLC, so once again, the advantage is convenience. No competitive advantage, no safety advantage. Far from degrading the sport, motorgliders have kept it alive, 80% of new purchases are motorgliders. This is a choice you have made, you seem envious or resentful of people who have made other choices in glider purchase. If you want to see thin skin, look in the mirror. I'm perfectly happy with you flying a non-motorglider. It is you who are criticizing me for making a different choice.

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 10:36:48 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Good morning Bob (you can call me Jon, we should be on a first name basis by now). You keep talking of this mysterious ethereal "advantage", and are never able to actually describe it. How does an MG 'prolong a flight in certain situations' or "complete task...without otherwise terminating the flight"? The soaring flight terminates the instant the motor is started. The motor should only be started with a landing site within sure glide range. The continue vs. start engine/start pattern decision making is identical, in many cases favoring the non glider due to the increased time and pilot workload involved in the motor. Yes, a MG can continue beyond the last safe landing site, as can a purist - insurance claims are riddled with both.
> >
> > You have repeatedly made an assertion without a shred of evidence - evidence that should be easy to find for such "a huge advantage", and you assert it while admitting no experience or knowledge of the subject. If what you said were true, the podium at nationals would be crowded with MG pilots. How many MGs were represented on the podium (or even the top 5) in the last several 18 meter nationals? (hint: none).
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 4:41:24 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:09:58 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Bob, you keep saying "there is an advantage". What advantage, exactly? Are you suggesting that in this case, the MG pilot was too low to reach a safe landing site when he started his motor? If so give us the link to his IGC file (or date and name), so that we may see this. I doubt you will because I doubt you can. "A much appreciated comment..." - do your MG friends commonly lie about starting the motor? It is right there in the IGC file for anyone to see. I'd be more than happy with a low save rule for contests where starting your motor - or thermaling - too low for a safe landing meant a DSQ, the so called 'hard deck' rule. It would affect more purists than MG pilots, I'll wager.
> > > >
> > > > Of course there are pilots who fly low into unlandable terrain. I knew two, they did the same thing while flying non MG gliders and eventually came to grief. The motor didn't change their attitude, at most it delayed the inevitable. Kawa's accident isn't really a surprise, his risk tolerance is self documented.
> > > >
> > > > I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
> > > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:10:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:58:06 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> > > > > > > > Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> > > > > > > Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
> > > > > Good morning Fitch, no, the comment was not a revelation, it was a much appreciated comment from a motorglider pilot. It further confirms that there is an advantage from the motorglider vs the purist, maybe you should not abrogate the fact that there is an advantage. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > Good morning my friend Fitch, hopefully you got a good night sleep and had no nightmares of a purist recovering from a low save to make it home for dinner. Just yesterday I got a call from Puerto Rico, it was a motorglider friend who offered to let me fly his JS3 MJ. I very quickly told him NO, why, because he would take a picture of me in his motorglider and send it to Seminole Lakes Motorglider Club and all the MG pilots would fall over laughing.
> > > Seriously, IMHO there is a big advantage to the MG, being able to stretch it out a bit further to gain an advantage is a big plus on the side of the motorglider, simply stated, it prolongs a flight in certain situations, increases the ability to complete task or objectives without otherwise terminating the flight, that in and of itself is a huge advantage. Motorgliders and sustainers need to be scored in a class by themselves. Your friend and purist, Old Bob
> Thanks for the reply Jon, I must say that some of these MG guys have really thin skin and seem to be somewhat upset that someone carries a different opinion, I guess they still believe in a flat earth.
> I have flown a motorglider, I cannot see myself ever doing it again, I just think that that platform has degraded the sport! I admit that it has advantages as compared to the purist sailplane and they give the glider pilot the advantage not only in getting home at the end of the day, but extending a flight that would most often be terminated. I do not have that luxury, I have to play the cards that I am dealt, I cannot pull an ace from my back pocket and stay in the game. Your friend, Old Bob

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 24th 21, 05:34 PM

On 4/24/2021 2:44 AM, wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:04:07 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> On 4/23/2021 4:41 AM, wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:09:58 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
>>>> Bob, you keep saying "there is an advantage". What advantage, exactly? Are you suggesting that in this ......had no nightmares of a purist recovering from a low save to make it home for
dinner. Just yesterday I got a call from Puerto Rico, it was a motorglider
friend who offered to let me fly his JS3 MJ. I very quickly told him NO, why,
because he would take a picture of me in his motorglider and send it to Seminole
Lakes Motorglider Club and all the MG pilots would fall over laughing.
>>> Seriously, IMHO there is a big advantage to the MG, being able to stretch it out a bit further to gain an advantage is a big plus on the side of the motorglider, simply stated, it prolongs a flight in certain situations, increases the ability to complete task or objectives without otherwise terminating the flight, that in and of itself is a huge advantage. Motorgliders and sustainers need to be scored in a class by themselves. Your friend and purist, Old Bob
>> I gotta say, this motorglider pilot would leap at the chance to fly a
>> JS3, even if it DIDN'T have a motor!
>>
>> You seem a fool to pass up flying such a magnificent sailplane. You
>> could have learned so much about motorgliders that you are only now
>> guessing about. Call him back, tell you what to fly it, but just with
>> tows. It's a start to shedding your ignorance. If you feel comfortable
>> with it after a few flights, the next step is to think about using the
>> motor to launch in the JS3 after you've towed all the other gliders. And
>> think how much more credible you'd be, with actual experience.
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - USA
>> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
>>
>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
>
> Eric, obviously you don't know very much about motorgliders, how do you self launch in a JS3 MJ? Your lack of knowledge is showing, I would suggest doing a bit of research on motorgliders especially the JS3 Jet. I have an idea, in your next book you should write a chapter on self launching a sustainer. Old Bob
>
I misread it as "MG", and since I do not keep up with all the variations in all
the motorgliders that are available, I guessed it was a self-launcher. The main
point was passing up the chance to fly a magnificient sailplane seems very foolish.

But, a JS3 self-launching jet would be awesome! As would the price, given the
$50K cost for just the PBS TJ-100 that Desert Aerospace would install.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 24th 21, 05:51 PM

The engines used on most motorlgiders are intended to be used that way when they
were designed, and are not expected to have a 2000 hour TBO. So, it is not a
problem. Perhaps the Rotax turbo version must be treated differently than the
912 I have on my Phoenix touring motorglider, because the advice for it is use
whatever power is required to avoid the landing. That can be at moderate RPMs
(3000, say) to warm it while climbing slowly, then using full power when the oil
is above 120F.

Eric

On 4/24/2021 8:09 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I'm amazed that other aux powered gliders can start at or below 1,000' AGL and
> fly away without trashing their engines.Â* The 4-cylinder turbocharged Rotax in
> the Stemme needs several minutes to warm up before pushing it above idle.Â* That
> means that, in dead air, more than a few thousand feet are needed for a save
> rather than a land out.Â* That's why I always have a *paved* runway within range
> so that I can land and warm up the engine before motoring home.Â* Tell me again
> how convenient that is?
>
> My engine is for take off only on a soaring flight and for repositioning the
> glider otherwise.Â* Ain't got no steenking trailer.
>
> Dan
> 5J
>
> On 4/23/21 6:39 PM, waremark wrote:
>> On Friday, 23 April 2021 at 15:36:48 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
>>> If what you said were true, the podium at nationals would be crowded with MG
>>> pilots. How many MGs were represented on the podium (or even the top 5) in
>>> the last several 18 meter nationals? (hint: none).
>>
>> I'm amazed. In the 2019 UK 18m Nationals I believe that every one of the 37
>> gliders entered had a motor.
>>
>>>>> I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve. Every
>>>>> time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional. The
>>>>> glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of
>>>>> it.
>>
>> I'm amazed again and impressed. I'm sure you're a brilliant pilot and I'm not.
>> I start my engine for a retrieve several times a season, generally raising the
>> prop at 1,000 foot over a field. If I was over a paved runway, and not
>> conflicting with other traffic, I would probably go lower with the intention
>> of landing if I couldn't soar and taking off again. I believe I am quite
>> prudent compared to other motorglider pilot friends.
>>

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Dan Marotta

April 24th 21, 07:07 PM

Thanks Eric,
The Stemme won't climb at 3,000 RPM and the manual says not to take off
until oil temperature is in the green. I take that advice to include
climb power.

Dan
5J

On 4/24/21 10:51 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> The engines used on most motorlgiders are intended to be used that way
> when they were designed, and are not expected to have a 2000 hour TBO.
> So, it is not a problem. Perhaps the Rotax turbo version must be treated
> differently than the 912 I have on my Phoenix touring motorglider,
> because the advice for it is use whatever power is required to avoid the
> landing. That can be at moderate RPMs (3000, say) to warm it while
> climbing slowly, then using full power when the oil is above 120F.
>
> Eric
>
> On 4/24/2021 8:09 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> I'm amazed that other aux powered gliders can start at or below 1,000'
>> AGL and fly away without trashing their engines.Â* The 4-cylinder
>> turbocharged Rotax in the Stemme needs several minutes to warm up
>> before pushing it above idle.Â* That means that, in dead air, more than
>> a few thousand feet are needed for a save rather than a land out.
>> That's why I always have a *paved* runway within range so that I can
>> land and warm up the engine before motoring home.Â* Tell me again how
>> convenient that is?
>>
>> My engine is for take off only on a soaring flight and for
>> repositioning the glider otherwise.Â* Ain't got no steenking trailer.
>>
>> Dan
>> 5J
>>
>> On 4/23/21 6:39 PM, waremark wrote:
>>> On Friday, 23 April 2021 at 15:36:48 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
>>>> If what you said were true, the podium at nationals would be crowded
>>>> with MG pilots. How many MGs were represented on the podium (or even
>>>> the top 5) in the last several 18 meter nationals? (hint: none).
>>>
>>> I'm amazed. In the 2019 UK 18m Nationals I believe that every one of
>>> the 37 gliders entered had a motor.
>>>
>>>>>> I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a
>>>>>> retrieve. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway
>>>>>> marked on a sectional. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a
>>>>>> field and too heavy to carry out of it.
>>>
>>> I'm amazed again and impressed. I'm sure you're a brilliant pilot and
>>> I'm not. I start my engine for a retrieve several times a season,
>>> generally raising the prop at 1,000 foot over a field. If I was over
>>> a paved runway, and not conflicting with other traffic, I would
>>> probably go lower with the intention of landing if I couldn't soar
>>> and taking off again. I believe I am quite prudent compared to other
>>> motorglider pilot friends.
>>>
>
>

Tom BravoMike

April 24th 21, 08:12 PM

On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> Yes, a motor can extend a flight that would have been terminated and get you home. That extension is not a soaring flight, does not count for contests including OLC, so once again, the advantage is convenience. No competitive advantage, no safety advantage. Far from degrading the sport, motorgliders have kept it alive, 80% of new purchases are motorgliders. This is a choice you have made, you seem envious or resentful of people who have made other choices in glider purchase. If you want to see thin skin, look in the mirror. I'm perfectly happy with you flying a non-motorglider. It is you who are criticizing me for making a different choice.

Just as I had predicted earlier in the discussion, we stick to our petrified positions. "Show me evidence... No competitive advantage, no safety advantage..." Denials, denials.

What evidence will you accept? No different mindset? Have you watched the video I pointed to? What the guy says at 26:36

https://youtu.be/hYXeMpQB2l0

Do you really believe Klaus Ohlmann and Jean-Marie ClÃ©ment would have set their records in the Andes in a "pure" sailplane? Instead, they flew each a Nimbus 4DM, I believe. "No safety advantage" - really? Will you say it's a special case? Well, it is a sort of competition in setting records.

