Shortest distance flown by wood?? :D

[[email protected]]

Made it a whopping 16.5 nautical miles (30.5 kilometers) downwind from
the airport today. had a great landout in the perfect spot as heavy
rains last week made most of the plowed fields quagmire. put it in
some grass endrows at the crest of a hill. the field was
(surprisingly) dry, must have good drainage. we were actually able to
drive through it. Dont worry, no spring tilling or planting had been
done, no crops were injured in the production of this flight.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 3:25 am, wrote:
> Made it a whopping 16.5 nautical miles (30.5 kilometers) downwind from
> the airport today.

Sorry C3, I've got you beat!

On my first flight in a wood glider, a K8 I had a 150 meter flight!

Due to a slight language problem, my German is not very good and the
flight instructors English, while better than my Deutsch, did'nt
convey the fact that I would need to slowly move the stick back from
the "finger on the panel" position at the beginning of the winch
launch! After a normal but extremely short ground roll the plane rose
into the air. Then of course the winch driver seeing that I was not
rotating into the proper position correctly reduced power to the
winch. At this point the parachute started to open as the plane
overflew the cable! I released, checked the airspeed whigh was fine
and landed short of the landing area. The instructor commented on my
reaction to the "out of nominal" launch. And that evening I bought him
a bier!

Oh yeah, 10 minutes later I was going up the winch launch normally and
got a 2 hour fun flight.

Bob

[Paul Remde]

Hi Tony,

Go get 'em! Congratulations on another successful cross-country soaring
flight.

I hesitate to do the next joke, because I don't want to discourage you or
make fun of your great fun and learning flights, but I just can't resist -
and I do consider you a friend...

Just to clarify - to get the Silver distance, you need to get the 50
kilometers all in a single flight...

I really do enjoy hearing about your flights and I do respect your
accomplishments. Even the very best pilots have short flights on occasion.
I know I've landed out on days when others have gone much farther.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Made it a whopping 16.5 nautical miles (30.5 kilometers) downwind from
> the airport today. had a great landout in the perfect spot as heavy
> rains last week made most of the plowed fields quagmire. put it in
> some grass endrows at the crest of a hill. the field was
> (surprisingly) dry, must have good drainage. we were actually able to
> drive through it. Dont worry, no spring tilling or planting had been
> done, no crops were injured in the production of this flight.
>

[[email protected]]

> Just to clarify - to get the Silver distance, you need to get the 50
> kilometers all in a single flight...

Rolling on the floor laughing here Paul. Ill have to remember that
one!!

[Ray Lovinggood]

Back in previous century, in the mid 1980's, I belonged
to the 'DJK Segelfluggemienschaft' in Landau, Germany.
Their fleet consisted of:

K-7
Ka-8 (Ok, I forget when to add the 'a' and when to
leave it out)
Standard Astir
ASW-15
ASW-20BL
Scheibe SF-25 (the side-by-side two seater, not the
tandem seater. I'm not sure of the model numbers.)
And the towplane was a Robin model ?? Wooden, four
seater, tricycle gear, Lycoming 180 h.p. engine.

The club required those seeking the Silver Distance
to fly wood. In this case, the Ka-8 was the ship to
be used. I think the club thought making the flight
in something like the Standard Astir or ASW-15 would
make it too easy.

I wonder if they still do that?

Let us know when you complete your Silver Badge in
the Cherokee and tell us about your other flights as
well!

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 14:48 29 April 2007, wrote:
>> Just to clarify - to get the Silver distance, you
>>need to get the 50
>> kilometers all in a single flight...
>
>Rolling on the floor laughing here Paul. Ill have
>to remember that
>one!!
>
>
>

[Alistair Wright]

"Ray Lovinggood" > wrote in
message

> The club required those seeking the Silver Distance
> to fly wood. In this case, the Ka-8 was the ship to
> be used. I think the club thought making the flight
> in something like the Standard Astir or ASW-15 would
> make it too easy.

Actually I agree with that club's approach. You can probably do 50Km from
one good thermal in a modern glass ship. When I did my Silver distance back
in '78 I flew an ASK18 ( Ka8 with Ka6CR wings) and I needed four good
thermals to make the distance. Finding those thermals when you are in
unfamiliar territory is the real challenge. I did the 5 hrs in thermals
local to the club and most of those were old friends.

