What is Purpose of Sports Class Nationals?

[Frank Paynter]

According to the 2006 Sports Class Nationals Rules:


'The purpose of the Sports Class Nationals is to determine
the 2006 Sports Class Champion, and to select team
members for international Club Class competitions'

With most of the gliders at the latest 2006 Nats in
the ASW27/28 & LS-8 range, does it make sense to call
the winner a Sports Class Champion? Does it make sense
to select pilots for international Club Class competitions
from this group?

Inquiring minds and all that .... ;-).

Frank (X3)

[[email protected]]

Hooboy this inquiring mind can't wait to see all that comes outta this
one!

[Wayne Paul]

Frank,

Here is the FAI purpose:
"7.7.6 Club Class
The purpose of the Club Class is to preserve the value of older high
performance gliders, to provide inexpensive but high quality international
championships, and to enable pilots who do not have access to gliders of the
highest standard of performance to take part in contests at the highest
levels."

The problem arises with the "Entry" definition.
"The only limitation on entry of a glider into a Club Class competition is
that it is within the range of handicap factors agreed for the competition.
(AL7)"

The U.S. has opened this range to include all sailplanes. This tends to
cause contest organizers to declare tasks which are beyond the capabilities
of older gliders. This situation nullifies the "older high performance
gliders"/"inexpensive" phrase in the FAI purpose statement.

What is the common international handicap range of Club Class sailplanes?

Would limiting entries to older sailplanes increase, or decrease,
participation? What does the term "older" mean?

(Personally, I hesitate to enter contests flying mid 1960's technology.)

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder




"Frank Paynter" > wrote in message
...
> According to the 2006 Sports Class Nationals Rules:
>
>
> 'The purpose of the Sports Class Nationals is to determine
> the 2006 Sports Class Champion, and to select team
> members for international Club Class competitions'
>
> With most of the gliders at the latest 2006 Nats in
> the ASW27/28 & LS-8 range, does it make sense to call
> the winner a Sports Class Champion? Does it make sense
> to select pilots for international Club Class competitions
> from this group?
>
> Inquiring minds and all that .... ;-).
>
> Frank (X3)
>
>
>

[g l i d e r s t u d]

Since I flew in the highest handicapped glider in Mifflin this year, I
am not one to comment. However if you attended the SRA meeting, you
would have a good understanding of the answer.

Where do we decide the handicap range for the Sports Class Nationals?
Because the Club Class Worlds are allowed to change, they allowed the
ASW24, and it had not been allowed before.

How many pilots flying the Sports Class Nationals have the intent of
making the US Team to fly in the Club Class? Not many, same in the
other classes.

The issue of tasking came up after Parowan last year and was discussed.
The outcome is discussed in the minutes (which nobody reads)
http://www.sailplane-racing.org/Rules/2005%20%20RC%20Meeting%20Minutes%20Final.pdf
The tasks should be designed for the mid range gliders. At Mifflin I
thought they were, but I was not flying the Cirrus, I was flying the
80ft+ monster with the Iron thermal in the back. We did have a few days
where we were running out of room, and a Cirrus was much better suited.

The handicaps do a pretty good job of making gliders equal, however
there are times where you cannot beat performance. If we made a Club
Class Nationals to select the Club class team? How many gliders would
show up? There were 3 that showed up (Tim Welles won the Pinto trophy),
and I believe you need 8 for a Nationals. Maybe select the Club Class
Team from pilots flying Club class gliders.

Maybe there could be an incentive for a club class ship to show up? But
what about the glider that is right on the edge of the handicap, we
don't know 2 years before the Worlds what that handicap is going to be.
What if there is a change, and that pilot's glider is now out after
they have been selected for the pre-worlds.

What about keeping the Sports class just that....sport, but no
selection (would that keep poeple from comming?).

Having a Club Class Nationals....who will host it? it is already hard
to get organizations to host the ones we have now.

I am not being negative for the club class, I am actually for it, I
sold the D2ax with the intent of buying a Libelle. Mike and I almost
flew two Cirrus', but the Rotax crew is hard to beat. I am mearly
pointing out some problems that we have run into.

[Thomas Knauff]

The primary problem of running a true sports class contest in the USA where
all the gliders comply with the international sports class rules, is people
won't show up. The USA method of "bring anything" is very well attended and
popular.

That said, there should be an extra effort made to recognize those who fly
true sports class gliders, and in my opinion, only those pilots should be
eligible for the international team.

Having said that, the international sports class is not what it seems. If
you want to be competitive, you must fly a highly prepared (modified)
glider. A competitive sports class glider is not your "standard" Cirrus.

The FAI has adopted the new 20 meter two place gliders as a new racing
class. An attempt at a USA 20 meter 2 place contest fell flat with too
little interest. Internationally, the class is a big success.

Tom Knauff
www.eglider.org


"Frank Paynter" > wrote in message
...
> According to the 2006 Sports Class Nationals Rules:
>
>
> 'The purpose of the Sports Class Nationals is to determine
> the 2006 Sports Class Champion, and to select team
> members for international Club Class competitions'
>
> With most of the gliders at the latest 2006 Nats in
> the ASW27/28 & LS-8 range, does it make sense to call
> the winner a Sports Class Champion? Does it make sense
> to select pilots for international Club Class competitions
> from this group?
>
> Inquiring minds and all that .... ;-).
>
> Frank (X3)
>
>
>

[John Seaborn]

Have a look at the US Team Committee web page for a proposal now under
discussion to limit team selection to pilots flying club class gliders
with performance more closely aligned with the European definition of
the class. All gliders could fly the class with a handicap as is done
now but team members would only be selected from those pilots flying a
true Club Class glider. See the US Team Committee
http://www.ssa.org/UsTeam/ust_committee.htm here and look under Special
Reporting for Part 1 & 2 Club Class Team Selection - Ideas for the
Future?

John Seaborn
http://www.ssa.org/UsTeam

Frank Paynter wrote:
> According to the 2006 Sports Class Nationals Rules:
>
>
> 'The purpose of the Sports Class Nationals is to determine
> the 2006 Sports Class Champion, and to select team
> members for international Club Class competitions'
>
> With most of the gliders at the latest 2006 Nats in
> the ASW27/28 & LS-8 range, does it make sense to call
> the winner a Sports Class Champion? Does it make sense
> to select pilots for international Club Class competitions
> from this group?
>
> Inquiring minds and all that .... ;-).
>
> Frank (X3)

[[email protected]]

Current U.S. Sports Class rules allow everyone to "run what ya brung";
i.e., no need to buy/borrow a special glider--older or newer--that
meets the rules. Handicapping isn't perfect but, having flown Sports
Class at the regional and national level, I like the attempt to
equalize the performance of various gliders in the scoring.

