Motorgliders (long)

In article m, Mark Zivley
writes:

What if you gave distance points only, but used the last
turnpoint successfully rounded as the landing point rather than the
location where the engine was started.

How about if both MG and "pure" sailplanes got scored this way. (Land-out or
motor start gets scored to last turnpoint.) Would that be fair?

Steve
With motor envy.

"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...

Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider was scored at the
last
achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning to this rule wouldn't
be
fair because they could still make a final glide without sufficient
altitude.
If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they still get scored at
the
last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not to try the unsafe
final
glide.


Very Good Point............. I don't see a way to get aroung the "engine
restart safety net"
if in fact it is one. But consider this, You can't fit the motor thru a
dump valve on a weak day
and on a strong day the water bombers are not at a wing loading
disadvantage. This means that
if the empty guys are barely scratching on a marginal weak day the M-Glider
is in worse shape.

As far as the motor into lift dillema, give them 2 minutes after the
customary release
height +300 ft is achieved to secure the bird. I don't think the extra 300
ft is killing anybody
after seeing the machinations a m-glider go's thru to put away the fan.

The crux of the problem is in the task call...................Yeah, 500k's
are neat, but why not fly
smaller courses with very high finish ratios and make racing about speed.
Multiple laps might not
be a bad idea either, shorter retrieves if you need to make them. These
kind of changes might
reduce the spread you are describing while not hamstringing anybody.

Thanks for listening.

Scott

I am not really against what you propose, but the total concept should be
thought through. I am really just asking a question about total fairness.

If you follow your train of thought to "total fairness" there is only
one possible conclusion: the ONLY way to be totally fair is to exclude
MGs from the contest because there is, simply, no way to eliminate all
possible inequities. In other words, "total fairness" is best
described as "threat elimination". Recommended reading on this subject
is "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...
Well, now Tom. The rules state, and I quote, "All tows will be by aerotow"
Ephrata did NOT have a waiver to this rule. Now was I correct is insisting that
the rules were followed, or not? BTW, that rule applies to all alasses, not
just open. Sports class and the management of the contest was in violation of
the SSA rules. If we don't follow the rules, all we have is a local fun fest.

I entered that contest ONLY after being assured that I could
self-launch. If the contest organizers were not following the rules
that was not my fault. That said I will ensure in the future that they
have applied for the appropriate waiver of the rule. I did not fly in
your class and did not have an opinion concerning your insistance that
the rule be followed. I think the Eric has adequately addressed the
concerns you have about self launching.


I will agree with you on one point, though. I think this may come down to
everybody getting a G.D. MOTOR or nobody having a G.D. MOTOR. Isn't that where
we were when the motorgliders wanted to be included in SSA regionals and
nationals? You had your own Motorglider Class, why didn't you just stay there
and leave the rest of us alone?

Simple: Region 8 did not have a motor glider class; I flew in Sports
(I could have also flown in 15M, but there advantage of dumpable
ballast was too much of an advantage).
Also, I thought that you flew in Open class, did I miss something?

Steve wrote
What if you gave distance points only, but used the last
turnpoint successfully rounded as the landing point rather than the
location where the engine was started.

How about if both MG and "pure" sailplanes got scored this way. (Land-out or
motor start gets scored to last turnpoint.) Would that be fair?

Steve, the Motorglider isn't forced to get zero points or distance points to
an earlier turn point. Under my proposed change to the rules, all he is
required to do is to land. Just the same as the pure sailplane is forced to do
in the same situation.The MG is also free to claim a constructive land-out if
that is to his advantage.



JJ Sinclair

Tom wrote
I entered that contest ONLY after being assured that I could
self-launch. If the contest organizers were not following the rules
that was not my fault.

Tom,
When you entered that contest, you signed the entry form which says, among
other things, "I have read and understand the rules".

You think you have a god given right to use your engine, any time, any place,
and NO set of rules is going to change that.
JJ Sinclair

To be equal to a non-powered glider in a non-powered glider event, the
entire flight, from tow to landing must be unpowered. Any other scenario
is not equal. For that reason, if the engine is run during any time
between the start of takeoff roll and the time the glider touches the ground,
it should be disqualified as a glider flight. Zero points.
Simple rule. Takes care of the inequalities. Everybody makes the same
land/no land/where to fly decisions.
Such a rule would not prohibit retrieving the glider by self launching.
Dennis


In article ,
(Tom Seim) wrote:
(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message
...
Well, now Tom. The rules state, and I quote, "All tows will be by aerotow"
Ephrata did NOT have a waiver to this rule. Now was I correct is insisting
that
the rules were followed, or not? BTW, that rule applies to all alasses, not
just open. Sports class and the management of the contest was in violation of
the SSA rules. If we don't follow the rules, all we have is a local fun fest.

I entered that contest ONLY after being assured that I could
self-launch. If the contest organizers were not following the rules
that was not my fault. That said I will ensure in the future that they
have applied for the appropriate waiver of the rule. I did not fly in
your class and did not have an opinion concerning your insistance that
the rule be followed. I think the Eric has adequately addressed the
concerns you have about self launching.


I will agree with you on one point, though. I think this may come down to
everybody getting a G.D. MOTOR or nobody having a G.D. MOTOR. Isn't that
where
we were when the motorgliders wanted to be included in SSA regionals and
nationals? You had your own Motorglider Class, why didn't you just stay there
and leave the rest of us alone?

Simple: Region 8 did not have a motor glider class; I flew in Sports
(I could have also flown in 15M, but there advantage of dumpable
ballast was too much of an advantage).
Also, I thought that you flew in Open class, did I miss something?