I think the Silver badge needs a bit of up-dating to take account of the
better equipment which is now available. I would replace the 5 hours with a
second cross-country of at least 150Km to be done in a straight line (ie no
landing back at home) and bump up the height gain to 2000m. I believe the
original intention of the Silver badge was for it to be completed in one
flight. In the kind of kit around in the 1930's the Gold distance would have
needed at least five hours and I guess the idea was for people to keep going
and not stop at 50Kms.

As for the shortest c/c done in wood, I think my check flight for going
cross country has a claim. I landed my Olympia 2b in the field behind our
airfield about 300 yards short of the normal take off point because I wasn't
paying attention to an increase in wind speed. The CFI signed my log book
for cross country OK, but grounded me for a fortnight, which I had to spend
driving the winch. My fellow pilots and I lifted that Oly over the boundary
hedge to save a de-rig. The hardest thing to bear was their laughter as they
climbed through the hedge to rescue me. Cost me a bomb in beer.

Alistair Wright
UK 4759

[Vaughn Simon]

"Ray Lovinggood" > wrote in message
...
> The club required those seeking the Silver Distance
> to fly wood. In this case, the Ka-8 was the ship to
> be used. I think the club thought making the flight
> in something like the Standard Astir or ASW-15 would
> make it too easy.

It also would have made landouts somewhat safer (financially speaking).

[Shawn[_3_]]

Alistair Wright wrote:

snip

> I think the Silver badge needs a bit of up-dating to take account of the
> better equipment which is now available. I would replace the 5 hours with a
> second cross-country of at least 150Km to be done in a straight line (ie no
> landing back at home) and bump up the height gain to 2000m. I believe the
> original intention of the Silver badge was for it to be completed in one
> flight. In the kind of kit around in the 1930's the Gold distance would have
> needed at least five hours and I guess the idea was for people to keep going
> and not stop at 50Kms.

snip

Nice ideas. I've always thought the Silver was silly except in a 1-26
or similar. In addition, I think the badge altitude requirements are
unrelated to XC ability, especially given the sophistication of modern
varios. A pilot who can stay aloft for more than an hour is familiar
with cloud base. Altitude gain becomes entirely dependent on weather
conditions. A XC pilot who can fly 500K, never getting 1200m off the
ground (or 100m off the ridge) shouldn't have to travel to where the
weather enables a 3000m climb to earn his or her Gold. The point of the
badges (as I understand it) is to encourage cross country flight, not
vacation planning ;-) I think it would be reasonable to recognize the
altitude gain separately though.



Shawn

[Eric Greenwell]

Shawn wrote:

> In addition, I think the badge altitude requirements are
> unrelated to XC ability, especially given the sophistication of modern
> varios. A pilot who can stay aloft for more than an hour is familiar
> with cloud base. Altitude gain becomes entirely dependent on weather
> conditions. A XC pilot who can fly 500K, never getting 1200m off the
> ground (or 100m off the ridge) shouldn't have to travel to where the
> weather enables a 3000m climb to earn his or her Gold. The point of the
> badges (as I understand it) is to encourage cross country flight, not
> vacation planning ;-)

My understanding is the badges were set up not just to encourage
cross-country soaring, but to encourage pilots to extend themselves. The
altitude requirement does that, though some pilots might have to travel
to do it, just as some might have to travel to do a 500K.

When the 3000m and 5000m requirements were first set, it was never
intended that they be done exclusively in thermals, but also in cloud
climbs and (later on, I think - not sure) in wave. While US pilots can't
easily do cloud climbs, wave is a good option. I believe that most US
pilots are no more than a day's drive from a gliderport near wave, and
the remainder are no more than two days drive. A couple days drive to a
new soaring location for a week of flying doesn't seem to onerous to me!

I do think the badges could be adjusted to encourage more pilots extend
themselves in their flying, but I don't haven't thought about it much,
except to wonder if it should/could be integrated with the OLC. Reducing
the paperwork would encourage more participation.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[[email protected]]

i would support a "variable" silver badge distance requirement based
on glide ratio. as said above, one thermal will get you 50 Km in a
good glider. In my glider, One thermal got me about 30 Km. Perhaps
there could be a calibration to your actual distance flown based on
glide ratio, similar to the 1% rule.

and Ray, I will definitely post all my flights here. I certainly have
fun flying them, and landing out, and telling you all about it!