At moments it sounds almost like no-motor pilots should feel sorry for the MG owners with all the troubles they face and how actually disadvantaged they are.

In my opinion, motorgliders are a different branch of soaring and should be treated as such in scoring (including records), as long as a working motor is available as a life-line or just as a convenience help.

Tom BravoMike

[email protected]

April 24th 21, 09:05 PM

On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 10:09:34 AM UTC-4, Glenn Betzoldt wrote:
> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 5:44:20 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:04:07 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > On 4/23/2021 4:41 AM, wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:09:58 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > >> Bob, you keep saying "there is an advantage". What advantage, exactly? Are you suggesting that in this case, the MG pilot was too low to reach a safe landing site when he started his motor? If so give us the link to his IGC file (or date and name), so that we may see this. I doubt you will because I doubt you can. "A much appreciated comment..." - do your MG friends commonly lie about starting the motor? It is right there in the IGC file for anyone to see. I'd be more than happy with a low save rule for contests where starting your motor - or thermaling - too low for a safe landing meant a DSQ, the so called 'hard deck' rule. It would affect more purists than MG pilots, I'll wager.
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course there are pilots who fly low into unlandable terrain. I knew two, they did the same thing while flying non MG gliders and eventually came to grief. The motor didn't change their attitude, at most it delayed the inevitable. Kawa's accident isn't really a surprise, his risk tolerance is self documented.
> > > >>
> > > >> I have started my motor I think 6 times in 20 years for a retrieve.. Every time it was > 1500 ft AGL over a paved runway marked on a sectional.. The glider is too expensive to stuff into a field and too heavy to carry out of it.
> > > >> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:10:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > >>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:58:06 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > >>>> I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
> > > >>>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> "I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
> > > >>>>>> Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
> > > >>>>> Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
> > > >>> Good morning Fitch, no, the comment was not a revelation, it was a much appreciated comment from a motorglider pilot. It further confirms that there is an advantage from the motorglider vs the purist, maybe you should not abrogate the fact that there is an advantage. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > Good morning my friend Fitch, hopefully you got a good night sleep and had no nightmares of a purist recovering from a low save to make it home for dinner. Just yesterday I got a call from Puerto Rico, it was a motorglider friend who offered to let me fly his JS3 MJ. I very quickly told him NO, why, because he would take a picture of me in his motorglider and send it to Seminole Lakes Motorglider Club and all the MG pilots would fall over laughing.
> > > > Seriously, IMHO there is a big advantage to the MG, being able to stretch it out a bit further to gain an advantage is a big plus on the side of the motorglider, simply stated, it prolongs a flight in certain situations, increases the ability to complete task or objectives without otherwise terminating the flight, that in and of itself is a huge advantage. Motorgliders and sustainers need to be scored in a class by themselves. Your friend and purist, Old Bob
> > > I gotta say, this motorglider pilot would leap at the chance to fly a
> > > JS3, even if it DIDN'T have a motor!
> > >
> > > You seem a fool to pass up flying such a magnificent sailplane. You
> > > could have learned so much about motorgliders that you are only now
> > > guessing about. Call him back, tell you what to fly it, but just with
> > > tows. It's a start to shedding your ignorance. If you feel comfortable
> > > with it after a few flights, the next step is to think about using the
> > > motor to launch in the JS3 after you've towed all the other gliders. And
> > > think how much more credible you'd be, with actual experience.
> > > --
> > > Eric Greenwell - USA
> > > - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
> > >
> > > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> > Eric, obviously you don't know very much about motorgliders, how do you self launch in a JS3 MJ? Your lack of knowledge is showing, I would suggest doing a bit of research on motorgliders especially the JS3 Jet. I have an idea, in your next book you should write a chapter on self launching a sustainer. Old Bob
> Again Bob you are just talking out your ass. If you did a little research you would see that there are lots of sustainers that can self launch. Bob if it has flaps it can self launch. We even had one based at Seminole that could self launch.
> Why don't you get a new topic that you know something about.

To Glenn, you have not read or possibly did not care to read the referenced post to Eric. Please let me take this moment and kindly correct you about the sustainer as referenced. The JS3 MJ is a sustainer only! Not capable of self launch, the climb rate while airborne is between 100 and 200 fpm. The flap handle has nothing to do with the capability of shelf launch on that sustainer glider. The same with the ASG29, I just finished reading the manual and there was no reference to self launch.
The self and sustainer combo is available on a JS model Sailplane, I will let you educate yourself instead of relying on the information from my mouth not my ass as you replied.
Some people are taking sustainer glider and assisting for launch with a ground launch, I do know of a person who does a auto assist to gain altitude with his sustainer glider so that he can continue to locate a thermal to continue his flight.
I hope you are doing well, enjoying your stay in sunny Florida and you have an open invitation to join us here along with Eric to soar the beautiful skies of the Treasure Coast. Eileen and I would welcome you here at the ranch. Old Bob

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 24th 21, 10:22 PM

On 4/24/2021 12:12 PM, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
>> Yes, a motor can extend a flight that would have been terminated and get
>> you home. That extension is not a soaring flight, does not count for
>> contests including OLC, so once again, the advantage is convenience. No
>> competitive advantage, no safety advantage. Far from degrading the sport,
>> motorgliders have kept it alive, 80% of new purchases are motorgliders.
>> This is a choice you have made, you seem envious or resentful of people who
>> have made other choices in glider purchase. If you want to see thin skin,
>> look in the mirror. I'm perfectly happy with you flying a non-motorglider.
>> It is you who are criticizing me for making a different choice.
>
> Just as I had predicted earlier in the discussion, we stick to our petrified
> positions. "Show me evidence... No competitive advantage, no safety
> advantage..." Denials, denials.
>
> What evidence will you accept? No different mindset? Have you watched the
> video I pointed to? What the guy says at 26:36
>
> https://youtu.be/hYXeMpQB2l0
>
> Do you really believe Klaus Ohlmann and Jean-Marie ClÃ©ment would have set
> their records in the Andes in a "pure" sailplane? Instead, they flew each a
> Nimbus 4DM, I believe. "No safety advantage" - really? Will you say it's a
> special case? Well, it is a sort of competition in setting records.
>
> At moments it sounds almost like no-motor pilots should feel sorry for the MG
> owners with all the troubles they face and how actually disadvantaged they
> are.
>
> In my opinion, motorgliders are a different branch of soaring and should be
> treated as such in scoring (including records), as long as a working motor is
> available as a life-line or just as a convenience help.
>
> Tom BravoMike

I don't think the choices made by tremendously competitive pilots flying for
world records over jungles tell us anything about the "mindset" that Bob has
made the centerpiece here. Record flying and contest flying require very
different approach, after all. What would Ohlmann and Clement have done if
motorgliders were prohibited? I don't know, but listening to Clement at the SSA
convention, I got the impression it was convenience and not jungle crash
avoidance that made the motorgliders attractive; also, motorgliders can go to
higher wing loadings in the Open Class, so maybe that was the performance
advantage they sought.

No motorglider pilot has asked anyone to feel sorry for us; in fact, we believe
we are fortunate that we can afford to own one. What we've tried to do is
educate people about the reasons we own motorgliders. It's been a lot harder
than I thought: Bob is the epitome of the "stick to petrified positions" you
mentioned.

I assume the remark that got your attention is "push a little harder" if you
have a motor? That's what I and others keep telling you: knowing you can avoid a
retrieve is a great convenience. As the speaker said, you can do more and better
soaring because of that. But there are other ways to get that advantage, like
having a good crew, or a tow plane that can come get you, or a better glider
that lets you fly farther. He wasn't talking about competitions, but getting
more out of soaring day. Wouldn't you like to do more and better soaring?

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[email protected]

April 24th 21, 11:13 PM

On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 5:22:28 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 4/24/2021 12:12 PM, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> >> Yes, a motor can extend a flight that would have been terminated and get
> >> you home. That extension is not a soaring flight, does not count for
> >> contests including OLC, so once again, the advantage is convenience. No
> >> competitive advantage, no safety advantage. Far from degrading the sport,
> >> motorgliders have kept it alive, 80% of new purchases are motorgliders..
> >> This is a choice you have made, you seem envious or resentful of people who
> >> have made other choices in glider purchase. If you want to see thin skin,
> >> look in the mirror. I'm perfectly happy with you flying a non-motorglider.
> >> It is you who are criticizing me for making a different choice.
> >
> > Just as I had predicted earlier in the discussion, we stick to our petrified
> > positions. "Show me evidence... No competitive advantage, no safety
> > advantage..." Denials, denials.
> >
> > What evidence will you accept? No different mindset? Have you watched the
> > video I pointed to? What the guy says at 26:36
> >
> > https://youtu.be/hYXeMpQB2l0
> >
> > Do you really believe Klaus Ohlmann and Jean-Marie ClÃ©ment would have set
> > their records in the Andes in a "pure" sailplane? Instead, they flew each a
> > Nimbus 4DM, I believe. "No safety advantage" - really? Will you say it's a
> > special case? Well, it is a sort of competition in setting records.
> >
> > At moments it sounds almost like no-motor pilots should feel sorry for the MG
> > owners with all the troubles they face and how actually disadvantaged they
> > are.
> >
> > In my opinion, motorgliders are a different branch of soaring and should be
> > treated as such in scoring (including records), as long as a working motor is
> > available as a life-line or just as a convenience help.
> >
> > Tom BravoMike
> I don't think the choices made by tremendously competitive pilots flying for
> world records over jungles tell us anything about the "mindset" that Bob has
> made the centerpiece here. Record flying and contest flying require very
> different approach, after all. What would Ohlmann and Clement have done if
> motorgliders were prohibited? I don't know, but listening to Clement at the SSA
> convention, I got the impression it was convenience and not jungle crash
> avoidance that made the motorgliders attractive; also, motorgliders can go to
> higher wing loadings in the Open Class, so maybe that was the performance
> advantage they sought.
>
> No motorglider pilot has asked anyone to feel sorry for us; in fact, we believe
> we are fortunate that we can afford to own one. What we've tried to do is
> educate people about the reasons we own motorgliders. It's been a lot harder
> than I thought: Bob is the epitome of the "stick to petrified positions" you
> mentioned.
>
> I assume the remark that got your attention is "push a little harder" if you
> have a motor? That's what I and others keep telling you: knowing you can avoid a
> retrieve is a great convenience. As the speaker said, you can do more and better
> soaring because of that. But there are other ways to get that advantage, like
> having a good crew, or a tow plane that can come get you, or a better glider
> that lets you fly farther. He wasn't talking about competitions, but getting
> more out of soaring day. Wouldn't you like to do more and better soaring?
> --
> Eric Greenwell - USA
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
Eric, thanks for the reply, we probably have more in common than you realize, #1 avoiding a retrieve, # 2 getting home for dinner, #3 the mindset advantage, #4 the performance advantage. #5 getting more out of a soaring day.
I have flown with many good glide pilots, some have competed in the WGC and one was a national champion. Contest flying means nothing to me, the best damn glider pilot I ever knew never flew a contest, but would wax your as on any given day. His name was Bennie Flowers and a few old timers remember this guy, I know Burt does.
As I started this thread that you expanded my main goal was to educate you motor glider pilots that there are still a few of us Jurassic park guys around that are doing it quiet well, even Old Bob. Now if any of you purist have switched to the MG status please let me know if you have an ASG29 pure glide that you would like to sell.
Remember I am just a poor old man, like the dinosaur of the past. Ha ha ha .. Old Bob

jfitch

April 25th 21, 04:56 AM

Really? A single quote from a British YouTuber 26 minutes in is proof of your case? Have you flown a few thousand miles cross country in a motorglider? If not what is your experience in them, beyond watching YouTube, that makes you sure of what you assert?

