Derek Copeland
January 30th 06, 07:58 PM
In my experience, owning a higher performance glider
just means that you land out further away! Admittedly
I fly in damp little Britain, so the further you go,
the more likely you are to encounter a poor airmass.
Derek C
--------------------------------
At 19:18 30 January 2006, Bob Whelan wrote:
>In a discussion of (performance) bang for the buck,
>was writ...
>>>The difference in what you get today in comparison
>>>of what you've got 20
>>>years ago is not just 'a bit'.
>>
>>
>> I didn't know 'a bit' had a precise numerical definition!
>> (it was understatement). I think you were agreeing
>> with me in general.
>>
>> Plus you get more for your money
>> Certainly you'll see it in your absolute
>> cross-country enjoyment.
>
>At the risk of anality (and not to pick on a statement
>probably
>originally written somewhat from a contest perspective),
>for any newbies
>pondering 'cross country enjoyment,' understand there
>ARE differing
>views on what *constitutes* 'cross country enjoyment.'
>
>Sure, on any given day longer distances are great for
>bragging rights,
>and also serve wonderfully as motivation, but...
>
>My own view is that cross country ENJOYMENT (at least
>in the continental
>U.S. is NOT strongly related to either L/D, or its
>close cousin,
>'penetration.' I've had as much fun flying XC in a
>21:1 1-26 as I have
>in a ~35:1 1st-generation 15-meter glass ship. IMHO,
>fun in XC relates
>to one's comfort in *safely* doing it. Distance/speed
>'merely' fall out
>in the wash.
>
>Since my first (inadvertent, safe) XC ca. 1973 in a
>1-26 to my most
>recent, I've seen many participants come and go, and
>I've seen many
>participants lust-after/purchase flat L/D in what seemed
>to me to be a
>hope of avoiding *any* landouts in their pursuit of
>'fun XC.' I've also
>seen some of these folks seriously bust their ships
>when
>conditions/their L/D didn't work out. There's a lot
>to be said for
>becoming comfortable in picking fields in less costly,
>lower performance
>ships than *hoping* to never have to make an OFL in
>a high-dollar,
>flat-gliding latest-n-greatest drool machine.
>
>Worrying about distance before understanding how to
>pick - and being
>comfortable picking - safe, likely-to-be-damage-free
>landing fields, is
>to have one's priorities out of sequence, methinks.
>
>Regards,
>Bob - YMMV - W.
>
just means that you land out further away! Admittedly
I fly in damp little Britain, so the further you go,
the more likely you are to encounter a poor airmass.
Derek C
--------------------------------
At 19:18 30 January 2006, Bob Whelan wrote:
>In a discussion of (performance) bang for the buck,
>was writ...
>>>The difference in what you get today in comparison
>>>of what you've got 20
>>>years ago is not just 'a bit'.
>>
>>
>> I didn't know 'a bit' had a precise numerical definition!
>> (it was understatement). I think you were agreeing
>> with me in general.
>>
>> Plus you get more for your money
>> Certainly you'll see it in your absolute
>> cross-country enjoyment.
>
>At the risk of anality (and not to pick on a statement
>probably
>originally written somewhat from a contest perspective),
>for any newbies
>pondering 'cross country enjoyment,' understand there
>ARE differing
>views on what *constitutes* 'cross country enjoyment.'
>
>Sure, on any given day longer distances are great for
>bragging rights,
>and also serve wonderfully as motivation, but...
>
>My own view is that cross country ENJOYMENT (at least
>in the continental
>U.S. is NOT strongly related to either L/D, or its
>close cousin,
>'penetration.' I've had as much fun flying XC in a
>21:1 1-26 as I have
>in a ~35:1 1st-generation 15-meter glass ship. IMHO,
>fun in XC relates
>to one's comfort in *safely* doing it. Distance/speed
>'merely' fall out
>in the wash.
>
>Since my first (inadvertent, safe) XC ca. 1973 in a
>1-26 to my most
>recent, I've seen many participants come and go, and
>I've seen many
>participants lust-after/purchase flat L/D in what seemed
>to me to be a
>hope of avoiding *any* landouts in their pursuit of
>'fun XC.' I've also
>seen some of these folks seriously bust their ships
>when
>conditions/their L/D didn't work out. There's a lot
>to be said for
>becoming comfortable in picking fields in less costly,
>lower performance
>ships than *hoping* to never have to make an OFL in
>a high-dollar,
>flat-gliding latest-n-greatest drool machine.
>
>Worrying about distance before understanding how to
>pick - and being
>comfortable picking - safe, likely-to-be-damage-free
>landing fields, is
>to have one's priorities out of sequence, methinks.
>
>Regards,
>Bob - YMMV - W.
>