[Nyal Williams]

Part of the reason for having a 5 hour requirement
is to experience changing weather conditions and prove
the ability to find enough thermals in such conditions
to be able to stay up that long. This means strong,
tight thermals early in the day, and weaker, wider,
lazy thermals in the afternoon -- usually. I think
it is a good requirement. I once got 4:56 and it
was another two years before I crossed the 5hr time
line -- with a flight of 6:49 in a TG-3A. I found
it to be an extremely rewarding challenge. Some of
the intervening flights also exceeded 4:00.

It is good practice for distance flights; there is
a psychological/physical barrier around 2:30 - 3:30,
and learning to get past that makes distance flights
easier. One might argue that doing the distance also
covers the time, but practicing the duration until
one can handle that is less troublesome because it
saves retrieve problems. I wouldn't want to eliminate
the task.

At 00:30 30 April 2007, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Shawn wrote:
>
>> In addition, I think the badge altitude requirements
>>are
>> unrelated to XC ability, especially given the sophistication
>>of modern
>> varios. A pilot who can stay aloft for more than
>>an hour is familiar
>> with cloud base. Altitude gain becomes entirely dependent
>>on weather
>> conditions. A XC pilot who can fly 500K, never getting
>>1200m off the
>> ground (or 100m off the ridge) shouldn't have to travel
>>to where the
>> weather enables a 3000m climb to earn his or her Gold.
>> The point of the
>> badges (as I understand it) is to encourage cross
>>country flight, not
>> vacation planning ;-)
>
>My understanding is the badges were set up not just
>to encourage
>cross-country soaring, but to encourage pilots to extend
>themselves. The
>altitude requirement does that, though some pilots
>might have to travel
>to do it, just as some might have to travel to do a
>500K.
>
>When the 3000m and 5000m requirements were first set,
>it was never
>intended that they be done exclusively in thermals,
>but also in cloud
>climbs and (later on, I think - not sure) in wave.
>While US pilots can't
>easily do cloud climbs, wave is a good option. I believe
>that most US
>pilots are no more than a day's drive from a gliderport
>near wave, and
>the remainder are no more than two days drive. A couple
>days drive to a
>new soaring location for a week of flying doesn't seem
>to onerous to me!
>
>I do think the badges could be adjusted to encourage
>more pilots extend
>themselves in their flying, but I don't haven't thought
>about it much,
>except to wonder if it should/could be integrated with
>the OLC. Reducing
>the paperwork would encourage more participation.
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>* Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>* 'Transponders in Sailplanes' http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
>* 'A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation' at
>www.motorglider.org
>

[FreeFlight107]

I think every one should have to so the Silver Badge in one flight,
and twice, like I did.

Barograph incorrectly wound on day #1, correctly wound on Day #2!

I also think Dennis Wright had it right when he "Chose" to do it in a
1-26 rather than one of the glass ships available to him. It's like
the Spirit of the Thing!

Seriously, I think a 'Variable' task based on glide ratio would be a
great idea. I'm told that in the 'Old Days' a Silver C was considered
entrance to the world of Cross Country and Racing, the Gold was Master
of the Art, and Diamonds and Lennies were for Lengendary Status.

I throughly intend to fly my 1-26 for all my badges, and at least 1 or
2 Diamonds, then my Hanger Queen Libelle 301 can be flown!

Jay Walker

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

Hi Ray,

On 29 Apr 2007 16:49:34 GMT, Ray Lovinggood
> wrote:

>Back in previous century, in the mid 1980's, I belonged
>to the 'DJK Segelfluggemienschaft' in Landau, Germany.
> Their fleet consisted of:

>Scheibe SF-25 (the side-by-side two seater, not the
>tandem seater. I'm not sure of the model numbers.)
SF-25B

Ahh... those were the times... :)

>And the towplane was a Robin model ?? Wooden, four
>seater, tricycle gear, Lycoming 180 h.p. engine.

It was - and still is - a DR-300 Remorquer.


>The club required those seeking the Silver Distance
>to fly wood. In this case, the Ka-8 was the ship to
>be used. I think the club thought making the flight
>in something like the Standard Astir or ASW-15 would
>make it too easy.
>
>I wonder if they still do that?

Yup - we still do that. :)
Flying 50 km XC with a DG-300 is simply too easy.