My impression is that the complaints about the U.S. class definition
rules (vs. FAI Club Class) are really a proxy for complaints about the
top pilots showing up. Some critics are honest in declaring their
preference that the Sports Class be a "training" class or at least an
environment where competition is less intense. Others feel the same but
decry the more liberal U.S. equipment rules, suspecting (correctly, I
think) that fewer of the U.S. big guns would invest two weeks of time
and a lot of money flying the Sports Class nationals if they had to
beg/borrow a Standard Cirrus.

But the Sports Class Nationals appeals to me precisely because many top
U.S. pilots do take it seriously. If I invest time and money in a
contest, I don't want to be a big fish in a small pond. I want to
measure myself against the best, even though I don't usually measure
up. The quality of Sports Class Nationals competition improved when it
became the qualifier for the U.S. Club Class Team and I think that's
just great. Making it tougher for pilots of all abilities to
participate (by narrowing the rules) is a step in the wrong direction.

That doesn't mean the loss of the "training" class or a more relaxed
competitive environment. Those can be found in Sports Class at the
regional level.

The current system is working well. Sports Class Nationals have never
been more popular. If more pilots brought older equipment, it would
show better (when I flew the Nationals a few years ago, Tim McAllister
won in a 201 Libelle, the type of glider I flew in the early '70s).
And, interestingly enough, we're sending pilots to the Club Class World
Championships who aren't on the list of the usual suspects in the
Standard, 15M, and Open class U.S. teams. In the immortal words of Bert
Lance (President Carter's budget director), "if it ain't broke, don't
fix it." :)

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

[Wallace Berry]

In article >,
"Wayne Paul" > wrote:


> The U.S. has opened this range to include all sailplanes. This tends to
> cause contest organizers to declare tasks which are beyond the capabilities
> of older gliders.

Haven't seen that problem here in the southeastern U.S. Current world
team member David Stevenson has campaigned his Ka-6 very successfully,
Obviously, he finishes most tasks in good time. Clearly, the
handicapping system has some flaws (what doesn't?) with some gliders
having relatively better handicaps, but that can change.

The winning gliders flown in the club class in Europe are often so
highly tuned or modified that they rival the cost of a much newer ship.

I relish the chance to fly with better pilots in better equipment.
Sometimes I even beat one or two of them. Limiting the U.S. Sports Class
to older ships would just diminish participation.

Oh, one other thing - Frank, tell me again what the heck winglets are
supposed to do for an LS-4 (besides look cool?)

[Jack]

Unfortunately, most of us that want to compete have job constraints,
etc. that prevent us from coming. I finally am close to being able to
make a contest per year. Would I go to a sports nationals... no. Too
many that are priviledged to fly a lot and practice a lot show up. I
heard one say that it's another nationals for the big guys. That's
fine, and I don't begrudge them that. I do admire the few that fly the
FAI classes and at least try to leave the crumbs for the neophytes and
wannabes. I would possibly try the nats if I won a regional. That would
blank my vacation for a year, so it's not likely. I do intend to fly
region 10 or region 9 sports next year... big dogs or not...

Jack Womack

Wallace Berry wrote:
> In article >,
> "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
>
> > The U.S. has opened this range to include all sailplanes. This tends to
> > cause contest organizers to declare tasks which are beyond the capabilities
> > of older gliders.
>
> Haven't seen that problem here in the southeastern U.S. Current world
> team member David Stevenson has campaigned his Ka-6 very successfully,
> Obviously, he finishes most tasks in good time. Clearly, the
> handicapping system has some flaws (what doesn't?) with some gliders
> having relatively better handicaps, but that can change.
>
> The winning gliders flown in the club class in Europe are often so
> highly tuned or modified that they rival the cost of a much newer ship.
>
> I relish the chance to fly with better pilots in better equipment.
> Sometimes I even beat one or two of them. Limiting the U.S. Sports Class
> to older ships would just diminish participation.
>
> Oh, one other thing - Frank, tell me again what the heck winglets are
> supposed to do for an LS-4 (besides look cool?)

[Frank]

Wow - I've certainly come to the right place for informed responses to
my post! ;-). Replying to all previouis posts:

Thanks to 'gliderstud' (what a handle) and John Seaborn for the links
to ongoing discussions in this area - I read both carefully.

I'm still having problems with the stated purpose for the SC Nats vs
what is actually happening. Here in the U.S. we have a Std Nats, a 15m
Nats, an Open/18m Nats, a World Class Nats, and the SC Nats. In 2005,
the number of gliders entered were: Std 23, 15m 47, 18m 22, Open 10,
World 13, SC 48. In 2006 so far, the SC Nats hosted 55 and the World
Class hosted 9. My point is, I don't believe there is any danger in
not havning enough SC pilots and gliders to show up to make a National
contest field if the high-priced glass is excluded, and the SSA has
already repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to support a National
Constest for a relatively small number of entrants. Regarding the
quality of the competition, I think it would be much more fun to have a
fighting chance to finish in the top half of the field than to be
doomed from the start to the (very) low end of the scale. It is my
personal belief that the reason pure SC pilots *do not* come to the SC
Nats is because they know they can't possibly win or even place well
(The Harris HIll SC Nats where Tim McAllister won in his Libelle was a
freak event - I was there and the weather was terrible - we set
records for the number of landouts. If the weather had been at all
reasonable, Tim would probably not have done as well).

In all these contests except the SC Nats, all the gliders have
essentially the same performance, so it is (in theory) the best pilot
that wins. In the SC Nats it is essentially impossible to tell whether
the best pilot or the most expensive glass is most significant, because
the range of gliders is so broad. In 2005 and 2006, the best a pure SC
pilot and plane did was 6th overall (Manfred Franke in 2005 with an
LS-3), and in 2006 about 27th overall (Tim Wells in a Std Cirrus). In
both years, the SC National Champion was won by a pilot or pilots in a
Duo Discus, with other high-priced glass close behind.

Why don't we try eliminating the Duo's and the ASW27s and the ASG-29's
from the equation at the SC Nats, or at least adjust the handicaps so
their pilots have to fly a lot harder than they do now to win. Let's
try the experiment. How do we know how many pure SC pilots & gliders
will show up if we don't try? If it doesn't work, we can change it
back.