I (we) have said many times that a motorglider *does* give you more freedom because the inconvenience of a retrieve is greatly diminished (provided the motor starts). This has nothing to do with safety (it might not). It has to do with laziness. We went all through this a couple of years ago when MP was accused of using the motor to save himself while setting his many records, an examination of every IGC log for that season proves that accusation complete hogwash.

Now, should motorgliders be put in a separate class for records, on the fact alone that retrieves are easier and more convenient? You could make that argument, but the Pandora's box it opens is extensive: different class for paid crew? Different class for volunteer crew? Different class for gliders without trailers? Different class for a JS3 vs an ASW20?

The reason people are almost exclusively using motorgliders to set records in the Great Basin is that it makes the logistics easier, it has nothing to do with performance, safety, or skill. Come out to Ely and attempt some records in your non motorglider and see. You can fly the same courses at the same speeds, but your failed attempts will be a lot more work for your crew (you will need one), and there are a lot of failed attempts in record flying. You can hire a professional crew for the whole record season for less than the interest on an EB29 or even a ASH31. It'll still be a lot of work.

Old timers remember the days when the dutiful wife would follow Her Man around the countryside in the camper, switching direction at each radio call, to be there for the retrieve. Those days are gone, those wives are gone, replaced by machinery (the motor in the back). That is simply the evolution of a sport. Better get used to it.

On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:12:48 PM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > Yes, a motor can extend a flight that would have been terminated and get you home. That extension is not a soaring flight, does not count for contests including OLC, so once again, the advantage is convenience. No competitive advantage, no safety advantage. Far from degrading the sport, motorgliders have kept it alive, 80% of new purchases are motorgliders. This is a choice you have made, you seem envious or resentful of people who have made other choices in glider purchase. If you want to see thin skin, look in the mirror. I'm perfectly happy with you flying a non-motorglider. It is you who are criticizing me for making a different choice.
> Just as I had predicted earlier in the discussion, we stick to our petrified positions. "Show me evidence... No competitive advantage, no safety advantage..." Denials, denials.
>
> What evidence will you accept? No different mindset? Have you watched the video I pointed to? What the guy says at 26:36
>
> https://youtu.be/hYXeMpQB2l0
>
> Do you really believe Klaus Ohlmann and Jean-Marie ClÃ©ment would have set their records in the Andes in a "pure" sailplane? Instead, they flew each a Nimbus 4DM, I believe. "No safety advantage" - really? Will you say it's a special case? Well, it is a sort of competition in setting records.
>
> At moments it sounds almost like no-motor pilots should feel sorry for the MG owners with all the troubles they face and how actually disadvantaged they are.
>
> In my opinion, motorgliders are a different branch of soaring and should be treated as such in scoring (including records), as long as a working motor is available as a life-line or just as a convenience help.
>
> Tom BravoMike

[email protected]

April 25th 21, 09:25 PM

On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 11:56:11 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> Really? A single quote from a British YouTuber 26 minutes in is proof of your case? Have you flown a few thousand miles cross country in a motorglider? If not what is your experience in them, beyond watching YouTube, that makes you sure of what you assert?
>
> I (we) have said many times that a motorglider *does* give you more freedom because the inconvenience of a retrieve is greatly diminished (provided the motor starts). This has nothing to do with safety (it might not). It has to do with laziness. We went all through this a couple of years ago when MP was accused of using the motor to save himself while setting his many records, an examination of every IGC log for that season proves that accusation complete hogwash.
>
> Now, should motorgliders be put in a separate class for records, on the fact alone that retrieves are easier and more convenient? You could make that argument, but the Pandora's box it opens is extensive: different class for paid crew? Different class for volunteer crew? Different class for gliders without trailers? Different class for a JS3 vs an ASW20?
>
> The reason people are almost exclusively using motorgliders to set records in the Great Basin is that it makes the logistics easier, it has nothing to do with performance, safety, or skill. Come out to Ely and attempt some records in your non motorglider and see. You can fly the same courses at the same speeds, but your failed attempts will be a lot more work for your crew (you will need one), and there are a lot of failed attempts in record flying. You can hire a professional crew for the whole record season for less than the interest on an EB29 or even a ASH31. It'll still be a lot of work..
>
> Old timers remember the days when the dutiful wife would follow Her Man around the countryside in the camper, switching direction at each radio call, to be there for the retrieve. Those days are gone, those wives are gone, replaced by machinery (the motor in the back). That is simply the evolution of a sport. Better get used to it.
> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:12:48 PM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > > Yes, a motor can extend a flight that would have been terminated and get you home. That extension is not a soaring flight, does not count for contests including OLC, so once again, the advantage is convenience. No competitive advantage, no safety advantage. Far from degrading the sport, motorgliders have kept it alive, 80% of new purchases are motorgliders. This is a choice you have made, you seem envious or resentful of people who have made other choices in glider purchase. If you want to see thin skin, look in the mirror. I'm perfectly happy with you flying a non-motorglider. It is you who are criticizing me for making a different choice.
> > Just as I had predicted earlier in the discussion, we stick to our petrified positions. "Show me evidence... No competitive advantage, no safety advantage..." Denials, denials.
> >
> > What evidence will you accept? No different mindset? Have you watched the video I pointed to? What the guy says at 26:36
> >
> > https://youtu.be/hYXeMpQB2l0
> >
> > Do you really believe Klaus Ohlmann and Jean-Marie ClÃ©ment would have set their records in the Andes in a "pure" sailplane? Instead, they flew each a Nimbus 4DM, I believe. "No safety advantage" - really? Will you say it's a special case? Well, it is a sort of competition in setting records..
> >
> > At moments it sounds almost like no-motor pilots should feel sorry for the MG owners with all the troubles they face and how actually disadvantaged they are.
> >
> > In my opinion, motorgliders are a different branch of soaring and should be treated as such in scoring (including records), as long as a working motor is available as a life-line or just as a convenience help.
> >
> > Tom BravoMike

Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well and enjoying the afternoon out on the left coast. Let Old Bob give you a fair warning. Be aware, the women of the WSPA might just come after you in reference to the, "Your Man'", comment. You could be called a sexist, a pig, be cursed at, receive hate mail, and many more pleasantries from the radical group. Take care and best soaring. Old Bob

Jason Leonard

April 26th 21, 03:51 AM

Bob as another said - better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it - this is a rule that is most commonly applied to a big industry "elsewhere." I carry my polymer ballast with me in case of an unfriendly landout location in my motorglider. The added benefit is I can go for a flight when no one is home at the club. Or when the towplane is down.

If you don't want to fly at all - unless it's in a pure sailplane, which I can get - maybe one day humor me and let's go have fun man! No tow pilot required, but it is desired. I'll even give you a headset and pay for the Greta 2 stroke oil and evil, evil gasoline.

I really want to thank you for helping convince me to buy a motorglider! ;) See you at the club man! I hope you get some more flights in soon. I guess it'll take a tow pilot to make that happen? Or will you cave and go for a flight with me? No photos will be taken for Seminole Lake to see. I promise.. shhhhh

[email protected]

April 26th 21, 07:24 AM

On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 10:51:57 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Bob as another said - better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it - this is a rule that is most commonly applied to a big industry "elsewhere." I carry my polymer ballast with me in case of an unfriendly landout location in my motorglider. The added benefit is I can go for a flight when no one is home at the club. Or when the towplane is down.
>
> If you don't want to fly at all - unless it's in a pure sailplane, which I can get - maybe one day humor me and let's go have fun man! No tow pilot required, but it is desired. I'll even give you a headset and pay for the Greta 2 stroke oil and evil, evil gasoline.
>
> I really want to thank you for helping convince me to buy a motorglider! ;) See you at the club man! I hope you get some more flights in soon. I guess it'll take a tow pilot to make that happen? Or will you cave and go for a flight with me? No photos will be taken for Seminole Lake to see. I promise. shhhhh

jbl, thanks but no thanks for the offer on the MG. As someone once said, "I'd rather have a sister in a whorehouse than a brother in a motorglider". so true it is. As I stated very early on the self launch is impressive, I could see myself buying one of those sometime in the future, but I would promise to never use the motor other than launching. Our visitor during the Safari displayed several takeoff's before the engine failed and required a tow, yet it was impressive to see that motorglider lift into the air void of any towplane.
Eileen has been eager to fly her 27 again so I guess I will be on the front end of the rope again this week, maybe she will be kind enough to come down early and let me go for a hop in the 27 , I think I have flown only 3 or 4 times since January. She also has a new polymer ballast to give her a bit more weight up front.
I spent the last few days getting the new club ship ready for the youth program which is really gaining new members with both male and female participants continuing to shine with their enthusiasm toward flying gliders. Looking forward to seeing that big bird lift into the sky, take care. Old Bob

Jason Leonard

April 26th 21, 07:06 PM

That's been my take on the SLS. I just want to launch whenever and wherever.. The promise to not use it I think is for each to make. The sucky part is actually landing out when you tried to start it, and the risk involved. There's a reason the premiums are just under 3x for SLS.

I'm trying to talk Neal into coming to give you a tow. The idea was to get him to get you in the air, then he and I can take off and come follow you for a nice adventure.

I'm glad I'm not the only one keeping polymer ballast with me on flights. I'd sure hate to need it and not have it while waiting for a retrieve lol

[email protected]

April 26th 21, 08:11 PM

> I'm glad I'm not the only one keeping polymer ballast with me on flights. I'd sure hate to need it and not have it while waiting for a retrieve lol

For a bear of little brain, and from the E side of the pond, would someone please explain the 'polymer ballast' in-joke?
J.

Jason Leonard

April 26th 21, 08:36 PM

On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:11:45 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > I'm glad I'm not the only one keeping polymer ballast with me on flights. I'd sure hate to need it and not have it while waiting for a retrieve lol
> For a bear of little brain, and from the E side of the pond, would someone please explain the 'polymer ballast' in-joke?
> J.

I guess the best way to describe it is one of those things some other countries don't have too much of, yet American's have considerably more of on average. Mine was designed in Croatia. My wife loves hers, and I have no fear of her being safe when driving home at night. I don't want to melt any snow. So I'll refrain from explaining it further. Plus I don't want to divert from the thread. The comment was made above about "Having it and not needing it rather than needing it and not having it" and it's a common saying in the responsible end of the ownership community.

I feel that having the capability of self launching when needed directly parallels, and if you are into it, the potential to self retrieve if you run out of talent does as well.

Hopefully the wind will behave so I can go for some pattern work in the DG505MB tomorrow.

[email protected]

April 26th 21, 10:24 PM

On Monday, 26 April 2021 at 20:36:20 UTC+1, wrote:
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:11:45 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > I'm glad I'm not the only one keeping polymer ballast with me on flights. I'd sure hate to need it and not have it while waiting for a retrieve lol
> > For a bear of little brain, and from the E side of the pond, would someone please explain the 'polymer ballast' in-joke?
> > J.
> I guess the best way to describe it is one of those things some other countries don't have too much of, yet American's have considerably more of on average. Mine was designed in Croatia. My wife loves hers, and I have no fear of her being safe when driving home at night. I don't want to melt any snow. So I'll refrain from explaining it further. Plus I don't want to divert from the thread. The comment was made above about "Having it and not needing it rather than needing it and not having it" and it's a common saying in the responsible end of the ownership community.
> I feel that having the capability of self launching when needed directly parallels, and if you are into it, the potential to self retrieve if you run out of talent does as well.