There are (few) exceptions though.
The 50 km XC flight is necessary to get the German glider license, and
since a couple of years a 50 km XC flight can be flown as a triangle
(documented with GPS logger).

So occasionally, if some student pilot is running out of time (fall
coming closer), he is allowed to take the DG-300 and do his XC flight
Landau - Neustadt - Speyer - Landau. This happens about once per three
years.



Bye
Andreas

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> Part of the reason for having a 5 hour requirement
> is to experience changing weather conditions and prove
> the ability to find enough thermals in such conditions
> to be able to stay up that long. This means strong,
> tight thermals early in the day, and weaker, wider,
> lazy thermals in the afternoon -- usually. I think
> it is a good requirement. I once got 4:56 and it
> was another two years before I crossed the 5hr time
> line -- with a flight of 6:49 in a TG-3A. I found
> it to be an extremely rewarding challenge. Some of
> the intervening flights also exceeded 4:00.
>
> It is good practice for distance flights; there is
> a psychological/physical barrier around 2:30 - 3:30,
> and learning to get past that makes distance flights
> easier. One might argue that doing the distance also
> covers the time, but practicing the duration until
> one can handle that is less troublesome because it
> saves retrieve problems. I wouldn't want to eliminate
> the task.
>

I've always thought the Silver C is a decent practical demonstration
that a pilot is ready for XC.

- the height gain shows the capability to find, center and ride a decent
thermal

- 5 hour duration, as other have pointed out, demonstrates ability to
deal with varying weather conditions as well as determination and the
ability to manage fluid intake and elimination

- distance is far enough to demonstrate basic navigation skills and to
overcome the big gulp the first time you fly out of gliding range of
your home field.

I did my Silver in an SZD Junior (nominally 35:1 but know as a slow
glider with fairly poor penetration).


I think the Silver is generally fine as it stands, but:

- the requirement that it should be flown as a solo effort needs
rigorous enforcing. Doing it as lead and follow (as described on here a
few years ago) should get the big DQ with no quibbling.

- the idea of adjusting the distance to suit the glider's handicap is a
good one. I too would regard doing it in, sat a Discus 1 or Pegase as
cheating.

- remove the free distance option, leaving either a goal flight to a
predeclared target airfield (preferably) or an out and return to a TP
that's 50 km or more away. Flying to and landing at a strange airfield
is really good experience for a beginning XC pilot.

In the UK we have a national 100km diploma which sits well with the
Silver: first you fly the Silver distance to another gliding site,
showing you can navigate to and land at an unknown airfield. Then on a
suitable day you fly a short task, showing that you can deal with
start/finish lines and heights as well as finding and rounding TPs.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 30, 5:32 am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> Nyal Williams wrote:
> > Part of the reason for having a 5 hour requirement
> > is to experience changing weather conditions and prove
> > the ability to find enough thermals in such conditions
> > to be able to stay up that long. This means strong,
> > tight thermals early in the day, and weaker, wider,
> > lazy thermals in the afternoon -- usually. I think
> > it is a good requirement. I once got 4:56 and it
> > was another two years before I crossed the 5hr time
> > line -- with a flight of 6:49 in a TG-3A. I found
> > it to be an extremely rewarding challenge. Some of
> > the intervening flights also exceeded 4:00.
>
> > It is good practice for distance flights; there is
> > a psychological/physical barrier around 2:30 - 3:30,
> > and learning to get past that makes distance flights
> > easier. One might argue that doing the distance also
> > covers the time, but practicing the duration until
> > one can handle that is less troublesome because it
> > saves retrieve problems. I wouldn't want to eliminate
> > the task.
>
> I've always thought the Silver C is a decent practical demonstration
> that a pilot is ready for XC.
>
> - the height gain shows the capability to find, center and ride a decent
> thermal
>
> - 5 hour duration, as other have pointed out, demonstrates ability to
> deal with varying weather conditions as well as determination and the
> ability to manage fluid intake and elimination
>
> - distance is far enough to demonstrate basic navigation skills and to
> overcome the big gulp the first time you fly out of gliding range of
> your home field.
>
> I did my Silver in an SZD Junior (nominally 35:1 but know as a slow
> glider with fairly poor penetration).
>
> I think the Silver is generally fine as it stands, but:
>
> - the requirement that it should be flown as a solo effort needs
> rigorous enforcing. Doing it as lead and follow (as described on here a
> few years ago) should get the big DQ with no quibbling.
>
> - the idea of adjusting the distance to suit the glider's handicap is a
> good one. I too would regard doing it in, sat a Discus 1 or Pegase as
> cheating.
>
> - remove the free distance option, leaving either a goal flight to a
> predeclared target airfield (preferably) or an out and return to a TP
> that's 50 km or more away. Flying to and landing at a strange airfield
> is really good experience for a beginning XC pilot.
>
> In the UK we have a national 100km diploma which sits well with the
> Silver: first you fly the Silver distance to another gliding site,
> showing you can navigate to and land at an unknown airfield. Then on a
> suitable day you fly a short task, showing that you can deal with
> start/finish lines and heights as well as finding and rounding TPs.