Frank(X3)

[Frank]

Wallace Berry wrote:
>
> Oh, one other thing - Frank, tell me again what the heck winglets are
> supposed to do for an LS-4 (besides look cool?)

Well, they are supposed to improve low-speed handling and thermalling
performance by reducing induced drag, while not costing anything at the
high end of the speed range. I think they actually do improve
performance as advertised, but I don't have any hard data to support
this, other than the wind tunnel & flight data obtained in by the folks
who adapted the LS-8 winglets to the LS-4.

But hey, they *do* look cool! ;-).

Frank(X3)

[Frank Whiteley]

Frank wrote:
> Wallace Berry wrote:
> >
> > Oh, one other thing - Frank, tell me again what the heck winglets are
> > supposed to do for an LS-4 (besides look cool?)
>
> Well, they are supposed to improve low-speed handling and thermalling
> performance by reducing induced drag, while not costing anything at the
> high end of the speed range. I think they actually do improve
> performance as advertised, but I don't have any hard data to support
> this, other than the wind tunnel & flight data obtained in by the folks
> who adapted the LS-8 winglets to the LS-4.
>
> But hey, they *do* look cool! ;-).
>
> Frank(X3)

There's also been increased interest in the Sports Class nationals
since the national trophy was endowed in 1999. National trophy
endowments are about $5000 for transport and preservation of a place
for the champion's name.

Frank Whiteley

[BB]

>All gliders could fly the class with a handicap as is done
> now but team members would only be selected from those pilots flying a
> true Club Class glider.

The trouble with this system is that few top-caliber US pilots are
going to leave the good glider at home and fly a nationals in a
borrowed standard cirrus. Our team will then be picked from a very
small group of "specialists." The result is unlikely to be teams that
do well at worlds. If you want teams that do well at worlds, you have
to pick from the largest possible group of pilots.

Of course, it all depends what we want. If we want to create a place
where a small group of dedicated club class specialists can get to the
worlds relatively easily, then this limitation will do splendidly. If
we want a selection system that send the best possible team, then I
don't see any reason for the idea.

John Cochrane (Who is very, very unlikely to spend two precious weeks
flying a standard cirrus when I have an ASW27 sitting pathetically
unused!)

[Frank]

John,

Furthermore, the FAI clases are also "specialists
BB wrote:
> >All gliders could fly the class with a handicap as is done
> > now but team members would only be selected from those pilots flying a
> > true Club Class glider.
>
> The trouble with this system is that few top-caliber US pilots are
> going to leave the good glider at home and fly a nationals in a
> borrowed standard cirrus. Our team will then be picked from a very
> small group of "specialists." The result is unlikely to be teams that
> do well at worlds. If you want teams that do well at worlds, you have
> to pick from the largest possible group of pilots.

But you and your ASW27 already have a shot at the 15m National
Championship, and the corresponding chance for a slot on the US Team in
15m competition. Are you saying you and your ASW27 want *two* chances,
one as a 15m "specialist" and another as a SC entrant, as opposed to
zero for the pure SC "specialist"? And while I"m at it, what is the
difference between the 15m (or Std, 18m, Open, or World Class)
"specialist" and the SC "specialist"?

In 2005 there were only 23 entries at the Std Class Nats, a "small
group" in anyone's estimation. What's the difference between this
situation and one where 23 SC "specialists" compete for a team slot?

A logical extension of your "more pilots are better" argument would be
to combine the Std, 15m, 18m & Open classes into one contest. The Std
& 15m ships would have no chance of winning, but what the heck - there
would be more top-notch pilots to pick from. When the Open & 18m
pilots are selected for the worlds, they can go to all the world meets
and just borrow the appropriate glider for each event.
>
> Of course, it all depends what we want. If we want to create a place
> where a small group of dedicated club class specialists can get to the
> worlds relatively easily, then this limitation will do splendidly. If
> we want a selection system that send the best possible team, then I
> don't see any reason for the idea.

What I want to create is a place where SC pilots have a chance to
compete with other SC pilots for the SC National Championship, just
like 15m pilots compete against other 15m pilots for the 15m National
Championship - is that too much to ask?

Frank(who is very, very unlikely to ever be able to afford an ASW27)
>
> John Cochrane (Who is very, very unlikely to spend two precious weeks
> flying a standard cirrus when I have an ASW27 sitting pathetically
> unused!)

[Greg Arnold]

Frank wrote:
> John,
>
> But you and your ASW27 already have a shot at the 15m National
> Championship, and the corresponding chance for a slot on the US Team in
> 15m competition. Are you saying you and your ASW27 want *two* chances,
> one as a 15m "specialist" and another as a SC entrant, as opposed to
> zero for the pure SC "specialist"?

Why does the pure SC "specialist" have zero chance? Doesn't he receive
a SC handicap that will make him competitive against the newer gliders?
If not, isn't that just a matter of correcting the handicaps?


And while I"m at it, what is the
> difference between the 15m (or Std, 18m, Open, or World Class)
> "specialist" and the SC "specialist"?
>
> In 2005 there were only 23 entries at the Std Class Nats, a "small
> group" in anyone's estimation. What's the difference between this
> situation and one where 23 SC "specialists" compete for a team slot?

Where will these 23 SC "specialists" come from if you limit entry to
older gliders? Most pilots with the drive to be competitive at the very
top levels have top-notch gliders, and will not show up if they have to
fly an older glider. Eliminate these pilots, and you will kill off the
Sports Class. I really doubt if there is a group of pilots out there
who (1) are aggressive competitors but (2) aren't aggressive enough to
currently compete in SC because of all those darn newer gliders that
show up.

[Chris Davison]

I think the central point is being missed. The European
Club-Class is a very competitive, low cost entry into
competition flying at the highest level. It tends
to attract younger (relatively poorer) pilots and whilst
may not seem attractive on your side of the pond, is
a HUGE success over here and has been the starting
point for many new world class (no, not that World
Class!) competition pilots who have gone on to compete
in the more traditional classes.

If an ASW27 pilot wants to fly his/her ASW27, great,
but don't kid yourselves they will be competitive in
a Cirrus. The fact that if you had a specialist qualifier
it might throw up some new 'unfamilier' names should
be great news...that's the whole point!

Finally this 'you need a race prepared glider that
costs nearly as much as a new one' is just complete
rubbish...sure it needs to have reasonable instruments,
be sealed well and not have lumps of gel hanging off,
but none of that is beyond the means of some hard work
and effort. You can buy a ready to go competitive
club class glider for a lot less than $20,000...of
couse if that is all ASW27's cost on your side of the
world then let me in!

