2007 US Contest Rules

[01-- Zero One]

Have they been published yet? All I can find are the 2006 ones. I know
there are significant changes in the scoring formulae and have seen the
proposed documents.

Where and when are the actual rules going to be finalized? It is almost
time for the first contest.

Larry Goddard
"zero one" USA

[[email protected]]

On Mar 22, 7:47 pm, "01-- Zero One" > wrote:
> Have they been published yet? All I can find are the 2006 ones. I know
> there are significant changes in the scoring formulae and have seen the
> proposed documents.
>
> Where and when are the actual rules going to be finalized? It is almost
> time for the first contest.
>
> Larry Goddard
> "zero one" USA

Larry, you know better - The first contest is always held before the
rules are published. At the seniors the handicaps were still discussed
as were the rules for wingloading adjustments. I'm more confused
than before I went there, but the Antares 20E gets an .820 handicap
(it did last week anyway).

See ya, Dave

http://www.ssa.org/test/sport/PhotoGalleryDetail.asp?PhotoId=1672

[01-- Zero One]

" > wrote in message
oups.com:

> On Mar 22, 7:47 pm, "01-- Zero One" > wrote:
> > Have they been published yet? All I can find are the 2006 ones. I know
> > there are significant changes in the scoring formulae and have seen the
> > proposed documents.
> >
> > Where and when are the actual rules going to be finalized? It is almost
> > time for the first contest.
> >
> > Larry Goddard
> > "zero one" USA
>
> Larry, you know better - The first contest is always held before the
> rules are published. At the seniors the handicaps were still discussed
> as were the rules for wingloading adjustments. I'm more confused
> than before I went there, but the Antares 20E gets an .820 handicap
> (it did last week anyway).
>
> See ya, Dave
>



..820!!?? If it is as good as you claim, it should be around .650
shouldn't it?



:-)



Larry

[Peter Purdie]

And, by the way, how are the SSA rules handling sailplanes
with electric self launch capablity, since there are
not any IGC flight recorders capable of detecting Antares
20E engine operation?

At 01:30 23 March 2007, wrote:
>On Mar 22, 7:47 pm, '01-- Zero One' wrote:
>> Have they been published yet? All I can find are
>>the 2006 ones. I know
>> there are significant changes in the scoring formulae
>>and have seen the
>> proposed documents.
>>
>> Where and when are the actual rules going to be finalized?
>> It is almost
>> time for the first contest.
>>
>> Larry Goddard
>> 'zero one' USA
>
>Larry, you know better - The first contest is always
>held before the
>rules are published. At the seniors the handicaps were
>still discussed
>as were the rules for wingloading adjustments. I'm
>more confused
>than before I went there, but the Antares 20E gets
>an .820 handicap
>(it did last week anyway).
>
>See ya, Dave
>
>http://www.ssa.org/test/sport/PhotoGalleryDetail.asp?PhotoId=1672
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 5:57 am, Peter Purdie >
wrote:
> And, by the way, how are the SSA rules handling sailplanes
> with electric self launch capablity, since there are
> not any IGC flight recorders capable of detecting Antares
> 20E engine operation?

We did some initial tests with the Volkslogger, and it easily
showed the noise level from self-launch (though its quiet enough
the headset is not really needed). We didn't fool around with
measurement of low power levels yet, but the prop noise is probably
enough at least for the Volkslogger. The 20E is a pusher and it
makes a bit of whop-whop-whop noise, I think from the prop
hitting the wake of the pylon.

Perhaps John Good and Rick Sheppe can comment as they
did the Seniors scoring and looked at this more than I.

Anyway, we'll figure something out...

See ya, Dave

[[email protected]]

> > ...the Antares 20E gets an .820 handicap (it did last week anyway).
> >
> > See ya, Dave
>
> .820!!?? If it is as good as you claim, it should be around .650
> shouldn't it?

Please be quiet Larry, I need all the help I can get...

