Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...

Maybe, if you flew a LightHawk in the conditions it was designed for,
you'd also be less skeptical. I'd like to give it a try.

I'm kinda with Bill on this. Microlift sounds like fun, a good way to
fly on days that won't support heavier gliders - but the thought of
going crosscountry at low altitudes and low speeds, even if you can
land in anyone's backyard, just doesn't appeal to me very much. If it
did, I would be flying a hang glider or paraglider.

And microlift soaring is going to be a pretty intense activity - not
much time to relax and cruise along when you are low most of the time,
or your L/D at higher speeds is going to put you low again soon.
Nothing wrong with that (as the success of the 1-26 proves) but not
everybody's cup of tea.

The problem I see is that the cost of a high tech microlift glider is
going to be very close to a "conventional lift" glider, but the
utility will be a lot less - in that the range I can cover in
available time is a lot less. And how is that low wingloading going to
handle those fun windy. booming days? When the cloud steets are
kicking up 10 knots, and you are looking at a 30 knot headwind for
your 70 mile final glide...I think I want to have my nice heavy
wingloading, thankyou.

So if you want to see the same ground from up close, then go for it.
I think I prefer to see more ground from up high!

Another problem I see is in enticing people to go XC in microlift
gliders - sure a confident pilot will set off at 1000ft expecting to
find more microlift to keep going, out of range of any airfield, in
his $30k+ Microhawk; but your average Twirlybird is scared to death of
getting out of 10/1 from the home gliderport - he is never going to
push out at those altitudes - it's just too scary for him!

Anyway, keep up the good work - you guys are essentially filling the
gap between hang/paragliders and heavy gliders, and that is a good
thing, since in some areas (and for some pilots) that is exactly what
is needed.

Kirk