I hope you guys see the light, it's a truely great
class...

Chris





At 02:12 29 June 2006, Bb wrote:
>Of course, it all depends what we want. If we want
>to create a place
>where a small group of dedicated club class specialists
>can get to the
>worlds relatively easily, then this limitation will
>do splendidly.

[Tim]

X3 and all:

Please let me get up on my soapbox for a second as I prepare to go off
to Club Class WGC on Saturday. I hope my comments here can spur the
development of this class here in the US so I can truly come home to a
class of my own.

Speaking as one of the few American pilots who is a SC/Club Class
"specialist", the reason I am a "specialist" in sports/club class is
that I own a Libelle. Why? Because this is all I can afford and this is
what I am stuck with. There are many VERY good racing pilots (David
Stevenson, Manfred Franke, etc.) and aspiring racing pilots who are in
these type of ships because they are affordable OR they have seen the
folly of investing $75K-100k in "keeping up with the Joneses" to be
competitive in the other classes. The rest of the world lets pilots of
these ships have a class of their own. Why not let US pilots of these
ships have their own class and see if it can be made to work as
successfully as in Europe???The Club Class Concept, as proven in
Europe, has developed a "lower"-cost entry into top flight racing. I
firmly believe this concept would prove popular in the U.S. - if only
it was given the space, support and time to develop.

The truth be known, I really love Club Class ships and, echoing Chris
Davison's (sp?) comments from across the pond, I believe the club class
ships are a terrific way to hone important racing skills like judgment
and consideration of x-c speed vs. performance that then lead these
type of pilots on to great success at the FAI Class levels. It should
be absolutely be viewed as a competitive class in its own right, but
with the view to developing pilots into the more expensive classes - IF
these pilots choose to leave this racing class.

In fact, take a look at the club class "specialists" that are
"slumming" it flying Libelles, Cirri, LS-1's and Std Jantars at Vinon
in two weeks: Sebastian Kawa (World #1 - did not see him at the "real"
Worlds in Sweden), Uli Schwenk, Petr Krejirck, Olivier Darroze,
Vittorio Pinni, Erik Borgmann, Richard Hood, Jay Rebbeck, etc (Not to
mention DS, EY and W3). Take a close look. This may be the most talent
laden class in the entire FAI system with both established stars and
MANY young "up and comers" fully committed to this class before they
move "up" - most likely to take some names and kick some ass there too.
It makes me wonder how deep the talent pool is and would be in the US
if we developed this class. Unless you hit it big or have a parent with
the hot ship, how many young pilots are going to be handed a new ship
whenever they want to go racing here in the US?

Some Comments to poters:

X3 - Thanks for the vote of confidence in considering my SC Nats win a
total "freak". I will agree that it was a contest that favored my
Libelle. However, even in these weak conditions, W3 almost caught me in
his V2 - hardly a "soft" weather ship. And there were a few other weak
weather ships that did not do so well. Face it, racing and winning is
based on pilot skill and comfort with the present meteorlogical
conditions. It just so happens I am a western pilot who loves
Eastern/European weather and the contest suited my flying style. Yes
the ship helped, but I would hope some skill and judgment contributed
to the win.

Wayne - Thanks for the FAI definition of the Club Class. Geee, imagine
that... a class that might actually preserve the racing character and
value ($$$'s) of both my own Libelle (yes I have a vested interest) and
many HUNDREDS of other Libelles, LS1's, ASW15's, Jantars, etc. here in
the U.S.; AND offer the chance to engage in top-level (if you choose)
glider racing. Are the racing pilots that own the latest ships fearful
that having a true Club Class here in the US would make them re-think
why they have so much invested when there is a very competitive format
of glider racing available for much less investment? I challenge elite
US pilots who own the hot ships to come down and fly first and
second-generation glass agasint the "specialists" and see what they
think. It is more difficult, but is very rewarding flying.

Chip - I cannot agree with you more that the Sports Class Nationals
concept and format deserves to be preserved. In Europe, more U.S.-like
Sports Class Nationals are still held and are hugely popular despite
there being this new Club Class development. There should definitely be
an event where anyone can bring what they own and hang it out against
those pilots who fly newer OR older equipment. I just question if this
wide-open event is the best for team selection for a WGC in which
selectees are going to be flying a certain class of glider - possible
one in which newer pilots have never competed in.

But there is a another huge problem with using the Sports Nats as the
team selection opened up to all gliders, and that is the Task Calling.
For instance, this year at SC in Mifflin, on at least two days, the
tasks that were called either offered little hope for the Libelle,
Cirrus, and ASW-15 to get home at all, let alone compete for the day
win, OR the tasks as designed did not afford these three ships the
opportunity (given the weather, wind conditions) to put up a
handicapped speed competitive with the newer generation ships if we
played it to just to get home. For instance, at the 2005 Reg 9 contest
(where I shared task advising with 2NO) on the last day I forced myself
to conciously call a task that attempted to equalize the performance in
sports class (Air Force L23's to Mosquito/Zuni) given the winds and the
length of task. Surprise, surprise it led to a very close race in
hadicapped speeds, with the L23 winning when it had been penalized most
other days due to the winds at Hobbs.

Truly taking into account all ships in the contest when tasks are drawn
up is in the rules and is, in fact, possible. But in practice,
especially at US Sports Nationals, when a CD has 20+ ASW-27's/V2's and
then a smattering of older ships, trying to take into account the
inherent limits in performance of the older ships would probably lead
to MANY de-valued days - because on some days, a new ship can just flat
out fly much faster than a Libelle - period - end of discussion.
Imagine hte howling everyone would hear from this occurrence!

BB - To somehow equate better pilots, and therefore better selection of
team members, with more expensive and newer ships (like your -27) is
just flat out wrong. Give me a -27 and some time in it it and then
let's race. How about putting Kawa or Schwenk in one and racing them.
Flying Club Class gliders fast is a skill that must be honed. It is not
better or worse, just different, and should be re3spected with its own
class her einthe US. Sometimes, though rarely, the Europeans do get it
right!

Further, just ask Tim Welles if the racing techniques he uses in his V2
and the ones he used in Steve Willits Std Cirrus were the same. Tim's a
great pilot, but it took him some time to get comfortable with the
Cirrus. On the two days he landed out, it was VERY difficult for true
Club Class Ships to complete the tasks at all let alone for a day win
as they were called. Does that mean his skills are not worthy of team
selection, or just htat he was inthe wrong ship to show his "true"
skills.

