On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.

Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.

You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.

As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
#1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.

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

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

Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.

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

Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
He's just emulating, well, you know...
Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob


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

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