[Greg Arnold]

wrote:
> On Mar 23, 5:57 am, Peter Purdie >
> wrote:
>> And, by the way, how are the SSA rules handling sailplanes
>> with electric self launch capablity, since there are
>> not any IGC flight recorders capable of detecting Antares
>> 20E engine operation?
>
> We did some initial tests with the Volkslogger, and it easily
> showed the noise level from self-launch (though its quiet enough
> the headset is not really needed). We didn't fool around with
> measurement of low power levels yet, but the prop noise is probably
> enough at least for the Volkslogger. The 20E is a pusher and it
> makes a bit of whop-whop-whop noise, I think from the prop
> hitting the wake of the pylon.
>
> Perhaps John Good and Rick Sheppe can comment as they
> did the Seniors scoring and looked at this more than I.
>
> Anyway, we'll figure something out...
>
> See ya, Dave
>
>

Someone posted an Antares flight on OLC a few days ago, and the prop
operation was pretty obvious in the ENL log.

[Ian Strachan]

On Mar 23, 12:54Â*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 23, 5:57 am, Peter Purdie >
> wrote:
>
> > And, by the way, how are the SSA rules handling sailplanes
> > with electric self launch capablity, since there are
> > not any IGC flight recorders capable of detecting Antares
> > 20E engine operation?
>
> We did some initial tests with the Volkslogger, and it easily
> showed the noise level from self-launch (though its quiet enough
> the headset is not really needed). We didn't fool around with
> measurement of low power levels yet

It is those "low power levels" that are critical in showing a clear
difference (or not)
between engine-on flight and gliding flight with a noisy cockpit.
The latter includes thermalling with cockpit panels open.
See my posting on 16 October 2006 on this subject.
It is worth looking at because it gave a a lot of background
including
the critical cockpit noise cases. Full power is easy, it is running a
quiet engine
at reduced power, say, for level flight, that is the difficult case.
This posting included the following:

"In an Antares flight in August 2006, ENL with engine off was
recorded
in the IGC file from 130 to 448 when cockpit panels were open and
some
sideslip was present. In comparison, in a run with level-flight
engine
power and a well-sealed cockpit, recorded ENL was from 019 to 120 and
about 50 feet was gained. In another August Antares flight, climb
with
engine at about a 200 ft/minute gave ENL between 155 and 398 with an
average of about 280. In this flight, ENL at full power was recorded
between 294 and 769 with an average of about 450. "

IGC has been in correspondence with Lange Flugzeugbau for some time
in order to resolve this problem for flights that are to be validated
to IGC standards of evidence.
That is, FAI badge and diploma flights, world records and competition
flights
that use the criteria of Annex A to the Sporting Code. And any other
flights
that are a National responsibility (BGA, SSA etc) and that use IGC
standards of evidence,
such as some national or regional competitions, national records etc.
In these cases
the National body does not have to stick to the IGC rules and
procedures, but frequently does.

Also, at the IGC Plenary meeting earlier this month, a paper was
passed
on engine recording of motor gliders. This paper was Appendix 2
to the GFAC report to IGC and has been available on the IGC web pages
since January as part of the Plenary agenda. Lange Flugzeugbau was
sent a copy in December 2006.
Here is an extract:

"4. Low noise Motor Gliders. Where the engine system produces low
ENL values
that are difficult to differentiate between power-on and power-off
flight,
an additional system shall be provided in the motor glider concerned
that produces a signal that can be used in the IGC file as an
indication
of forward thrust generated by the engine system
(the RPM three-letter code in the Technical Specification).
This will be subject to GFAC evaluation and decision on the type of
motor glider concerned."

As you might anticipate, correspondence on this is going on right now
between IGC and Lange Flugzeugbau and the results will be announced in
due course.
The issue is not just for the electric versions of the Antares, it
applies to any "quiet" motor
glider and there is at least one other type of electric MG flying
today, understood to be
in prototype form at the moment.

To comfort existing owners of motor gliders, there is no problem with
the cockpit
noise signatures of MGs powered by internal combustion engines
whether they be four-stroke, two-stroke or Wankel (rotary).

Ian Strachan
Chairman
IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)

[[email protected]]

On Mar 25, 6:16 am, "Ian Strachan" > wrote:
> ...there is no problem with the cockpit
> noise signatures of MGs powered by internal combustion engines
> whether they be four-stroke, two-stroke or Wankel (rotary).