In addition, I am all for offering the best pilots the chance to fly at
all WGC's - anything less would be counter productive to bringing home
a new US World Champion someday. But, is it more egalitarian and
therefore, I propose, better for the development of racing talent in
the USA to 1) expect pilots who can already afford the newest
generation gliders to "slum" down to afford a 10-20 K glider if they
want on the Club Class Team, or 2) for young/poor competitive pilots
who can only afford a $10-20k glider to have to cobble togeher $75-100k
for a competitive glider in Sports Class? Or thus have NO CHANCE at
showing off their skills that may, inf act be world class when flying a
club class ship?

Chris - Thanks for the words of encouragement. You are correct that
EVEN the highly tuned Cirri and other ships that regularly compete at
Club Class WGC's are affordable. They are not cheap - those days, if
there ever were any in soaring, are long gone. But they are not even
$30K with all the mods and wizz-bang instruments you can stuff into
them. There is no way that the tuned up Cirri of the Czechs have added
up to the cost of a new glider. When you get down to it, no matter how
highly tuned these ships are, they are still Libelles, Cirri, LS1's,
Std Jantars, etc. To race them and win, you have to practice racing
them. To the naysayers, they are what they are, get over it, and get in
one and see how much fun and challenging they are to race fast!

SO...My proposal is simple and I hope as fair as possible to all
interests in this debate while giving the opportunity for Club Class to
develop in the U.S.:

1) Keep the US Sports Class Nationals as the selection event for the US
Club Class Team until we can get a real feeling (by polling or
otherwise) for the potential of a stand-alone US Club Class Nationals
in some form - possibly opening up a selection event to more than the
WGC Club Class handicap range as put forwad below. We may never have a
Club Class Nationals if the following proposals bear fruit.

2) Then, accepting the US Sports Class Nationals as the selection
event;

A) Restrict Club Class Team Selection to those who are flying
"Non-current Generation Ships" as the lower limit on handicaps, and
then place a higher limit on handicaps of say 1.15 - 1.20.
B) Give the true Club Class-range Gliders a slightly better handicap
relative to those ships on the outer limits of the agreed upon handicap
range.
C) Establish Preferential entry to those flying true Club Class Gliders
of maybe 10-15 entry spots in US SPorts Nationals, in order to foster
Club Class flying and the development of the class, and
D) prohibit double seat entries from "pilot selection" to the team
(Please note the selection process refers to "pilot" selection and not
"pilots" selection) This process is meant to pick individual pilots,
not team entries. I certainly wish I had another pair of eyes and
another brain working for me when I am all alone on course in my
Libelle.

O.K. - Flame shieled to Full. So what is a "Non-Current Generation
Glider" (NCGG)? I would propose the definition be something like

1) "any glider that was not a particpant at the last 1or 2 WGC's held
in the class for which it was designed and any new design that is
focused on being competitive at the next WGC in its class", OR 2) "any
glider, not excuded by point 1), that has been flown in and placed in
the top ten of its design-class US Nationals in the past 5 years."

So ... under this defintion the NCGG's at US Sports class Nationals
that would be excluded from team selection would be ships like: ASW-27,
ASW-28, ASW-29, D2, V2, Diana I & II, Lak-17/19, LS6/8/10. Plus,
possibly, ships like the Ventus, ASW-20, Discus, that have been taken
to US Nationals in their Class (Std. or 15m), but who may have placed
well (top-10)

Roughly speaking, this would exclude any handicap less than .90-.92,
with the possible exception of ASW20's, Venti, and Disci based on
actual performances at US Nationals in Std or 15-m class, and there
should probably be an upper limit on the handicap of something on the
order of 1.15-1,20 for ease of task calling. This is a more liberal
restriction of the Club Class Handicap range the Europeans/Aussies and
South Africans use, but is still a limitation. This way we truly end up
with alomost every glider that has its own class, and enable investment
and competitive decisions based on a clear system rather than who has
the most dollars.

As to making the US Team. Each class and glider type requires its own
skill sets and talents. Those who can afford the newest and most
competitive ships, knock yourselves out, buy the ship you want, race in
your own class (Standard, 15-m, 18-m, Open, 20-m, World) and get on the
US Team in one of those classes. Those who can only afford, are stuck
in, or who actually choose to race older ships, this gives you a
defined and protected competitive environment, the Club Class, to race
competitively in more weather conditions and offers the chance to get
on the US Team as well. Give us without a class our own class!

As for US Sports Class Nationals ... keep having it in conjunction with
a Club Class Selecction, get together with the best pilots from all the
classes and see how your skills stack up- bearinging mind the inherent
limitations of handicapping and tasking a Nimbus three against a K13

Phew... Please make comments on my proposal and pass them on to the
Team Committee members.

Sincerely and Respectfully submitted,
Tim McAllister "EY"
US Team 2004 WGC CLub Class
US Representative 2005 1st World GP
US Team 2006 WGC Club Class

[Papa3]

Tim wrote:
> X3 and all:
>
> Please let me get up on my soapbox for a second as I prepare to go off
> to Club Class WGC on Saturday. I hope my comments here can spur the
> development of this class here in the US so I can truly come home to a
> class of my own.
>

Tim,

Lot's of good stuff in there. To summarize the proposal, "Include a
separate Club Class Championship within the Sports Class Nationals with
the World Team selection based on the highest placing Club Class ship."
Sounds okay to me...

A couple of comments/questions:

1. Club Class Parameters: Why not just keep it simple and set a
handicap range using the annual CH Handicaps that most closely
resembles the World Club Class list. Something like .95 to 1.1 would
be pretty close (though I'm partial to .925 as the lower limit:-) That
can be adjusted every 2 years if/when the IGC changes their list.

2. Equipment vs. Participation: Despite the fact that I agree with
your proposal, I question the base assumption that a lot of potential
competitors (by that I mean people capable of winning a Club Class
Nationals against top talent) are scared off because people show up
with their V2s and ASW-27s. Maybe I'm in the minority, since I had
no problems showing up for a Standard Class nationals and 15-Meter
nationals with my LS-4 when Discii and ASW-27s ruled the roost. If I
look around Region II (ie. my region) I'm hard-pressed to count more
than a couple of guys who could win a competitive Club Class Nationals.
I've spoken to a couple, and they have explicitly said that it's the
cost of 2 plus weeks at a contest that keeps them away, not the fact
that their ship is mildly uncompetitive. Point being, I doubt that
there's this broad underground of potential Club Class Champions
lurking in the shadows. Plus, there are a LOT of Sports Class
regionals around, and I don't see these being over-subscribed with Club
Class entries either.