my extensive background in power before i started gliding doesnt help
me have a reference for what most pure glider pilots feelings are on
their first cross countries. to me another airport is just another
airport. I think that landing IN a strange FIELD is a really good
experience for a beginning XC pilot. out and returns are no fun with
my lousy glide ratio and horrible penetration. downwind dash, thats
where its at. :D

[Jim Vincent]

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> Part of the reason for having a 5 hour requirement
> is to experience changing weather conditions and prove
> the ability to find enough thermals in such conditions
> to be able to stay up that long. This means strong,
> tight thermals early in the day, and weaker, wider,
> lazy thermals in the afternoon -- usually. I think
> it is a good requirement. I once got 4:56 and it
> was another two years before I crossed the 5hr time
> line -- with a flight of 6:49 in a TG-3A. I found
> it to be an extremely rewarding challenge. Some of
> the intervening flights also exceeded 4:00.
>
> It is good practice for distance flights; there is
> a psychological/physical barrier around 2:30 - 3:30,
> and learning to get past that makes distance flights
> easier. One might argue that doing the distance also
> covers the time, but practicing the duration until
> one can handle that is less troublesome because it
> saves retrieve problems. I wouldn't want to eliminate
> the task.

I would not eliminate the task, but would constrain it to a thermal only
flight. Five hours on the ridge isn't a challenge, IMO.

[Shawn[_3_]]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> Part of the reason for having a 5 hour requirement
> is to experience changing weather conditions and prove
> the ability to find enough thermals in such conditions
> to be able to stay up that long. This means strong,
> tight thermals early in the day, and weaker, wider,
> lazy thermals in the afternoon -- usually. I think
> it is a good requirement. I once got 4:56 and it
> was another two years before I crossed the 5hr time
> line -- with a flight of 6:49 in a TG-3A. I found
> it to be an extremely rewarding challenge. Some of
> the intervening flights also exceeded 4:00.
>
> It is good practice for distance flights; there is
> a psychological/physical barrier around 2:30 - 3:30,
> and learning to get past that makes distance flights
> easier. One might argue that doing the distance also
> covers the time, but practicing the duration until
> one can handle that is less troublesome because it
> saves retrieve problems. I wouldn't want to eliminate
> the task.

I think the five hour requirement is good too. Did anyone challenge it?


Shawn

[[email protected]]

I think to be fair we must limit claims to flights that achieved a
normal launch with the intention of flying cross-country.

Our local pilot Matthew Sawhill set off in his Folka 4 a couple years
ago and landed just outside the NW edge of town. I'm sure he's got
you beat Tony though I'm uncertian of the exact mileage.

Though not flown in wood, Tony and I made an incredibly short XC in
the Lark a couple years ago (Tour of the Skunk River Valley at
http://www.knightglider.com/flightreports.htm). If I remember
correctly a hot air balloon passed us during that flight.

MM

[Papa3]

At the risk of opening up a whole new thread...

Don't feel too bad. I have at least one contest flight in a 36:1
glass bird (my good old Grob Astir) of less than 10 miles. I think
the official distance was something like 6 miles out of Dansville,
NY. The worst part was that one of the locals came to pick us
up. As we were positioning the trailer, he pointed down the slope
toward the airport. "If you look between those two towers, you can
actually see the hangar..." Gee, thanks.

In a far better performance, I think I made it about 11 miles on the
3rd contest day of the 1997 Standard Class Nationals in Cordele.
IIRC, that wasn't even good enough for DFL, though it was pretty
close.