That is, other than hearing-loss ;-)

[Ian Strachan]

On Mar 25, 12:33 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 25, 6:16 am, "Ian Strachan" > wrote:
>
> > ...there is no problem with the cockpit
> > noise signatures of MGs powered by internal combustion engines
> > whether they be four-stroke, two-stroke or Wankel (rotary).
>
> That is, other than hearing-loss ;-)

True. Myself, I (almost) always wear a headset when running a Motor
Glider engine in the air.

In the UK Air Force there was a syndrome called "Shackleton Ear" which
was permanent deafness on certain frequencies. The Shack had four
Griffon piston engines (a sort of "double Merlin") and flew maritime
patrol sorties many hours long. People who got "the ear" were
generally those who took off their headsets for long periods of time.

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

[Basil]

Where was the flight recorder installed for these tests? If it was on
the panel then it would record more DV panel noise and less engine, if
on the parcel shelf then more engine and less DV panel. No real
reason why it couln't be installed on the pylon where it would record
noise whenever the engine was out even if it wasn't running!

Basil

On 25 Mar 2007 03:16:57 -0700, "Ian Strachan" >
wrote:

>On Mar 23, 12:54*pm, wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 5:57 am, Peter Purdie >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > And, by the way, how are the SSA rules handling sailplanes
>> > with electric self launch capablity, since there are
>> > not any IGC flight recorders capable of detecting Antares
>> > 20E engine operation?
>>
>> We did some initial tests with the Volkslogger, and it easily
>> showed the noise level from self-launch (though its quiet enough
>> the headset is not really needed). We didn't fool around with
>> measurement of low power levels yet
>
>It is those "low power levels" that are critical in showing a clear
>difference (or not)
>between engine-on flight and gliding flight with a noisy cockpit.
>The latter includes thermalling with cockpit panels open.
>See my posting on 16 October 2006 on this subject.
>It is worth looking at because it gave a a lot of background
>including
>the critical cockpit noise cases. Full power is easy, it is running a
>quiet engine
>at reduced power, say, for level flight, that is the difficult case.
>This posting included the following:
>
>"In an Antares flight in August 2006, ENL with engine off was
>recorded
>in the IGC file from 130 to 448 when cockpit panels were open and
>some
>sideslip was present. In comparison, in a run with level-flight
>engine
>power and a well-sealed cockpit, recorded ENL was from 019 to 120 and
>about 50 feet was gained. In another August Antares flight, climb
>with
>engine at about a 200 ft/minute gave ENL between 155 and 398 with an
>average of about 280. In this flight, ENL at full power was recorded
>between 294 and 769 with an average of about 450. "
>
>IGC has been in correspondence with Lange Flugzeugbau for some time
>in order to resolve this problem for flights that are to be validated
>to IGC standards of evidence.
>That is, FAI badge and diploma flights, world records and competition
>flights
>that use the criteria of Annex A to the Sporting Code. And any other
>flights
>that are a National responsibility (BGA, SSA etc) and that use IGC
>standards of evidence,
>such as some national or regional competitions, national records etc.
>In these cases
>the National body does not have to stick to the IGC rules and
>procedures, but frequently does.
>
>Also, at the IGC Plenary meeting earlier this month, a paper was
>passed
>on engine recording of motor gliders. This paper was Appendix 2
>to the GFAC report to IGC and has been available on the IGC web pages
>since January as part of the Plenary agenda. Lange Flugzeugbau was
>sent a copy in December 2006.
>Here is an extract:
>
>"4. Low noise Motor Gliders. Where the engine system produces low
>ENL values
>that are difficult to differentiate between power-on and power-off
>flight,
>an additional system shall be provided in the motor glider concerned
>that produces a signal that can be used in the IGC file as an
>indication
>of forward thrust generated by the engine system
>(the RPM three-letter code in the Technical Specification).
>This will be subject to GFAC evaluation and decision on the type of
>motor glider concerned."
>
>As you might anticipate, correspondence on this is going on right now
>between IGC and Lange Flugzeugbau and the results will be announced in
>due course.
>The issue is not just for the electric versions of the Antares, it
>applies to any "quiet" motor
>glider and there is at least one other type of electric MG flying
>today, understood to be
>in prototype form at the moment.
>
>To comfort existing owners of motor gliders, there is no problem with
>the cockpit
>noise signatures of MGs powered by internal combustion engines
>whether they be four-stroke, two-stroke or Wankel (rotary).
>
>?Ian Strachan
>Chairman
>IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)