3. Tasking: Frankly, someone showing up at a Sports Class Nationals
in a 1-26 shouldn't have delusions of winning. Therefore, the tasking
guidelines ought to focus on ships with a Handicap within the range of
..9 to 1.1 or thereabouts.

4. Site Selection: This is a tough one, since Mifflin is really about
my favorite place to fly. But, I wonder if Sports Class site selection
needs to be revisited with a thought toward places that are less likely
to require extended periods of flight at speeds outside the design
limits of true Club Class ships? The obvious counter-argument is that
there aren't enough hosts for Nationals as it is. But, I think it
ought to be discussed.

I'm sure there's more, but this is a good thread that deserves to be
hashed out.

Erik Mann
LS8-18 (P3)
Formerly LS4 (P3)
Formerly Grob Astir (P3)
Formerly 1-36 (JG)

[Frank]

Tim wrote:
> X3 and all:
>
>
> X3 - Thanks for the vote of confidence in considering my SC Nats win a
> total "freak". I will agree that it was a contest that favored my
> Libelle. However, even in these weak conditions, W3 almost caught me in
> his V2 - hardly a "soft" weather ship. And there were a few other weak

Tim,

Thank you very much for taking the time to post such a thoughtful
reply, and please accept my apologies for my poorly worded post. At
the time I felt I had to proactively answer the anticipated reply of
"But look - a Libelle won the HH SC Nats. So, the entry and handicap
system as it stands is OK!". The very weak conditions, IMHO, produced
a minute opening through which you flew your Libelle with great skill
and courage, something I wish I could have done with my LS4. Alas, I
lacked both the skill AND the courage ;-).

Frank(X3)

[Frank]

Papa3 wrote:
> Lot's of good stuff in there. To summarize the proposal, "Include a
> separate Club Class Championship within the Sports Class Nationals with
> the World Team selection based on the highest placing Club Class ship."
> Sounds okay to me...

Hmmn, I didn't get exactly that out of Tim's post, but I like it!
IIRC, the ill-fated HH SC Nats (again my humble apologies to Tim!) was
also the venue for that year's World Class Nats, with separate scoring
and separate tasks (at least I think the tasking was separate). I
would much prefer a separate scoring system at least, so SC pilots
don't have to look on page 2 (or 3) to see how they are doing ;-).

>
> A couple of comments/questions:
>
> 1. Club Class Parameters: Why not just keep it simple and set a
> handicap range using the annual CH Handicaps that most closely
> resembles the World Club Class list. Something like .95 to 1.1 would
> be pretty close (though I'm partial to .925 as the lower limit:-) That
> can be adjusted every 2 years if/when the IGC changes their list.
>
In America, the 2005 handicaps (the latest list I could find) were:

Std Cirrus 1.000
LS3 0.953
LS4 0.950
ASW28 0.925
LS8/15 0.925

So, given the current handicap system, allowing 0.925 handicaps would
have the effect of negating the entire idea.

> 2. Equipment vs. Participation: Despite the fact that I agree with
> your proposal, I question the base assumption that a lot of potential
> competitors (by that I mean people capable of winning a Club Class
> Nationals against top talent) are scared off because people show up
> with their V2s and ASW-27s. Maybe I'm in the minority, since I had
> no problems showing up for a Standard Class nationals and 15-Meter
> nationals with my LS-4 when Discii and ASW-27s ruled the roost. If I
> look around Region II (ie. my region) I'm hard-pressed to count more
> than a couple of guys who could win a competitive Club Class Nationals.
> I've spoken to a couple, and they have explicitly said that it's the
> cost of 2 plus weeks at a contest that keeps them away, not the fact
> that their ship is mildly uncompetitive. Point being, I doubt that
> there's this broad underground of potential Club Class Champions
> lurking in the shadows. Plus, there are a LOT of Sports Class
> regionals around, and I don't see these being over-subscribed with Club
> Class entries either.

Certainly there is no incentive to drive forever and spend $2K or so to
compete in a contest where there is no chance of winning. Who knows
how that would change if there actually was a chance. We won't know
until we try. In any case, the SSA supported a 2006 World Class
Nationals with only 9 gliders present, and I suspect I could get 9 SC
pilots to commit to a meet where they are assured there will be only
?SC gliders in a 0.95 to 1.1 or so range.

[Ray Lovinggood]

I would much prefer a Sports Class in America that
resembles the Club Class in Europe. The other posters
to this thread who also support this have stated the
reasons.

My one additional reason: I've had my LS1-d for over
10 years and expect/hope to keep it for many more.
It is a great ship and it's a perfect Club Classer.

Personally, I'm not ready for a Nats. I suck and I
fly too slow. But it would be fun to fly against other
'club classers' at the regional, not just a National.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
LS1-d 'W8'

[Papa3]

Frank wrote:
> >
> In America, the 2005 handicaps (the latest list I could find) were:
>
> Std Cirrus 1.000
> LS3 0.953
> LS4 0.950
> ASW28 0.925
> LS8/15 0.925
>
> So, given the current handicap system, allowing 0.925 handicaps would
> have the effect of negating the entire idea.
>

My .925 quip was tongue-in-cheek; I buried the :-) as part of a
parenthetical. I basically think the floor should be LS4 or maybe
another antique like the ASW-24 (that thrown in as a barb at my friend
JB ) :-)))
>
> Certainly there is no incentive to drive forever and spend $2K or so to
> compete in a contest where there is no chance of winning. Who knows
> how that would change if there actually was a chance. We won't know
> until we try. In any case, the SSA supported a 2006 World Class
> Nationals with only 9 gliders present, and I suspect I could get 9 SC
> pilots to commit to a meet where they are assured there will be only
> ?SC gliders in a 0.95 to 1.1 or so range.

I used to be a teaching pro in tennis years back. It was funny how some
guys would always come in and buy the latest racket, have me fiddle
around with new strings, etc. They were sure that "if only" they had
the better equipment, they'd be competitive. Year after year, the
same guys won the championship, no matter what the equipment. We're
all potential champions until we put our talent where our mouth is.
To some extent, I feel the same way about folks that say they don't
come to the Sports Class nationals because they would have no chance of
winning. Try it and see. I mean, if you look back, a well flown
Libelle won in 2005 and a well flown K6 would have won in 2004
(excepting his Day 5 landout, Stevenson had a huge lead at Ionia).
Also, I'll note that I count 10 (of the 27) gliders at Ionia falling
within the sports class range if you include the ASW-24 (otherwise I
think it was 8).