"dennis brown" wrote in message
et...
To be equal to a non-powered glider in a non-powered glider event, the
entire flight, from tow to landing must be unpowered. Any other scenario
is not equal. For that reason, if the engine is run during any time
between the start of takeoff roll and the time the glider touches the
ground,
it should be disqualified as a glider flight. Zero points.
Simple rule. Takes care of the inequalities. Everybody makes the same
land/no land/where to fly decisions.
Such a rule would not prohibit retrieving the glider by self launching.
Dennis


I think most would agree there are many off field landing sites suitable for
a glider with light wing loading that would be unsuitable for a heavier
glider. And that the non-powered glider will doubtless dump his ballast
prior to any outlanding. The MG can't do that and so incurs a much higher
risk of damage in less than optimum conditions. Not fair!

So unless you *require* the non-powered glider to keep his water ballast
throughout the entire flight, including landing, your rule isn't equal. Of
course the non-powered glider should get zero points if he dumps ballast at
any time prior to landing.

--
bumper
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left









---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 8/30/2003

In article e9Lab.525378$uu5.87796@sccrnsc04,
says...

For the flight that you stated, what you did might have been safer, but what
would you have done if you had not had an engine?

In that particular case, I would've landed at the airport, as I think
that, overall, it would've been the safest thing to do.

If you fly in a pure
sailplane contest,

Indulge me while I be a bit peevish: I don't think I am flying in a
"pure" sailplane contest: I fly in sailplane contests. Some of the
gliders in the contest have motors, some have flaps, some have two
seats, some can go to a very high (or low) wing loadings, and so on.
We write the rules to accommodate these variations to various degrees
(e.g., almost no accommodation for the 1-26 class, lots of it for the
Sports class).

should you not be exposed to the same mental strain and
decision making of the other contestants?

During the task, yes, but once the task is over, why not encourage the
safest behaviour? We've already had two rule changes to encourage
safer behaviour (I.e, discourage landing out) in unpowered gliders
(allowing aero retrieves and the 25 point airport bonus), so I'm
suggesting a small change to the airport bonus to do the same thing
for a powered glider.

There are many special
disadvantages as to starting the engine as you state, but that is mostly
because you elected to fly "out of class". Also, the motorgliders with an
engine in the nose do not have many of those problems. Yes, I know that not
many exist .... now.

The current self-launchers, even the Stemme, have similar problems
with starting reliability. Sometime in the future, we will need to
consider if the expected reliability of the battery powered sailplanes
(like the Antares) changes the arguments I've presented.

If the pure sailplane pilot has to make an off
field landing it sometimes works out that the pilot returns very late and
hungry. The motorglider pilot flys home, has a nice dinner, and gets to bed
early. Is that fair?

It's a balance: the motorglider pilot is more likely "land out"
because of it's higher wing loading and the need to stop soaring 500'+
higher than the same glider without a motor. So, for contest flying,
sometimes it's a benefit, sometimes it's not. My opinion is the
serious contest pilot will fly without a motor, because the low wing
loading then available is almost always the more important aspect.

Here's a similar question: If a pilot of an unpowered glider has to
make an off field landing it sometimes works out that the pilot
returns very late and hungry. The pilot of an unpowered glider that
landed at an airport gets an aerotow retrieve has a nice dinner, and
gets to bed early. Is that fair? In the past we didn't allow aero
retrieves. Was that fair?

If you use the engine to modify your decision making
are you competing the same as the other pilots?

Our decision making is always affected by the equipment we fly. The
Open class at Region 8 this year featured a 20 meter Jantar, a 26
meter Nimbus 4 M, an 18 meter ASH 26 E, an ASH 25, and a Nimbus 3. I'm
sure we didn't make the same decisions, even accounting for the motors
in the 26 and the 4!

How about this question, instead: "Did the presence of the engine
cause you to place higher or lower than you would've without it?" I
think I finished lower; JJ thinks I finished higher. My philosophy is
I've flown a lot of contests, my wife has made a lot of retrieves, and
we're both happier if I accept some competitive disadvantage and we
don't have to do that anymore.

I am not really against what you propose, but the total concept should be
thought through. I am really just asking a question about total fairness.

These are good questions, and our idea of "fairness" continues to
evolve. The change to aerotow retrieves about 10-15 years ago is an
illustration of that.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

In article ,
says...
To be equal to a non-powered glider in a non-powered glider event, the
entire flight, from tow to landing must be unpowered. Any other scenario
is not equal. For that reason, if the engine is run during any time
between the start of takeoff roll and the time the glider touches the ground,
it should be disqualified as a glider flight. Zero points.
Simple rule. Takes care of the inequalities. Everybody makes the same
land/no land/where to fly decisions.

In fact, everyone doesn't make the same decisions, even if they are
all flying unpowered gliders. A pilot with a good crew and a light
weight glider will be much more inclined to accept the possibility of
a field landing than a pilot with no crew and heavy glider will not.
For example, JJ flew his large and very heavy ASH 25 in our regional,
and his co-pilot was handicapped. Do you really think he made the same
decisions about where to land as he would've when flying his Genesis?

One of the things we try to achieve with our contest rules is
participation in soaring. So, will a rule like this increase or
decrease participation? Our experience at Ephrata is it will likely
decrease participation, as most motorglider pilots, faced these
choices:

1) landing out to maximize their contest points
2) landing at airport to ease the retrieve but giving up many points

will decide not to enter the contest at all, and the rule won't
attract enough unpowered glider pilots to make up the loss. This year
there were 5 self-launchers in the contest. One that normally enters
was instead in the Return to Kitty Hawk race, and another dropped out
at the last moment when he hurt his back. And there are more coming to
the area, so it's a substantial number of gliders for our regional
contest. Most of these are long time glider pilots doing a lot of good
for our region. One of them was the contest manager, for example.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)