Yeah ... thanks. I was not having any difficulty with the gliding (or motorgliding) allusions. But I guess you're talking about carrying a gun, perhaps (??) with 'baton rounds'. Still no clue how Croatia comes into it, but never mind!
J.

[email protected]

April 26th 21, 11:49 PM

On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 5:24:42 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Monday, 26 April 2021 at 20:36:20 UTC+1, wrote:
> > On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:11:45 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > I'm glad I'm not the only one keeping polymer ballast with me on flights. I'd sure hate to need it and not have it while waiting for a retrieve lol
> > > For a bear of little brain, and from the E side of the pond, would someone please explain the 'polymer ballast' in-joke?
> > > J.
> > I guess the best way to describe it is one of those things some other countries don't have too much of, yet American's have considerably more of on average. Mine was designed in Croatia. My wife loves hers, and I have no fear of her being safe when driving home at night. I don't want to melt any snow. So I'll refrain from explaining it further. Plus I don't want to divert from the thread. The comment was made above about "Having it and not needing it rather than needing it and not having it" and it's a common saying in the responsible end of the ownership community.
> > I feel that having the capability of self launching when needed directly parallels, and if you are into it, the potential to self retrieve if you run out of talent does as well.
> Yeah ... thanks. I was not having any difficulty with the gliding (or motorgliding) allusions. But I guess you're talking about carrying a gun, perhaps (??) with 'baton rounds'. Still no clue how Croatia comes into it, but never mind!
> J.
I don't know about you, but I am going around Lake O again this week, weather permitting, maybe I can get some of the motorglider gentlemen to join me. Looks like Wednesday or Thursday is the good window, should I carry my floaties?

waremark

April 27th 21, 11:33 PM

On Saturday, 24 April 2021 at 03:43:27 UTC+1, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Amen! The fuselage of my ASH 26E weighs over 500 lbs! Getting that out
> of a soft field will take more than my wife. She knows the absolute
> minimum is two sturdy people to come with her if I ever need a field
> retrieve.
>

The day the engine in my Arcus M didn't start, as mentioned earlier I landed safely in a good field, and called for 2 kind friends to come out with the trailer. The four of us couldn't lift the nose out of the soft ground enough to get it on the belly dolly. Fortunately, two strong young policeman arrived to check out the scene of the 'accident' and with their help it was sorted!

waremark

April 27th 21, 11:36 PM

On Saturday, 24 April 2021 at 17:34:40 UTC+1, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> But, a JS3 self-launching jet would be awesome!

Sadly the JS2 which will be a self-launching version of the JS1 is going to use a Solo two stroke.

waremark

April 27th 21, 11:48 PM

On Saturday, 24 April 2021 at 20:12:48 UTC+1, Tom BravoMike wrote:

> Do you really believe Klaus Ohlmann and Jean-Marie ClÃ©ment would have set their records in the Andes in a "pure" sailplane? Instead, they flew each a Nimbus 4DM, I believe. "No safety advantage" - really? Will you say it's a special case? Well, it is a sort of competition in setting records.
>

Well I remember reading an article by Klaus Ohlmann after his first distance record in the Andes. That one was in a Stemme, and I remember he said if he had wanted to use the engine he would have had to land first and give it time to warm up, because it was too cold to use after a long time at altitude. So a convenience feature, not a safety feature.

I don't know why he subsequently changed to a Nimbus 4 - did it have anything to do with what generous people were willing to lend him? Even with the Nimbus, the engine might not have started after a few hours at 20,000 feet.

On the subject of warming up time, with my Solo engine I was advised by Shempp-HIrth to take off without waiting for it to get to 40 degrees C (that is what the manual specifies) because a cold engine develops more power. I generally take off as soon as I have completed the ignition etc checks, and if I start over a field I go to climb power very soon. I remember in his guide Eric mentions taking a better look at the field which you didn't have to land in while the engine warms up a bit before increasing power and climbing away.

Dave Nadler

April 28th 21, 02:01 AM

On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
He's just emulating, well, you know...

Dave Nadler

April 28th 21, 02:06 AM

On 4/24/2021 3:12 PM, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> Do you really believe Klaus Ohlmann and Jean-Marie ClÃ©ment would have set their records in the Andes in a "pure" sailplane?
> Instead, they flew each a Nimbus 4DM, I believe. "No safety advantage" - really? Will you say it's a special case?

That is just ludicrous.
Go read Jean-Marie's papers on the failure rate of his 4DM,
and understand the steps he took to maintain a landing option.
A summary of Jean-Marie's 4DM failures is in the OSTIV presentation I
did in 2020 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R--m0NDR0j8)

Dave Nadler

April 28th 21, 02:10 AM

On 4/27/2021 6:48 PM, waremark wrote:
> Well I remember reading an article by Klaus Ohlmann after his first distance record in the Andes. That one was in a Stemme, and I remember he said if he had wanted to use the engine he would have had to land first and give it time to warm up, because it was too cold to use after a long time at altitude.

Right, the oil solidifies in the cold and it will not start...
Don't know why that particular oil was required, but IIRC it wasn't
possible to change.

> So a convenience feature, not a safety feature.

Yup.

jfitch

April 28th 21, 04:44 PM

A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.

Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true..
>
> Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> He's just emulating, well, you know...

Dan Marotta

April 28th 21, 06:31 PM

Yep, and wears out quicker.

Dan
5J

On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
> cold engine develops more power.

[email protected]

April 28th 21, 08:28 PM

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
>
> Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> >
> > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > He's just emulating, well, you know...
Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back.. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob

KG[_2_]

April 28th 21, 09:45 PM

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 3:28:10 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> >
> > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > >
> > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
Sorry to bust your bubble Old Bob, but you are not a true "Purist". You still use an engine to get you airborne. Try this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3qfW3ydZuY check the take off @ 035.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 28th 21, 09:58 PM

On 4/28/2021 12:28 PM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
>> A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
>>
>> Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>>>> Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
>>>
>>> Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
>>> He's just emulating, well, you know...
> Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
>
1) No, a purist does not have to manage his flight differently than an MG pilot;
in fact, the purist does not even have to manage his flight the same as another
purist does! Pick a safe way that brings you enjoyment.
2) Yes, they should be scored the same unless the pilots want to be scored
differently. Go where you like the scoring, as the rest of us do, or start your
own competition like Henry Combs did.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 28th 21, 10:06 PM

On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Yep, and wears out quicker.
>
> Dan
> 5J
>
> On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
>> cold engine develops more power.

The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine. If it only
lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40 years! The Stemme is
usual for a self-launcher because it's also a good airplane, and 200 hours might
be only two or three years.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Dan Marotta

April 28th 21, 10:23 PM

I've owned my Stemme now for 5 years and have logged around 850 hours
(327 flights) on it. I think I've used around 80 engine hours during
that time which is about 15 minutes per flight (start, taxi, takeoff,
and cool down). I tow the glider from my hangar to the apron before
rigging.

And yes, I fly with a different mind set than I did in my LAK-17a: I
must be within range of a runway suitable to make a normal takeoff at
all times.

Dan
5J

On 4/28/21 3:06 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Yep, and wears out quicker.
>>
>> Dan
>> 5J
>>
>> On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
>>> cold engine develops more power.
>
> The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine. If
> it only lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40 years!
> The Stemme is usual for a self-launcher because it's also a good
> airplane, and 200 hours might be only two or three years.
>

[email protected]

April 28th 21, 10:39 PM

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:06:23 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Yep, and wears out quicker.
> >
> > Dan
> > 5J
> >
> > On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
> >> cold engine develops more power.
> The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine. If it only
> lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40 years! The Stemme is
> usual for a self-launcher because it's also a good airplane, and 200 hours might
> be only two or three years.
> --
> Eric Greenwell - USA
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
Eric, are you hitting on the bong? You cannot even admit that you must manage your flight differently. This is beginning to become comical.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 29th 21, 12:05 AM

Doesn't sound like you need to worry about engine life, either, unless your TBO
is Real Soon Now.

On 4/28/2021 2:23 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I've owned my Stemme now for 5 years and have logged around 850 hours (327
> flights) on it.Â* I think I've used around 80 engine hours during that time which
> is about 15 minutes per flight (start, taxi, takeoff, and cool down).Â* I tow the
> glider from my hangar to the apron before rigging.
>
> And yes, I fly with a different mind set than I did in my LAK-17a:Â* I must be
> within range of a runway suitable to make a normal takeoff at all times.
>
> Dan
> 5J
>
> On 4/28/21 3:06 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>> Yep, and wears out quicker.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>> 5J
>>>
>>> On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
>>>> cold engine develops more power.
>>
>> The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine. If it
>> only lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40 years! The Stemme
>> is usual for a self-launcher because it's also a good airplane, and 200 hours
>> might be only two or three years.
>>

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 29th 21, 12:28 AM

On 4/28/2021 2:39 PM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:06:23 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>> Yep, and wears out quicker.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>> 5J
>>>
>>> On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
>>>> cold engine develops more power.
>> The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine. If it only
>> lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40 years! The Stemme is
>> usual for a self-launcher because it's also a good airplane, and 200 hours might
>> be only two or three years.
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - USA
>> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> Eric, are you hitting on the bong? You cannot even admit that you must manage your flight differently. This is beginning to become comical.
>
Yes, I do manage the flights differently than when I flew towed gliders - that's
the POINT of owning a motorglider: to do things differently from tow planes and
retrieval crews. We keep telling you this over and over, but you obsess over the
idea we do it for some huge flight performance and safety reason. Again, in
order of importance to me: self-launching means I can fly from my home airport,
or almost any airport around the country, even Canada and Alaska (me and my
glider have made that trip); I can reliably make it home, even if I misjudge the
weather, which I like and delights my wife ("best glider we've ever had", she
says); and I can sometimes push my "lift luck" and risk a field landing if the
engine doesn't start.

You also miss the point that there is a large variation in flight management
between pilots; for example, between Ramy Yanetz and Bob Youngblood, even though
they both fly unpowered gliders. Skills, crew availability, wealth,
work/retirement status, health, personality, motored/towed, and more all affect
how a pilot manages a flight. The motored/towed is just one these many factors
involved.

If you'd fly in some contests, or attempted record flights, or just got out of
Florida and flew out a few other places than your nest in Vero, I think you
might better understand what we are trying to tell you.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

April 29th 21, 12:57 AM

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:28:50 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 4/28/2021 2:39 PM, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:06:23 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >>> Yep, and wears out quicker.
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>> 5J
> >>>
> >>> On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
> >>>> cold engine develops more power.
> >> The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine. If it only
> >> lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40 years! The Stemme is
> >> usual for a self-launcher because it's also a good airplane, and 200 hours might
> >> be only two or three years.
> >> --
> >> Eric Greenwell - USA
> >> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
> >> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> > Eric, are you hitting on the bong? You cannot even admit that you must manage your flight differently. This is beginning to become comical.
> >
> Yes, I do manage the flights differently than when I flew towed gliders - that's
> the POINT of owning a motorglider: to do things differently from tow planes and
> retrieval crews. We keep telling you this over and over, but you obsess over the
> idea we do it for some huge flight performance and safety reason. Again, in
> order of importance to me: self-launching means I can fly from my home airport,
> or almost any airport around the country, even Canada and Alaska (me and my
> glider have made that trip); I can reliably make it home, even if I misjudge the
> weather, which I like and delights my wife ("best glider we've ever had", she
> says); and I can sometimes push my "lift luck" and risk a field landing if the
> engine doesn't start.
>
> You also miss the point that there is a large variation in flight management
> between pilots; for example, between Ramy Yanetz and Bob Youngblood, even though
> they both fly unpowered gliders. Skills, crew availability, wealth,
> work/retirement status, health, personality, motored/towed, and more all affect
> how a pilot manages a flight. The motored/towed is just one these many factors
> involved.
>
> If you'd fly in some contests, or attempted record flights, or just got out of
> Florida and flew out a few other places than your nest in Vero, I think you
> might better understand what we are trying to tell you.
> --
> Eric Greenwell - USA
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
Bob seems to want a different contest category for motorgliders for some perceived advantage they do or do not have. Well, this is the WRONG forum for addressing said grievance - take it to OLC if you want some special category. I think that Bob already knows what the answer will be and just wants to vent ad nauseum.