[[email protected]]

On Mar 26, 4:28 am, "Ian Strachan" > wrote:
> On Mar 25, 12:33 pm, wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 6:16 am, "Ian Strachan" > wrote:
>
> > > ...there is no problem with the cockpit
> > > noise signatures of MGs powered by internal combustion engines
> > > whether they be four-stroke, two-stroke or Wankel (rotary).
>
> > That is, other than hearing-loss ;-)
>
> True. Myself, I (almost) always wear a headset when running a Motor
> Glider engine in the air.
>
> In the UK Air Force there was a syndrome called "Shackleton Ear" which
> was permanent deafness on certain frequencies. The Shack had four
> Griffon piston engines (a sort of "double Merlin") and flew maritime
> patrol sorties many hours long. People who got "the ear" were
> generally those who took off their headsets for long periods of time.
>
> Ian Strachan
> Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Right, many motor-gliders have noise levels in the cockpit
high enough to cause hearing damage. Getting the headset
on prior to an air-restart while getting low is always fun...

Antares 20E comes with a light-weight headset as they want to
be sure you hear any system warnings (audio messages, fed
through the radio side-tone). But its not a hearing-damage issue !

Best Regards, Dave

[[email protected]]

On Mar 26, 6:03 am, Basil > wrote:
>...No real reason why it couln't be installed on the pylon where
> it would record noise whenever the engine was out even if it
> wasn't running!

No real reason ? You're going to stick a flight recorder on the
engine pylon in front of the propellor ? Make sure you use high
quality duck tape and velcro.

Putting *anything* around the propellor, pylon, or engine bay
is not something to be done lightly.

I hope this was an attempt at comedy...

[Ian Strachan]

>Getting the headset
> on prior to an air-restart while getting low is always fun...

In our syndicate check list we have divided our "air re-start" drills
into two parts. First, preliminary drills before committing to a
start attempt, then the start itself. Sometimes we are able to climb
away between the two but at least we are prepared if a start becomes
necessary. Putting the headset on is naturally in the first set of
drills.

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

[[email protected]]

On Mar 27, 4:07 am, "Ian Strachan" > wrote:
> >Getting the headset
> > on prior to an air-restart while getting low is always fun...
>
> In our syndicate check list we have divided our "air re-start" drills
> into two parts. First, preliminary drills before committing to a
> start attempt, then the start itself. Sometimes we are able to climb
> away between the two but at least we are prepared if a start becomes
> necessary. Putting the headset on is naturally in the first set of
> drills.
>
> Ian Strachan
> Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Right, I always did the headset early, but its just another
bit of distraction and stress not needed when trying to find
a bit of lift...

[Doug]

The hearing loss is also attributed to tanks and helicopters. Years ago I
began having almost painful hearing at certain frequencies so I went and had
my hearing checked. The doctor looked at my hearing graph and immediately
guessed that I was either in tanks or helicopters. He was right, as I was a
SAR swimmer for 3 years in the navy, and although I wore sound attenuators,
when possible, the damage was still done. He said it was very easy syndrome
to detect.

So always wear headsets.

Doug

"Ian Strachan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Mar 25, 12:33 pm, wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 6:16 am, "Ian Strachan" > wrote:
>>
>> > ...there is no problem with the cockpit
>> > noise signatures of MGs powered by internal combustion engines
>> > whether they be four-stroke, two-stroke or Wankel (rotary).
>>
>> That is, other than hearing-loss ;-)
>
> True. Myself, I (almost) always wear a headset when running a Motor
> Glider engine in the air.
>
> In the UK Air Force there was a syndrome called "Shackleton Ear" which
> was permanent deafness on certain frequencies. The Shack had four
> Griffon piston engines (a sort of "double Merlin") and flew maritime
> patrol sorties many hours long. People who got "the ear" were
> generally those who took off their headsets for long periods of time.
>
> Ian Strachan
> Lasham Gliding Centre, UK
>