To some extent, my position on participation from this "latent" group
of true Club Class pilots is "I'll believe it when I see it." The
idea of running it within the Sports Class nationals for a couple of
years seems to have a lot of merit.

P3

[Frank]

Papa3 wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
> Year after year, the
> same guys won the championship, no matter what the equipment. We're
> all potential champions until we put our talent where our mouth is.
> To some extent, I feel the same way about folks that say they don't
> come to the Sports Class nationals because they would have no chance of
> winning. Try it and see. I mean, if you look back, a well flown
>
> To some extent, my position on participation from this "latent" group
> of true Club Class pilots is "I'll believe it when I see it." The
> idea of running it within the Sports Class nationals for a couple of
> years seems to have a lot of merit.

Yes, I agree on both points. No one really knows what will happen if
we try a Club Class Championship within the normal SC Nats, but based
on the popularity of this class in Europe, I for one have high hopes.

IMHO we still need to adjust the U.S. handicapping system to reflect
actual results over the last few years, but maybe that deserves its own
thread ;-).

Frank (X3)
>
> P3

[Derek Copeland]

The 'Club Class' is popular in the UK and Europe. It
allows you to buy, borrow or hire an elderly low value
glider such as a Libelle or a Standard Cirrus and be
competitive. Actually the UK Club Class Nationals are
usually extremely competitive and normally attract
several current or ex World Champions.

It is good for identifying the best pilots, rather
than those with the deepest pockets.

Handicapped competions only work well if there is a
fairly small handicap range - and the handicaps are
accurate. The Standard Cirrus has been consistently
successful in the Club Class over the years and there
have been some murmerings about its handicap. However
the best pilots chose to fly this type if they can
because of its reputation of success, so there may
be a chicken and egg situation. I am a very average
competition pilot and owning one doesn't seem to help
me very much!

The powers that be seem to be letting more and more
higher performance types into the Club Class. You may
get to a point where it is not worth flying the older
types. If you a flying a Libelle or an Astir, all the
handicap in the World won't help you to glide across
large dead areas, or prevent you from running out of
day attempting a task set to test the pilots of higher
performance gliders.

Derek Copeland

At 11:48 30 June 2006, Frank wrote:
>
>Papa3 wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>> Year after year, the
>> same guys won the championship, no matter what the
>>equipment. We're
>> all potential champions until we put our talent where
>>our mouth is.
>> To some extent, I feel the same way about folks that
>>say they don't
>> come to the Sports Class nationals because they would
>>have no chance of
>> winning. Try it and see. I mean, if you look
>>back, a well flown
>>
>> To some extent, my position on participation from
>>this 'latent' group
>> of true Club Class pilots is 'I'll believe it when
>>I see it.' The
>> idea of running it within the Sports Class nationals
>>for a couple of
>> years seems to have a lot of merit.
>
>Yes, I agree on both points. No one really knows what
>will happen if
>we try a Club Class Championship within the normal
>SC Nats, but based
>on the popularity of this class in Europe, I for one
>have high hopes.
>
> IMHO we still need to adjust the U.S. handicapping
>system to reflect
>actual results over the last few years, but maybe that
>deserves its own
>thread ;-).
>
>Frank (X3)
>>
>> P3
>
>

[BB]

Papa3 wrote:
> Derek Copeland wrote:

> > It is good for identifying the best pilots, rather
> > than those with the deepest pockets.
> >
>
> Really, I think this is the key point. I wholeheartedly agree with
> the statement that what we want to do is identify the best pilots.

Interesting in this context that you cannot be selected for the US club
class world team if you have ever competed in an FAI worlds. A number
of reasons are given for this rule, but picking the best pilots is
clearly not one of them.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

BB wrote:
> Papa3 wrote:
> > Derek Copeland wrote:
>
> > > It is good for identifying the best pilots, rather
> > > than those with the deepest pockets.
> > >
> >
> > Really, I think this is the key point. I wholeheartedly agree with
> > the statement that what we want to do is identify the best pilots.
>
> Interesting in this context that you cannot be selected for the US club
> class world team if you have ever competed in an FAI worlds. A number
> of reasons are given for this rule, but picking the best pilots is
> clearly not one of them.
>
> John Cochrane

The reason for excluding FAI class pilots was to open the field for
new, up and coming pilots coming up throught the Sports/ "Club" class
environment. It is true that this MAY not pick the best pilots we have
in the US, but it does open the doors to some new blood.

Other observations about some of these posts:
Nobody has noted that tasking if Sports is to be set based upon the
capabilities of the core (essentially the club class range) gliders.
"Properly" tasked, this means that the low performance gliders(1.15 and
below) may not get home every day and the high performance gliders will
be forced to use the entire available area which is a huge
disadvantage. With the increase in cylinder size on TAT tasks to 30
miles, more flexibility has been added in an attempt to keep tasks fair
and doable.

I completely disagree that Club class flying is some kind of a
different world from FAI class. It is true that a pilot needs to
recalibrate a bit but this is not as big a deal as it is implied. 30-40
hr in the previous 3 months is about what I have found is needed. If
you have done it before, it is a fraction of this.

A concern I have is exclusion. Let's say we have an up and coming pilot
who bought an ASW-24 or Discus because he or she wants to be within
perfomance range of current Std class and wants to learn in Sports and
Std. By the suggested by some range, this person would be excluded in
the selection scheme because the glider is a percent or so "too good".
This concept would force pilots to skip the opportunity to learn both
ways.

It should also be noted that many of the same names seem to come out
near the top, even as the gliders they fly change.

It should also be noted that just "knocking the bumps off" and putting
some good instruments in an old club class glider will not make it
truely competitve. Most of these ships need a lot of work to bring them
up to their potential. The gliders that the top guys flew at the 2002
WGC in Musbach were as well prepared as any in any class in the world.
This was obviously done at either significant expense or at least, a
ton of labor.
Dave Stevenson has thrived in our Sports class by putting in this kind
of effort. Almost nobody else has even tried.

These posts are very worthwhile.