Personally, my experience in actual contests is that MGs have a DISADVANTAGE in the form of undumpable ballast - the pure gliders get get back on weak days and us MGs had to land out (literally at that time). I quickly concluded that if I wanted to compete I would have to buy a pure glider. Not being that interested in competitions, I stopped participating in contests. OLC is more like a handicapped golf tournament - a friendly way to compare flights, not a serious contest per se.

Tom

jfitch

April 29th 21, 03:18 AM

Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
#1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.

#2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).

#3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.

Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> >
> > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > >
> > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob

[email protected]

April 29th 21, 03:19 AM

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 7:57:32 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:28:50 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On 4/28/2021 2:39 PM, wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:06:23 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > >> On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > >>> Yep, and wears out quicker.
> > >>>
> > >>> Dan
> > >>> 5J
> > >>>
> > >>> On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
> > >>>> cold engine develops more power.
> > >> The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine.. If it only
> > >> lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40 years! The Stemme is
> > >> usual for a self-launcher because it's also a good airplane, and 200 hours might
> > >> be only two or three years.
> > >> --
> > >> Eric Greenwell - USA
> > >> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
> > >> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> > > Eric, are you hitting on the bong? You cannot even admit that you must manage your flight differently. This is beginning to become comical.
> > >
> > Yes, I do manage the flights differently than when I flew towed gliders - that's
> > the POINT of owning a motorglider: to do things differently from tow planes and
> > retrieval crews. We keep telling you this over and over, but you obsess over the
> > idea we do it for some huge flight performance and safety reason. Again, in
> > order of importance to me: self-launching means I can fly from my home airport,
> > or almost any airport around the country, even Canada and Alaska (me and my
> > glider have made that trip); I can reliably make it home, even if I misjudge the
> > weather, which I like and delights my wife ("best glider we've ever had", she
> > says); and I can sometimes push my "lift luck" and risk a field landing if the
> > engine doesn't start.
> >
> > You also miss the point that there is a large variation in flight management
> > between pilots; for example, between Ramy Yanetz and Bob Youngblood, even though
> > they both fly unpowered gliders. Skills, crew availability, wealth,
> > work/retirement status, health, personality, motored/towed, and more all affect
> > how a pilot manages a flight. The motored/towed is just one these many factors
> > involved.
> >
> > If you'd fly in some contests, or attempted record flights, or just got out of
> > Florida and flew out a few other places than your nest in Vero, I think you
> > might better understand what we are trying to tell you.
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - USA
> > - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
> > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> Bob seems to want a different contest category for motorgliders for some perceived advantage they do or do not have. Well, this is the WRONG forum for addressing said grievance - take it to OLC if you want some special category. I think that Bob already knows what the answer will be and just wants to vent ad nauseum.
>
> Personally, my experience in actual contests is that MGs have a DISADVANTAGE in the form of undumpable ballast - the pure gliders get get back on weak days and us MGs had to land out (literally at that time). I quickly concluded that if I wanted to compete I would have to buy a pure glider. Not being that interested in competitions, I stopped participating in contests. OLC is more like a handicapped golf tournament - a friendly way to compare flights, not a serious contest per se.
>
> Tom
2G, I do not recall saying anything about contest scoring as you have stated, I give you this opportunity to correct me if I have advocated that idea. Possibly you do not read well and draw incorrect conclusions much too often. What I have said from the beginning is that there is a difference in the advantage that a MG has over a pure glider, you seem to think that this is incorrect. You mentioned ballast, I fly often with ballast, I have filled the damn thing up to the rim and added even more weight to the cockpit, do I look at this as a disadvantage, hell no, I know when to dump! For your information I have flown in many different places, none are more challenging than year around flying in Florida. Don't knock Vero, you should be so lucky, I walk out my back door on to my own runway and enjoy life, maybe you don't have that luxury, I wish you better success in the future.
What I have said is that there should be a different class for MG flight as compared to the purist. I do not have that luxury of closing a triangle and starting my engine to get back to where I started from, that certainly is an advantage, say you?
Let me extend the same invitation to you as I extended to Eric, come on down to Florida, you can stay here at the ranch, fly from the backyard and I will join you and others on a great flight throughout the swampy terrain.
I know what your response will be, yes we both flew the same distance , but wouldn't you agree that our flight management is a bit different, wound you not say that the risk assessment is a bit different.
I met a guy named George, back in or around 1980's, I guess he would be in his 90's now, what do you think his take on all this would be? Your friend , Old Bob

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 29th 21, 03:57 AM

On 4/28/2021 7:19 PM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 7:57:32 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:

> What I have said is that there should be a different class for MG flight as compared to the purist. I do not have that luxury of closing a triangle and starting my engine to get back to where I started from, that certainly is an advantage, say you?
> Let me extend the same invitation to you as I extended to Eric, come on down to Florida, you can stay here at the ranch, fly from the backyard and I will join you and others on a great flight throughout the swampy terrain.
> I know what your response will be, yes we both flew the same distance , but wouldn't you agree that our flight management is a bit different, wound you not say that the risk assessment is a bit different.
> I met a guy named George, back in or around 1980's, I guess he would be in his 90's now, what do you think his take on all this would be? Your friend , Old Bob
>
What would be better if motorless and motored gliders are in separate classes?
Would you fly in contests if that was done? Why do you think it hasn't happened
already?
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[email protected]

April 29th 21, 04:06 AM

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight.. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
>
> #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
>
> #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
>
> Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > >
> > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > >
> > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob

Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob

April 29th 21, 04:07 AM

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 7:19:53 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 7:57:32 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:28:50 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > On 4/28/2021 2:39 PM, wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:06:23 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > >> On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > > >>> Yep, and wears out quicker.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Dan
> > > >>> 5J
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
> > > >>>> cold engine develops more power.
> > > >> The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine. If it only
> > > >> lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40 years! The Stemme is
> > > >> usual for a self-launcher because it's also a good airplane, and 200 hours might
> > > >> be only two or three years.
> > > >> --
> > > >> Eric Greenwell - USA
> > > >> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
> > > >> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> > > > Eric, are you hitting on the bong? You cannot even admit that you must manage your flight differently. This is beginning to become comical.
> > > >
> > > Yes, I do manage the flights differently than when I flew towed gliders - that's
> > > the POINT of owning a motorglider: to do things differently from tow planes and
> > > retrieval crews. We keep telling you this over and over, but you obsess over the
> > > idea we do it for some huge flight performance and safety reason. Again, in
> > > order of importance to me: self-launching means I can fly from my home airport,
> > > or almost any airport around the country, even Canada and Alaska (me and my
> > > glider have made that trip); I can reliably make it home, even if I misjudge the
> > > weather, which I like and delights my wife ("best glider we've ever had", she
> > > says); and I can sometimes push my "lift luck" and risk a field landing if the
> > > engine doesn't start.
> > >
> > > You also miss the point that there is a large variation in flight management
> > > between pilots; for example, between Ramy Yanetz and Bob Youngblood, even though
> > > they both fly unpowered gliders. Skills, crew availability, wealth,
> > > work/retirement status, health, personality, motored/towed, and more all affect
> > > how a pilot manages a flight. The motored/towed is just one these many factors
> > > involved.
> > >
> > > If you'd fly in some contests, or attempted record flights, or just got out of
> > > Florida and flew out a few other places than your nest in Vero, I think you
> > > might better understand what we are trying to tell you.
> > > --
> > > Eric Greenwell - USA
> > > - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
> > > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> > Bob seems to want a different contest category for motorgliders for some perceived advantage they do or do not have. Well, this is the WRONG forum for addressing said grievance - take it to OLC if you want some special category. I think that Bob already knows what the answer will be and just wants to vent ad nauseum.
> >
> > Personally, my experience in actual contests is that MGs have a DISADVANTAGE in the form of undumpable ballast - the pure gliders get get back on weak days and us MGs had to land out (literally at that time). I quickly concluded that if I wanted to compete I would have to buy a pure glider. Not being that interested in competitions, I stopped participating in contests. OLC is more like a handicapped golf tournament - a friendly way to compare flights, not a serious contest per se.
> >
> > Tom
> 2G, I do not recall saying anything about contest scoring as you have stated, I give you this opportunity to correct me if I have advocated that idea. Possibly you do not read well and draw incorrect conclusions much too often. What I have said from the beginning is that there is a difference in the advantage that a MG has over a pure glider, you seem to think that this is incorrect. You mentioned ballast, I fly often with ballast, I have filled the damn thing up to the rim and added even more weight to the cockpit, do I look at this as a disadvantage, hell no, I know when to dump! For your information I have flown in many different places, none are more challenging than year around flying in Florida. Don't knock Vero, you should be so lucky, I walk out my back door on to my own runway and enjoy life, maybe you don't have that luxury, I wish you better success in the future.
> What I have said is that there should be a different class for MG flight as compared to the purist. I do not have that luxury of closing a triangle and starting my engine to get back to where I started from, that certainly is an advantage, say you?
> Let me extend the same invitation to you as I extended to Eric, come on down to Florida, you can stay here at the ranch, fly from the backyard and I will join you and others on a great flight throughout the swampy terrain.
> I know what your response will be, yes we both flew the same distance , but wouldn't you agree that our flight management is a bit different, wound you not say that the risk assessment is a bit different.
> I met a guy named George, back in or around 1980's, I guess he would be in his 90's now, what do you think his take on all this would be? Your friend , Old Bob

Okay Bob, here are your own words:
"Do I think that having an engine provides a significant advantage in scoring OLC points? Absolutely, Yes."
and
"Bottom line, motor gliders should compete against motor gliders on OLC."
This is exactly what I said: you want a different categories for pure and motorgliders. You now seem to be denying that you said that. This is like trying to converse with Jello.
While it is great you can walk out your back door to your runway, I don't see how that is relevant to the issue you posed. Flying in Florida sounds intriguing, but is pretty impractical as I am about as far away from Florida as you can get in the lower 48.

Tom

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 29th 21, 05:17 AM

On 4/28/2021 8:06 PM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
>> Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
>> #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight.
>> Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the
>> cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while
>> the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is
>> that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already
>> mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a
>> higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower
>> cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the
>> airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more
>> reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG
>> owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more
>> willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day,
>> knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist
>> would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future
>> retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some
>> extra work, and it does in this case.
>>
>> #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly
>> to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other
>> quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can
>> get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection
>> (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
>>
>> #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine
>> starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same
>> mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal
>> until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the
>> accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and
>> has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
>>
>> Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you
>> educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider.
>> Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience,
>> rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting
>> the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over
>> the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut
>> that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can
>> restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?

>
> Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you
> would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening
> here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the
> delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I
> referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What
> I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC
> for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you
> seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk
> management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly
> differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common
> ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees.
> Your friend, Old Bob
>

It's the OLC scoring that bothers you? Holy buckets, don't you know the OLC is
not a real contest, and that you can tally up the scores any way you please?
Pilots are flying hugely different gliders in hugely different conditions all
over the world, and there is no way to handicap them evenly. The
motored/unmotored is the smallest factor in the pilot's performance.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

April 29th 21, 02:20 PM

Bob, you have asked 3 spcific questions which I will answer below, but let me ask you 2. What make and model motorglider have you flown, and how many flights.