Erik Mann (LS8-18 P3)


On Apr 28, 9:25 pm, wrote:
> Made it a whopping 16.5 nautical miles (30.5 kilometers) downwind from
> the airport today. had a great landout in the perfect spot as heavy
> rains last week made most of the plowed fields quagmire. put it in
> some grass endrows at the crest of a hill. the field was
> (surprisingly) dry, must have good drainage. we were actually able to
> drive through it. Dont worry, no spring tilling or planting had been
> done, no crops were injured in the production of this flight.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Apr 30, 9:13 am, "Jim Vincent" > wrote:
> "Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Part of the reason for having a 5 hour requirement
> > is to experience changing weather conditions and prove
> > the ability to find enough thermals in such conditions
> > to be able to stay up that long. This means strong,
> > tight thermals early in the day, and weaker, wider,
> > lazy thermals in the afternoon -- usually. I think
> > it is a good requirement. I once got 4:56 and it
> > was another two years before I crossed the 5hr time
> > line -- with a flight of 6:49 in a TG-3A. I found
> > it to be an extremely rewarding challenge. Some of
> > the intervening flights also exceeded 4:00.
>
> > It is good practice for distance flights; there is
> > a psychological/physical barrier around 2:30 - 3:30,
> > and learning to get past that makes distance flights
> > easier. One might argue that doing the distance also
> > covers the time, but practicing the duration until
> > one can handle that is less troublesome because it
> > saves retrieve problems. I wouldn't want to eliminate
> > the task.
>
> I would not eliminate the task, but would constrain it to a thermal only
> flight. Five hours on the ridge isn't a challenge, IMO.

IMVHO, five hours on a ridge or in wave can be just as, or more
challenging than kicking around in thermals. I know one BGA
instructor that did his five hours above chimney heat from a brick
factory. For early solo pilots, one or two hours is challenging, five
hours is shattering. When more experienced and in pursuit of higher
goals, five or six hours is often not enough.

50K in the Netherlands or Alaska or Western Washington may not be
quite the cake walk some think it is. Not everyone has fast glass to
fly.

Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

On Apr 28, 7:25 pm, wrote:
> Made it a whopping 16.5 nautical miles (30.5 kilometers) downwind from
> the airport today. had a great landout in the perfect spot as heavy
> rains last week made most of the plowed fields quagmire. put it in
> some grass endrows at the crest of a hill. the field was
> (surprisingly) dry, must have good drainage. we were actually able to
> drive through it. Dont worry, no spring tilling or planting had been
> done, no crops were injured in the production of this flight.

Flew to even closer fields in the K6, just 8.54 statute miles from FBL
at an L/D of 16. Should have kept that $50 vario I sold to you!
RT

[[email protected]]

Hey I uploaded a pic of the glider in the field on the SSA's picture
site, http://www.ssa.org/sport/PhotoGalleryMain.asp
Enjoy!

[Paul Remde]

Hi Tony,

Nice shot! Thanks for sharing. She's a lovely glider.

Paul Remde

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hey I uploaded a pic of the glider in the field on the SSA's picture
> site, http://www.ssa.org/sport/PhotoGalleryMain.asp
> Enjoy!
>

[Papa3]

On May 3, 5:21 pm, wrote:
> Hey I uploaded a pic of the glider in the field on the SSA's picture
> site,http://www.ssa.org/sport/PhotoGalleryMain.asp
> Enjoy!

Hey, what are all those nice, fluffy, white things in the sky?

It's funny how the sky always looks great in the photos of your most
embarassing landouts. I have this picture on my desk with my Grob
Astir in a field. Non-soaring types always comment on the beautiful
composition, colors, light and shadow, etc. All of my soaring
buddies take one look and ask: "how the **** did you land out on a
day like that?!"

Erik

[[email protected]]

> Hey, what are all those nice, fluffy, white things in the sky?

i posted another with the same kind of clouds, except they look even
better. this is one of my favorite pictures of the glider. Found the
perfect alfalfa field to land in. check it out.

[Ian]

On 29 Apr, 02:25, wrote:
> Made it a whopping 16.5 nautical miles (30.5 kilometers) downwind from
> the airport today.

A friend of mine landed out in the field next to the airfield on his
first flight in his Ka6. 200m cross-country?

Ian