Hank Nixon UH
Regular Sports Nationals competitor
Club Class WGC team '01 and '02
SSA RC Rules Subcommitte Chair

[Mike I Green]

Hi frank,

So where do I fly my Duo in a contest? I tried to get a 20 m contest
going in the Western US to no avail. Tom Knauff tried to get one going
a couple of years ago. IMHO the reason that the Duo wins is that some
guys are just a lot better than I am. I love to fly and love to fly
contests. With that said, it also needs to be said that, we really
don't have a Sports Class Nationals, we have a Handicapped Nationals!
Frank wrote:
> Wow - I've certainly come to the right place for informed responses to
> my post! ;-). Replying to all previouis posts:
>
> Thanks to 'gliderstud' (what a handle) and John Seaborn for the links
> to ongoing discussions in this area - I read both carefully.
>
> I'm still having problems with the stated purpose for the SC Nats vs
> what is actually happening. Here in the U.S. we have a Std Nats, a 15m
> Nats, an Open/18m Nats, a World Class Nats, and the SC Nats. In 2005,
> the number of gliders entered were: Std 23, 15m 47, 18m 22, Open 10,
> World 13, SC 48. In 2006 so far, the SC Nats hosted 55 and the World
> Class hosted 9. My point is, I don't believe there is any danger in
> not havning enough SC pilots and gliders to show up to make a National
> contest field if the high-priced glass is excluded, and the SSA has
> already repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to support a National
> Constest for a relatively small number of entrants. Regarding the
> quality of the competition, I think it would be much more fun to have a
> fighting chance to finish in the top half of the field than to be
> doomed from the start to the (very) low end of the scale. It is my
> personal belief that the reason pure SC pilots *do not* come to the SC
> Nats is because they know they can't possibly win or even place well
> (The Harris HIll SC Nats where Tim McAllister won in his Libelle was a
> freak event - I was there and the weather was terrible - we set
> records for the number of landouts. If the weather had been at all
> reasonable, Tim would probably not have done as well).
>
> In all these contests except the SC Nats, all the gliders have
> essentially the same performance, so it is (in theory) the best pilot
> that wins. In the SC Nats it is essentially impossible to tell whether
> the best pilot or the most expensive glass is most significant, because
> the range of gliders is so broad. In 2005 and 2006, the best a pure SC
> pilot and plane did was 6th overall (Manfred Franke in 2005 with an
> LS-3), and in 2006 about 27th overall (Tim Wells in a Std Cirrus). In
> both years, the SC National Champion was won by a pilot or pilots in a
> Duo Discus, with other high-priced glass close behind.
>
> Why don't we try eliminating the Duo's and the ASW27s and the ASG-29's
> from the equation at the SC Nats, or at least adjust the handicaps so
> their pilots have to fly a lot harder than they do now to win. Let's
> try the experiment. How do we know how many pure SC pilots & gliders
> will show up if we don't try? If it doesn't work, we can change it
> back.
>
> Frank(X3)
>

[Ray Lovinggood]

I don't know what Frank would say, but I say 'fly it
in Open Class.'

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
LS1-d



At 17:42 04 July 2006, Mike I Green wrote:
>Hi frank,
>
>So where do I fly my Duo in a contest? I tried to
>get a 20 m contest
>going in the Western US to no avail. Tom Knauff tried
>to get one going
>a couple of years ago. IMHO the reason that the Duo
>wins is that some
>guys are just a lot better than I am. I love to fly
>and love to fly
>contests. With that said, it also needs to be said
>that, we really
>don't have a Sports Class Nationals, we have a Handicapped
>Nationals!
>Frank wrote:
>> Wow - I've certainly come to the right place for informed
>>responses to
>> my post! ;-). Replying to all previouis posts:
>>
>> Thanks to 'gliderstud' (what a handle) and John Seaborn
>>for the links
>> to ongoing discussions in this area - I read both
>>carefully.
>>
>> I'm still having problems with the stated purpose
>>for the SC Nats vs
>> what is actually happening. Here in the U.S. we have
>>a Std Nats, a 15m
>> Nats, an Open/18m Nats, a World Class Nats, and the
>>SC Nats. In 2005,
>> the number of gliders entered were: Std 23, 15m 47,
>>18m 22, Open 10,
>> World 13, SC 48. In 2006 so far, the SC Nats hosted
>>55 and the World
>> Class hosted 9. My point is, I don't believe there
>>is any danger in
>> not havning enough SC pilots and gliders to show up
>>to make a National
>> contest field if the high-priced glass is excluded,
>>and the SSA has
>> already repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to
>>support a National
>> Constest for a relatively small number of entrants.
>> Regarding the
>> quality of the competition, I think it would be much
>>more fun to have a
>> fighting chance to finish in the top half of the field
>>than to be
>> doomed from the start to the (very) low end of the
>>scale. It is my
>> personal belief that the reason pure SC pilots *do
>>not* come to the SC
>> Nats is because they know they can't possibly win
>>or even place well
>> (The Harris HIll SC Nats where Tim McAllister won
>>in his Libelle was a
>> freak event - I was there and the weather was terrible
>>- we set
>> records for the number of landouts. If the weather
>>had been at all
>> reasonable, Tim would probably not have done as well).
>>
>> In all these contests except the SC Nats, all the
>>gliders have
>> essentially the same performance, so it is (in theory)
>>the best pilot
>> that wins. In the SC Nats it is essentially impossible
>>to tell whether
>> the best pilot or the most expensive glass is most
>>significant, because
>> the range of gliders is so broad. In 2005 and 2006,
>>the best a pure SC
>> pilot and plane did was 6th overall (Manfred Franke
>>in 2005 with an
>> LS-3), and in 2006 about 27th overall (Tim Wells in
>>a Std Cirrus). In
>> both years, the SC National Champion was won by a
>>pilot or pilots in a
>> Duo Discus, with other high-priced glass close behind.
>>
>> Why don't we try eliminating the Duo's and the ASW27s
>>and the ASG-29's
>> from the equation at the SC Nats, or at least adjust
>>the handicaps so
>> their pilots have to fly a lot harder than they do
>>now to win. Let's
>> try the experiment. How do we know how many pure
>>SC pilots & gliders
>> will show up if we don't try? If it doesn't work,
>>we can change it
>> back.
>>
>> Frank(X3)
>>
>

[Wallace Berry]

In article . com>,
"Frank" > wrote:


>
> Well, they are supposed to improve low-speed handling and thermalling
> performance by reducing induced drag, while not costing anything at the
> high end of the speed range. I think they actually do improve
> performance as advertised, but I don't have any hard data to support
> this, other than the wind tunnel & flight data obtained in by the folks
> who adapted the LS-8 winglets to the LS-4.

I would not think it possible to significantly improve the handling and
thermalling of the LS-4. It's already so close to perfect in those areas
that any improvement would be vanishingly small.
>
> But hey, they *do* look cool! ;-).

Absolutely!

>
> Frank(X3)
>