#1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot..
Yes for retractable pylon motorgliders there is a big diference. If you intend to do a self retrieve you need to quit sooner. When you intend to start in the air you change your high performance open class glider into a ratty 1-26 (at best) with no guarantee you can turn it back. So not only do you need to have a Landing Option in reach but it must be much closer than you clean polar would show. Basically below you. You need to be high enough to absorb this loss of performance and still make a controlled approach with low performance configuration. Now if I was flying my unpowered glider where I wanted to insure an aero retrieve I would be limited to airports (in my club) and flight management would be diferent as well.

#2 I think motor gliders and unpowered gliders should be scored the same. In the OLC there are far greater contributers to the scoring than an ability to self retrieve. Availability to take advantage of the weather is the largest. If you can only fly on weekends or if you can fly when it is good make a huge difference. I am asuming you are looking for a "local" comparison of scores as location might be the biggest contributer to scores. You asked in a diferent thread how to evaluate the difficulty of a flight on olc.. In my case most of my best scoring flights were the easiest. Some good weather and high cloudbase and long flights are "easy". Having a motor does not make a soaring performance easer to me. That said, I have used my motor to fly to sharable conditions to start earlier. But I have taken longer tows to do the same thing. In the same light most all of my in flight starts are relights if I tried to start too early. But no diferent from a well staffed tow operation.

#3 I think this is where we differ the most. I do not think having a motor inhances safety other than hopefully keeping out of offlanding fields. Unfortunately I belive this is born out in accident statistics. Having a motor does not ever factor into my thinking about crossing unlandable terrain. I am only speaking from my personal perspective, but once I hear the engine bay doors close, a sence of relief sets in that I am in a glider again. I dont think about the motor until I start it up to taxi back to my trailer.. If I am getting low I manage my flight as if I did not have a motor, with the exception that I might need more margin.

I had an experience with my unpowered glider that illustrates this. I had to cross unlandable terrain and I thought I had adequate margin (2500 over to an airport) I headed out and got crushed with wave sink. My arrival was rapidly diminishing with no real option but the trees. I finaly crossed the last trees at 300ft with my gear still up. I had a share in a duo turbo at the time. There was no point in that glide where it would have been safe to extend the turbo for a start. Had it not worked I would have been in the trees. The only things where you can just "push the button" (your words) is a Turing motorglider or fes. They might not work so you can't rationaly rely on them, but at least you haven't made thngs worse by engaging "plumet mode (Dave's words)...

Dan Marotta

April 29th 21, 03:52 PM

Engine's got less than 200 hours on it.

Dan
5J

On 4/28/21 5:05 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Doesn't sound like you need to worry about engine life, either, unless
> your TBO is Real Soon Now.
>
> On 4/28/2021 2:23 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> I've owned my Stemme now for 5 years and have logged around 850 hours
>> (327 flights) on it.Â* I think I've used around 80 engine hours during
>> that time which is about 15 minutes per flight (start, taxi, takeoff,
>> and cool down).Â* I tow the glider from my hangar to the apron before
>> rigging.
>>
>> And yes, I fly with a different mind set than I did in my LAK-17a:Â* I
>> must be within range of a runway suitable to make a normal takeoff at
>> all times.
>>
>> Dan
>> 5J
>>
>> On 4/28/21 3:06 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>> Yep, and wears out quicker.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>> 5J
>>>>
>>>> On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
>>>>> cold engine develops more power.
>>>
>>> The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine.
>>> If it only lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40
>>> years! The Stemme is usual for a self-launcher because it's also a
>>> good airplane, and 200 hours might be only two or three years.
>>>
>
>

jfitch

April 29th 21, 04:39 PM

The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.

As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> >
> > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> >
> > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> >
> > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > >
> > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob

[email protected]

April 29th 21, 07:11 PM

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
>
> As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > >
> > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like.. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > >
> > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > >
> > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob

Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob

April 29th 21, 08:08 PM

The zoo has prominently displayed signs cautioning guests to refrain from feeding the animals, but y'all just can't resist feeding the cute fuzzy critter...

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 29th 21, 08:48 PM

On 4/29/2021 11:11 AM, wrote:

> Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important
> differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight
> management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about
> closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great
> example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk,
> something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off
> shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three
> towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the
> cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and
> who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good
> one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean
> than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can
> read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no
> motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob

I have no idea of what you mean by "flight management". What, exactly, are you
managing?

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[email protected]

April 29th 21, 09:35 PM

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 4/29/2021 11:11 AM, wrote:
>
> > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important
> > differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight
> > management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about
> > closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great
> > example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk,
> > something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off
> > shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three
> > towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the
> > cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and
> > who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good
> > one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean
> > than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can
> > read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no
> > motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> I have no idea of what you mean by "flight management". What, exactly, are you
> managing?
> --
> Eric Greenwell - USA
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Ok Amos, I will wait for Andy, aka 2G to ask the same question and then I will reply.

Andrzej Kobus

April 29th 21, 11:21 PM

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 3:08:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> The zoo has prominently displayed signs cautioning guests to refrain from feeding the animals, but y'all just can't resist feeding the cute fuzzy critter...
+1,000,000

jfitch

April 29th 21, 11:27 PM

Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.

You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> >
> > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > >
> > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > >
> > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > >
> > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob

[email protected]

April 30th 21, 12:00 AM

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
>
> You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > >
> > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > >
> > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > >
> > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that.. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob

Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob

April 30th 21, 12:52 AM

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 1:35:44 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On 4/29/2021 11:11 AM, wrote:
> >
> > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important
> > > differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight
> > > management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about
> > > closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great
> > > example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk,
> > > something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off
> > > shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three
> > > towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the
> > > cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and
> > > who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good
> > > one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean
> > > than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can
> > > read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no
> > > motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > I have no idea of what you mean by "flight management". What, exactly, are you
> > managing?
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - USA
> > - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
> > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> Ok Amos, I will wait for Andy, aka 2G to ask the same question and then I will reply.
Hey Bob,
I AM NOT Andy - you apparently can't respond to your OWN WORDS!
Tom

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

April 30th 21, 04:56 AM

On 4/29/2021 1:35 PM, wrote:
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> On 4/29/2021 11:11 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important
>>> differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight
>>> management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about
>>> closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great
>>> example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk,
>>> something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
>>> Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off
>>> shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three
>>> towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the
>>> cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and
>>> who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good
>>> one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean
>>> than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can
>>> read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no
>>> motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
>> I have no idea of what you mean by "flight management". What, exactly, are you
>> managing?
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - USA
>> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
>
> Ok Amos, I will wait for Andy, aka 2G to ask the same question and then I will reply.
>
Please don't - I've decided you are, regrettably, an RAS troll, and I've been
wasting my time trying to discuss these issues with you. If you are interested
in what I have to say, please contact me privately.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Tango Whisky

April 30th 21, 10:39 AM

Bob's style of discussion reminds me a lot of Lenny the Lurker...

Le vendredi 30 avril 2021 Ã* 05:56:41 UTC+2, Eric Greenwell a Ã©critÂ*:
> On 4/29/2021 1:35 PM, wrote:

> Please don't - I've decided you are, regrettably, an RAS troll, and I've been
> wasting my time trying to discuss these issues with you. If you are interested
> in what I have to say, please contact me privately.
> --
> Eric Greenwell - USA
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

jfitch

April 30th 21, 04:52 PM

Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.

Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> >
> > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > >
> > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one.. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob

[email protected]

April 30th 21, 10:46 PM

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates..
>
> Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > >
> > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider.. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach.. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob

Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob

Jason Leonard

May 1st 21, 12:46 AM

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> >
> > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > >
> > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob

I think you're looking at the probabilities wrong. When the engine is extended to do a self retrieve the chances of it not having a malfunction and leaving you like a heavy 1-26 is just over 30%. You really shouldn't begin to depend on it to start. Others have said being pleasantly surprised that it started is one way to put it.

On the flip side - my gliders only off airport landing was when the engine wouldn't start, and it was just once. He had taken an aerotow and forgot to turn the fuel selector on. ðŸ¤·*â™‚ï¸ So "hopefully" mine doesn't give me so much grief as others have experienced. But over 30% of owners have dealt with engine starting problems in flight. Eric I do think a new survey should happen.

[email protected]

May 1st 21, 02:51 AM

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 7:46:56 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > >
> > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > >
> > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> I think you're looking at the probabilities wrong. When the engine is extended to do a self retrieve the chances of it not having a malfunction and leaving you like a heavy 1-26 is just over 30%. You really shouldn't begin to depend on it to start. Others have said being pleasantly surprised that it started is one way to put it.
>
> On the flip side - my gliders only off airport landing was when the engine wouldn't start, and it was just once. He had taken an aerotow and forgot to turn the fuel selector on. ðŸ¤·*â™‚ï¸ So "hopefully" mine doesn't give me so much grief as others have experienced. But over 30% of owners have dealt with engine starting problems in flight. Eric I do think a new survey should happen.
Jason, if you are telling me that the probability of starting is a 30 % failure rate then you should second guess you choice of MG. Then you say that 30% have experienced non starting engines, in what situations??? Where do you get these statistics from? If the MG is that unreliable then a lot of MG guys are spending dollars they should be investing in a different venue. Bob

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

May 1st 21, 04:46 AM

On 4/30/2021 4:46 PM, Jason Leonard wrote:

> I think you're looking at the probabilities wrong. When the engine is extended to do a self retrieve the chances of it not having a malfunction and leaving you like a heavy 1-26 is just over 30%. You really shouldn't begin to depend on it to start. Others have said being pleasantly surprised that it started is one way to put it.
>
> On the flip side - my gliders only off airport landing was when the engine wouldn't start, and it was just once. He had taken an aerotow and forgot to turn the fuel selector on. ðŸ¤·*â™‚ï¸ So "hopefully" mine doesn't give me so much grief as others have experienced. But over 30% of owners have dealt with engine starting problems in flight. Eric I do think a new survey should happen.

The chances of the engine failing to start are far less than 30% for most
people. My experience is about 200 successful in flight starts, with one
failure, and I believe the "fleet average" is less than a few percent.

It is very likely that 30% of owners has experienced engine starting problems in
flight. I can recall several times the engine was reluctant to start, mostly due
to pilot error.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

May 1st 21, 06:52 AM

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 6:51:51 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 7:46:56 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > >
> > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine.. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit.. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > I think you're looking at the probabilities wrong. When the engine is extended to do a self retrieve the chances of it not having a malfunction and leaving you like a heavy 1-26 is just over 30%. You really shouldn't begin to depend on it to start. Others have said being pleasantly surprised that it started is one way to put it.
> >
> > On the flip side - my gliders only off airport landing was when the engine wouldn't start, and it was just once. He had taken an aerotow and forgot to turn the fuel selector on. ðŸ¤·*â™‚ï¸ So "hopefully" mine doesn't give me so much grief as others have experienced. But over 30% of owners have dealt with engine starting problems in flight. Eric I do think a new survey should happen.
> Jason, if you are telling me that the probability of starting is a 30 % failure rate then you should second guess you choice of MG. Then you say that 30% have experienced non starting engines, in what situations??? Where do you get these statistics from? If the MG is that unreliable then a lot of MG guys are spending dollars they should be investing in a different venue. Bob

Hey Bob, you STILL haven't made a response after I quoted your own words: did you make that claim or not?

Tom

[email protected]

May 1st 21, 09:38 AM

On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 1:52:19 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 6:51:51 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 7:46:56 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > I think you're looking at the probabilities wrong. When the engine is extended to do a self retrieve the chances of it not having a malfunction and leaving you like a heavy 1-26 is just over 30%. You really shouldn't begin to depend on it to start. Others have said being pleasantly surprised that it started is one way to put it.
> > >
> > > On the flip side - my gliders only off airport landing was when the engine wouldn't start, and it was just once. He had taken an aerotow and forgot to turn the fuel selector on. ðŸ¤·*â™‚ï¸ So "hopefully" mine doesn't give me so much grief as others have experienced.. But over 30% of owners have dealt with engine starting problems in flight.. Eric I do think a new survey should happen.
> > Jason, if you are telling me that the probability of starting is a 30 % failure rate then you should second guess you choice of MG. Then you say that 30% have experienced non starting engines, in what situations??? Where do you get these statistics from? If the MG is that unreliable then a lot of MG guys are spending dollars they should be investing in a different venue. Bob
> Hey Bob, you STILL haven't made a response after I quoted your own words: did you make that claim or not?
>
> Tom
Andy, As I stated MG and purist should be scored in a different category on OLC. Old Bob

jfitch

May 1st 21, 04:48 PM

Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.

You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.

As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> >
> > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > >
> > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob

May 1st 21, 05:02 PM

On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 1:38:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 1:52:19 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 6:51:51 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 7:46:56 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > I think you're looking at the probabilities wrong. When the engine is extended to do a self retrieve the chances of it not having a malfunction and leaving you like a heavy 1-26 is just over 30%. You really shouldn't begin to depend on it to start. Others have said being pleasantly surprised that it started is one way to put it.
> > > >
> > > > On the flip side - my gliders only off airport landing was when the engine wouldn't start, and it was just once. He had taken an aerotow and forgot to turn the fuel selector on. ðŸ¤·*â™‚ï¸ So "hopefully" mine doesn't give me so much grief as others have experienced. But over 30% of owners have dealt with engine starting problems in flight. Eric I do think a new survey should happen.
> > > Jason, if you are telling me that the probability of starting is a 30 % failure rate then you should second guess you choice of MG. Then you say that 30% have experienced non starting engines, in what situations??? Where do you get these statistics from? If the MG is that unreliable then a lot of MG guys are spending dollars they should be investing in a different venue. Bob
> > Hey Bob, you STILL haven't made a response after I quoted your own words: did you make that claim or not?
> >
> > Tom
> Andy, As I stated MG and purist should be scored in a different category on OLC. Old Bob

No, I am not Andy - then WHY did you DENY saying that?

Tom

Francois Hersen

May 1st 21, 05:40 PM

Le samedi 1 mai 2021 Ã* 18:02:20 UTC+2, 2G a Ã©critÂ*:
> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 1:38:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 1:52:19 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 6:51:51 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 7:46:56 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > I think you're looking at the probabilities wrong. When the engine is extended to do a self retrieve the chances of it not having a malfunction and leaving you like a heavy 1-26 is just over 30%. You really shouldn't begin to depend on it to start. Others have said being pleasantly surprised that it started is one way to put it.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the flip side - my gliders only off airport landing was when the engine wouldn't start, and it was just once. He had taken an aerotow and forgot to turn the fuel selector on. ðŸ¤·*â™‚ï¸ So "hopefully" mine doesn't give me so much grief as others have experienced. But over 30% of owners have dealt with engine starting problems in flight. Eric I do think a new survey should happen.
> > > > Jason, if you are telling me that the probability of starting is a 30 % failure rate then you should second guess you choice of MG. Then you say that 30% have experienced non starting engines, in what situations??? Where do you get these statistics from? If the MG is that unreliable then a lot of MG guys are spending dollars they should be investing in a different venue. Bob
> > > Hey Bob, you STILL haven't made a response after I quoted your own words: did you make that claim or not?
> > >
> > > Tom
> > Andy, As I stated MG and purist should be scored in a different category on OLC. Old Bob
> No, I am not Andy - then WHY did you DENY saying that?
>
> Tom

I flew more than 15 years with my ASH25, pure glider. Since few years ,I fly with my brand new ASH30 Mi. I may take off when I want, without waiting a two plane.
But, with the ASH30 I always need to may reach an airflied to start the engine in flight, with the 25 an outlanding place was sufficient.
Longest flight time, but more detours, so my average cross country distance is the same with the 30 than with the 25, with the same safety margins.
RC

waremark

May 2nd 21, 02:12 AM

On Saturday, 1 May 2021 at 17:40:19 UTC+1, Francois HERSEN wrote:

> I flew more than 15 years with my ASH25, pure glider. Since few years ,I fly with my brand new ASH30 Mi. I may take off when I want, without waiting a two plane.
> But, with the ASH30 I always need to may reach an airflied to start the engine in flight, with the 25 an outlanding place was sufficient.
> Longest flight time, but more detours, so my average cross country distance is the same with the 30 than with the 25, with the same safety margins.
> RC

Congratulations on your lovely ASH30 Mi. But why are you not happy to start your engine in flight over an outlanding place? I am happy to start my engine in flight anywhere think I could land safely if the engine doesn't start and the prop is still out.

Incidentally, yesterday I made my lowest start yet. I reached a safe airfield at a good height but I thought there was still a chance of finding a thermal and I was confident that if the engine didn't start I could land safely on the airfield. I was down to about 600 feet before I started the engine.. I do not think it was imprudent. My normal start height is 1,000 feet over the ground.

In 14 years of flying with an engine I have had one failure to start - on downwind to land in a good field, in which I then landed safely.

[email protected]

May 2nd 21, 02:34 AM

On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
>
> You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > >
> > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > >
> > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob

May 2nd 21, 03:28 AM

On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> >
> > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> >
> > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > >
> > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine.. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit.. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob

Hey Bob, your claims of what you did, and did not, say are hopelessly flawed. You never did reply to me, except to call me by the wrong name, when I pointed this out. You are confusing facts and names, a symptom of dementia.

Tom

jfitch

May 2nd 21, 04:59 PM

Bob, please supply links to the IGC file that has powered flight not reflected in the file. If you cannot, I'll assume this is a fantasy of yours. This is of course easy if you have a non-ENL logger in a motorglider, but that will be obvious as the secure IGC file will show that in the I record. It is not easy to otherwise overcome the IGC security measures, there are very, very few pilots with the technical knowledge to do it.
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> >
> > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> >
> > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > >
> > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine.. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit.. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob

[email protected]

May 3rd 21, 12:17 AM

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 11:59:51 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> Bob, please supply links to the IGC file that has powered flight not reflected in the file. If you cannot, I'll assume this is a fantasy of yours. This is of course easy if you have a non-ENL logger in a motorglider, but that will be obvious as the secure IGC file will show that in the I record. It is not easy to otherwise overcome the IGC security measures, there are very, very few pilots with the technical knowledge to do it.
> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?".. It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > >
> > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > >
> > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, you may contact me privately by tel or email. See through SSA members. Old Bob

May 3rd 21, 05:34 AM

On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> >
> > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> >
> > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > >
> > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine.. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit.. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob

"I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.

Tom

Jason Leonard

May 3rd 21, 06:46 PM

On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?".. It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > >
> > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > >
> > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
> "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
>
> Tom

Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.

[email protected]

May 3rd 21, 07:30 PM

On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > > >
> > > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > > >
> > > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
> > "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
> >
> > Tom
> Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.

JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob

jfitch

May 3rd 21, 08:44 PM

The IGC approval process contemplates this already. You might get away with that on OLC (there are many easy ways to cheat on OLC if that is your goal) but you would not get away with that at a national or international competition or for records, the MOP recording has to be proven at the beginning of each flight claimed. The fingerprints of trying to circumvent that are usually apparent in the file if it is suspect and inspected closely. What OLC file? I'd like to have a look at it.
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 10:46:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > > >
> > > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > > >
> > > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
> > "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
> >
> > Tom
> Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

May 3rd 21, 10:32 PM

On 5/3/2021 10:46 AM, Jason Leonard wrote:
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
.....
>>> Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
>>> Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
>> "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
>>
>> Tom
>
> Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.

The sustainers I've heard on the ground are so irritatingly loud I am surprised
the usual logger with ENL does not pick them up!

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Dan Marotta

May 3rd 21, 10:37 PM

Maybe it's a frequency vs amplitude thing.

Dan
5J

On 5/3/21 3:32 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:

>
> The sustainers I've heard on the ground are so irritatingly loud I am
> surprised the usual logger with ENL does not pick them up!
>

May 4th 21, 07:10 AM

On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > > > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
> JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob

WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).

Tom

Jason Leonard

May 4th 21, 03:53 PM

Check this out:

The world record that became nothing
On May 4, 1931, 90 years ago, GÃ¼nther Groenhoff flew in Fafnir from Munich to Kaaden in Czechoslovakia. The distance was 272 km. It was a world record. But since Peter Riedel had towed him up there was no record. At that time, the FAI considered that towing
was cheating. Nevertheless, the flight is considered one of the greatest ever in the sport of gliding.

https://qb3l4gas5xn57xoeestqfmvhgm-ac5fdsxevxq4s5y-nordicgliding-com.translate.goog/varldsrekordet-som-inte-blev-naagot/

Maybe you should be back to ground launches to be truly pure ðŸ˜˜ just messing with you Bob. It's a cool article. Check it out!

Jonathan St. Cloud

May 4th 21, 04:52 PM

If it is not on OLC it didn't happen. :)

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7:53:32 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Check this out:
>
> The world record that became nothing
> On May 4, 1931, 90 years ago, GÃ¼nther Groenhoff flew in Fafnir from Munich to Kaaden in Czechoslovakia. The distance was 272 km. It was a world record. But since Peter Riedel had towed him up there was no record. At that time, the FAI considered that towing
> was cheating. Nevertheless, the flight is considered one of the greatest ever in the sport of gliding.
>
> https://qb3l4gas5xn57xoeestqfmvhgm-ac5fdsxevxq4s5y-nordicgliding-com.translate.goog/varldsrekordet-som-inte-blev-naagot/
>
> Maybe you should be back to ground launches to be truly pure ðŸ˜˜ just messing with you Bob. It's a cool article. Check it out!

jfitch

May 4th 21, 05:05 PM

The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots.. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark.. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > > > > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
> > JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
> WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).
>
> Tom

[email protected]

May 4th 21, 09:20 PM

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement.. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site.. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device.. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > > > > > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom
> > > > Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
> > > JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
> > WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).
> >
> > Tom
Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.

[email protected]

May 5th 21, 12:57 PM

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 10:53:32 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Check this out:
>
> The world record that became nothing
> On May 4, 1931, 90 years ago, GÃ¼nther Groenhoff flew in Fafnir from Munich to Kaaden in Czechoslovakia. The distance was 272 km. It was a world record. But since Peter Riedel had towed him up there was no record. At that time, the FAI considered that towing
> was cheating. Nevertheless, the flight is considered one of the greatest ever in the sport of gliding.
>
> https://qb3l4gas5xn57xoeestqfmvhgm-ac5fdsxevxq4s5y-nordicgliding-com.translate.goog/varldsrekordet-som-inte-blev-naagot/
>
> Maybe you should be back to ground launches to be truly pure ðŸ˜˜ just messing with you Bob. It's a cool article. Check it out!

Very interesting article JBL, the pilot survived that flight but later died during a winch launch. I haven't heard much from Amos & Andy since they might have gotten word that Old Bob was correct regarding the OLC traces and propulsion, they still seen to alter the narrative and now revert to the FAI and Contest paradigm, sorry boys I never included that in my original statement. Yes Andy, MG'S and Purist should fall into different categories for scoring in OLC, I confirm my statement made early on.
Guess it is time to close this thread out and move on to something more controversial, in the mean time I am in hot pursuit of an ASG29, pure glider, would not have it any other way, see you at X52, or if your motor doesn't start you are certainly welcome at my place, just land go inside the house open the fridge and have a cold beer or bottle water. Old Bob, "The Purist"

jfitch

May 5th 21, 04:48 PM

OLC relies on FAI approved loggers (they are required, with working ENL if applicable, by the OLC rules), so not really an altered narrative. The contrast between OLC and a contest is relevant. Perhaps OLC should go back to cameras and TriXPan. Your panties have been in a twist from the beginning about motors specifically, while ignoring all the various (and easy) ways to cheat on OLC. And you shifted the focus from a mysterious advantage in "flight management" to blatantly running the engine while not admitting to it. It would be more consistent to insist that each glider type and brand be scored in different categories. This would increase fairness - if such a thing can be mentioned in the context of OLC - far more than merely a separate category for one specific type. If you were doing one flight for the OLC championship, which would you rather be in: an JS1, a Grob 109, or a 1-26? They compete head-to-head, in "fair" scoring, you would not have a preference.. From the point of view of "flight management", I'd take the 1-26 because it can land in a very small field.
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 4:57:20 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 10:53:32 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > Check this out:
> >
> > The world record that became nothing
> > On May 4, 1931, 90 years ago, GÃ¼nther Groenhoff flew in Fafnir from Munich to Kaaden in Czechoslovakia. The distance was 272 km. It was a world record. But since Peter Riedel had towed him up there was no record. At that time, the FAI considered that towing
> > was cheating. Nevertheless, the flight is considered one of the greatest ever in the sport of gliding.
> >
> > https://qb3l4gas5xn57xoeestqfmvhgm-ac5fdsxevxq4s5y-nordicgliding-com.translate.goog/varldsrekordet-som-inte-blev-naagot/
> >
> > Maybe you should be back to ground launches to be truly pure ðŸ˜˜ just messing with you Bob. It's a cool article. Check it out!
> Very interesting article JBL, the pilot survived that flight but later died during a winch launch. I haven't heard much from Amos & Andy since they might have gotten word that Old Bob was correct regarding the OLC traces and propulsion, they still seen to alter the narrative and now revert to the FAI and Contest paradigm, sorry boys I never included that in my original statement. Yes Andy, MG'S and Purist should fall into different categories for scoring in OLC, I confirm my statement made early on.
> Guess it is time to close this thread out and move on to something more controversial, in the mean time I am in hot pursuit of an ASG29, pure glider, would not have it any other way, see you at X52, or if your motor doesn't start you are certainly welcome at my place, just land go inside the house open the fridge and have a cold beer or bottle water. Old Bob, "The Purist"

jfitch

May 5th 21, 07:53 PM

Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these? :)
https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/accessories/women/c/levi_accessories_women/facets/productitemtype/underwear
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
> > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better.. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home.. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know....
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch.. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > > > > > > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom
> > > > > Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
> > > > JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
> > > WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).
> > >
> > > Tom
> Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.

[email protected]

May 5th 21, 08:59 PM

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:53:41 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these? :)
> https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/accessories/women/c/levi_accessories_women/facets/productitemtype/underwear
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
> > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land.. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose.. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know....
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent.. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > > > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater.. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > > > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > > > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > > > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > > > > > > > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
> > > > > JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
> > > > WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.

My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob

May 6th 21, 06:50 AM

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 12:59:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:53:41 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these? :)
> > https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/accessories/women/c/levi_accessories_women/facets/productitemtype/underwear
> > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
> > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > > > > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > > > > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > > > > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > > > > > > > > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
> > > > > > JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
> > > > > WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom
> > > Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.
> My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
> 1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
> 2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
> 3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
> 4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
> 5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
> Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob

Hey Bob, NEWS FLASH: OLC doesn't record ANYTHING - that is done by FAI approved flight loggers. If you have a problem with how loggers function take it up with the FAI, not OLC. You STILL have presented a SINGLE case of an OLC MG flight that has had an unrecorded engine start. What are you waiting for? Do you even have ONE? I doubt it...

Also, if you are going to go for OLC points you will have to FLY - I just don't see you doing much of that. I have, unfortunately, had to spend time with whiners like you - they just make life unpleasant for everyone around them without accomplishing a damn thing.

Tom

[email protected]

May 6th 21, 09:05 AM

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:50:04 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 12:59:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:53:41 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these? :)
> > > https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/accessories/women/c/levi_accessories_women/facets/productitemtype/underwear
> > > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
> > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't).. In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist.. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > > Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
> > > > > > > JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
> > > > > > WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom
> > > > Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.
> > My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
> > 1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
> > 2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
> > 3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
> > 4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
> > 5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
> > Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob
> Hey Bob, NEWS FLASH: OLC doesn't record ANYTHING - that is done by FAI approved flight loggers. If you have a problem with how loggers function take it up with the FAI, not OLC. You STILL have presented a SINGLE case of an OLC MG flight that has had an unrecorded engine start. What are you waiting for? Do you even have ONE? I doubt it...
>
> Also, if you are going to go for OLC points you will have to FLY - I just don't see you doing much of that. I have, unfortunately, had to spend time with whiners like you - they just make life unpleasant for everyone around them without accomplishing a damn thing.
>
> Tom
Andy, I would probably think that the only person that I have made life unpleasant for is YOU! Looks like I accomplished my goal, you remind me of a great movie line when Doc Holiday said of Johnny Ringo, "Your Just A Little Too High Strung". You are correct about one thing, I haven't been flying much in my sailplane, I did make over 100 tows in March and 80 in April, I doubt that you did anything to help the sport.
Now about the evidence, yes it exist, a few have it, just not you.

Tango Whisky

May 6th 21, 10:24 AM

Just repeating your nonsense over and over again doesn't make it any less nonsense.
Maybe you should get a life.

Le mercredi 5 mai 2021 Ã* 21:59:21 UTC+2, a Ã©critÂ*:
> My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
> 1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
> 2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
> 3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
> 4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
> 5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
> Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob

May 7th 21, 05:01 AM

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:05:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:50:04 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 12:59:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:53:41 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these? :)
> > > > https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/accessories/women/c/levi_accessories_women/facets/productitemtype/underwear
> > > > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
> > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button.. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > > > Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
> > > > > > > > JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
> > > > > > > WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market.. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.
> > > My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
> > > 1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
> > > 2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
> > > 3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
> > > 4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
> > > 5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
> > > Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob
> > Hey Bob, NEWS FLASH: OLC doesn't record ANYTHING - that is done by FAI approved flight loggers. If you have a problem with how loggers function take it up with the FAI, not OLC. You STILL have presented a SINGLE case of an OLC MG flight that has had an unrecorded engine start. What are you waiting for? Do you even have ONE? I doubt it...
> >
> > Also, if you are going to go for OLC points you will have to FLY - I just don't see you doing much of that. I have, unfortunately, had to spend time with whiners like you - they just make life unpleasant for everyone around them without accomplishing a damn thing.
> >
> > Tom
> Andy, I would probably think that the only person that I have made life unpleasant for is YOU! Looks like I accomplished my goal, you remind me of a great movie line when Doc Holiday said of Johnny Ringo, "Your Just A Little Too High Strung". You are correct about one thing, I haven't been flying much in my sailplane, I did make over 100 tows in March and 80 in April, I doubt that you did anything to help the sport.
> Now about the evidence, yes it exist, a few have it, just not you.

No, there IS NO evidence and there NEVER WAS. It is ALL in your fertile imagination.

And you have NO IDEA what I have done for the sport, so you are just BLOWING SMOKE.

And I am NOT Andy, but you are demented.

Tom

[email protected]

May 7th 21, 12:46 PM

On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 12:01:10 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:05:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:50:04 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 12:59:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:53:41 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these? :)
> > > > > https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/accessories/women/c/levi_accessories_women/facets/productitemtype/underwear
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards.. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
> > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours.. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > > > > Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
> > > > > > > > > JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
> > > > > > > > WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.
> > > > My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
> > > > 1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
> > > > 2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
> > > > 3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
> > > > 4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
> > > > 5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
> > > > Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob
> > > Hey Bob, NEWS FLASH: OLC doesn't record ANYTHING - that is done by FAI approved flight loggers. If you have a problem with how loggers function take it up with the FAI, not OLC. You STILL have presented a SINGLE case of an OLC MG flight that has had an unrecorded engine start. What are you waiting for? Do you even have ONE? I doubt it...
> > >
> > > Also, if you are going to go for OLC points you will have to FLY - I just don't see you doing much of that. I have, unfortunately, had to spend time with whiners like you - they just make life unpleasant for everyone around them without accomplishing a damn thing.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > Andy, I would probably think that the only person that I have made life unpleasant for is YOU! Looks like I accomplished my goal, you remind me of a great movie line when Doc Holiday said of Johnny Ringo, "Your Just A Little Too High Strung". You are correct about one thing, I haven't been flying much in my sailplane, I did make over 100 tows in March and 80 in April, I doubt that you did anything to help the sport.
> > Now about the evidence, yes it exist, a few have it, just not you.
> No, there IS NO evidence and there NEVER WAS. It is ALL in your fertile imagination.
>
> And you have NO IDEA what I have done for the sport, so you are just BLOWING SMOKE.
>
> And I am NOT Andy, but you are demented.
>
> Tom
Now Andy, you better grasp ahold of reality! You are displaying so much heat that my Matrice 300 thermal imaging drone could record you from miles away. Old Bob

May 8th 21, 06:58 AM

On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 4:46:54 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 12:01:10 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:05:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:50:04 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 12:59:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:53:41 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these? :)
> > > > > > https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/accessories/women/c/levi_accessories_women/facets/productitemtype/underwear
> > > > > > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
> > > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy.. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks.. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's just emulating, well, you know...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > "I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
> > > > > > > > > > JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
> > > > > > > > > WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.
> > > > > My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
> > > > > 1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
> > > > > 2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
> > > > > 3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
> > > > > 4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
> > > > > 5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
> > > > > Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob
> > > > Hey Bob, NEWS FLASH: OLC doesn't record ANYTHING - that is done by FAI approved flight loggers. If you have a problem with how loggers function take it up with the FAI, not OLC. You STILL have presented a SINGLE case of an OLC MG flight that has had an unrecorded engine start. What are you waiting for? Do you even have ONE? I doubt it...
> > > >
> > > > Also, if you are going to go for OLC points you will have to FLY - I just don't see you doing much of that. I have, unfortunately, had to spend time with whiners like you - they just make life unpleasant for everyone around them without accomplishing a damn thing.
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > Andy, I would probably think that the only person that I have made life unpleasant for is YOU! Looks like I accomplished my goal, you remind me of a great movie line when Doc Holiday said of Johnny Ringo, "Your Just A Little Too High Strung". You are correct about one thing, I haven't been flying much in my sailplane, I did make over 100 tows in March and 80 in April, I doubt that you did anything to help the sport.
> > > Now about the evidence, yes it exist, a few have it, just not you.
> > No, there IS NO evidence and there NEVER WAS. It is ALL in your fertile imagination.
> >
> > And you have NO IDEA what I have done for the sport, so you are just BLOWING SMOKE.
> >
> > And I am NOT Andy, but you are demented.
> >
> > Tom
> Now Andy, you better grasp ahold of reality! You are displaying so much heat that my Matrice 300 thermal imaging drone could record you from miles away. Old Bob

Old Bob, you are whining again. Tom