IGC Actions- New Glider Class/Microlift

Tuesday morning of this week, OSTIV President Loek Boermans sent me a
message indicating that the International Gliding Congress assembled
at Lausanne, Switzerland, had voted to accept the OSTIV-proposed
definition and creation of a new class of gliders- MIcrolift.

Professor Boermans introduced the proposal and shared some pertinent
observations and recommendations in this regard from Paul MacCready.
He then introduced Professor Piero Morelli who answered questions and
detailed the proposal.

Professor Morelli was voted to receive the Lilienthal medal- gliding's
highest honor- at the meeting in Madrid, Spain, this coming fall. He
has worked tirelessly for decades in glider development and
certification issues, and is the retired chairman of OSTIV's Sailplane
Dvelopment Panel.

You may download a copy of Morelli's paper "Why MIcrolift Soaring" as
well as another paper by Eric DeBoer detailing possible new types of
competitive venues at:

http://ozreport.com/data/WhyMicroliftSoaring.pdf

Best Regards,
Gary Osoba

Thanks, Gary, for the link to an interesting read. Are the referenced
works you authored currently available online?

OC

Totally fascinating read.

I'm new to soaring and have to think that playing around in this way could
be a whole lot more fun than trying to make it to some distant point and
then having to get a lift back. Got to find out more.
Thanks.


---


"Gary Osoba" wrote in message
om...
Tuesday morning of this week, OSTIV President Loek Boermans sent me a
message indicating that the International Gliding Congress assembled
at Lausanne, Switzerland, had voted to accept the OSTIV-proposed
definition and creation of a new class of gliders- MIcrolift.

Professor Boermans introduced the proposal and shared some pertinent
observations and recommendations in this regard from Paul MacCready.
He then introduced Professor Piero Morelli who answered questions and
detailed the proposal.

Professor Morelli was voted to receive the Lilienthal medal- gliding's
highest honor- at the meeting in Madrid, Spain, this coming fall. He
has worked tirelessly for decades in glider development and
certification issues, and is the retired chairman of OSTIV's Sailplane
Dvelopment Panel.

You may download a copy of Morelli's paper "Why MIcrolift Soaring" as
well as another paper by Eric DeBoer detailing possible new types of
competitive venues at:

http://ozreport.com/data/WhyMicroliftSoaring.pdf

Best Regards,
Gary Osoba

Reading Morelli's paper made me think of the times that I thermalled away
from 2 - 300 feet in a 1300 pound glider. (Now, I don't do this often -
just when there is a landing spot handy as when flying over a dry lake.)
I've done it in a TG-3, 2-32, Lark and a Nimbus - not exactly ultralight
gliders. The point is that it doesn't take a Sparrowhawk to do it. (I'm
sure it's EASIER in an ultralight glider though...)

Thermalling away from low altitude is not something that a glider pilot
should look to do - in fact it's probably the result of a mistake and means
wasting a lot of time that would be better spent working the best thermals
and running at high altitude. It's better than landing in a crop, however.

It's also true that microlift starts much earlier than the main thermal day
and lasts later. Back when I started cross country in a 1-26, I tended to
start too early and suffered the consequences. I wasted a lot of personal
energy just trying to stay aloft until the big thermals started. Later, I
learned to wait until I could make a good start and expend my personal
energy reserves on course. Late in the day is not a good time to be
thermaling at 300 feet. You're tired and likely to make a fatal mistake.

Somehow, I think we have always known about microlift but it just didn't fit
the objectives of flying far and fast. Microlift probably looks a lot
better if you live and fly under a 2000 foot inversion with 1 knot thermals.
If you fly at 10-12 pound wing loading in 15 knot thermals at 18000 feet,
it's superfluous.

Still skeptical.

Bill Daniels

"Waduino" wrote in message
.. .
Totally fascinating read.

I'm new to soaring and have to think that playing around in this way could
be a whole lot more fun than trying to make it to some distant point and
then having to get a lift back. Got to find out more.
Thanks.


---


"Gary Osoba" wrote in message
om...
Tuesday morning of this week, OSTIV President Loek Boermans sent me a
message indicating that the International Gliding Congress assembled
at Lausanne, Switzerland, had voted to accept the OSTIV-proposed
definition and creation of a new class of gliders- MIcrolift.

Professor Boermans introduced the proposal and shared some pertinent
observations and recommendations in this regard from Paul MacCready.
He then introduced Professor Piero Morelli who answered questions and
detailed the proposal.

Professor Morelli was voted to receive the Lilienthal medal- gliding's
highest honor- at the meeting in Madrid, Spain, this coming fall. He
has worked tirelessly for decades in glider development and
certification issues, and is the retired chairman of OSTIV's Sailplane
Dvelopment Panel.

You may download a copy of Morelli's paper "Why MIcrolift Soaring" as
well as another paper by Eric DeBoer detailing possible new types of
competitive venues at:

http://ozreport.com/data/WhyMicroliftSoaring.pdf

Best Regards,
Gary Osoba

Bill Daniels wrote:
Reading Morelli's paper made me think of the times that I thermalled away
from 2 - 300 feet in a 1300 pound glider. (Now, I don't do this often -
just when there is a landing spot handy as when flying over a dry lake.)
I've done it in a TG-3, 2-32, Lark and a Nimbus - not exactly ultralight
gliders. The point is that it doesn't take a Sparrowhawk to do it.

You weren't doing it! Those were actual thermals, not the microlift that
Morelli was talking about.

And, the SparrowHawk is not the kind of glider to use what he is talking
about, but the LightHawk is (5 pound wing loading vs 2.5 pounds).

(I'm
sure it's EASIER in an ultralight glider though...)

THe point seemed to be it's _only_ possible in one. We're talking Carbon
Dragon here.


Thermalling away from low altitude is not something that a glider pilot
should look to do - in fact it's probably the result of a mistake and means
wasting a lot of time that would be better spent working the best thermals
and running at high altitude. It's better than landing in a crop, however.

"Low" is relative to the glider's handling. Take another look at the
comments on the Dragon, such as stall recovery with a 25 foot loss of
altitude. Using altitudes under 500' AGL isn't the result of a mistake,
it's a chosen operating range.


It's also true that microlift starts much earlier than the main thermal day
and lasts later. Back when I started cross country in a 1-26, I tended to
start too early and suffered the consequences. I wasted a lot of personal
energy just trying to stay aloft until the big thermals started. Later, I
learned to wait until I could make a good start and expend my personal
energy reserves on course. Late in the day is not a good time to be
thermaling at 300 feet. You're tired and likely to make a fatal mistake.

In a Ventus, yes; Carbon Dragon, different story. Did you read the part
about "microlandings"?

Somehow, I think we have always known about microlift but it just didn't fit
the objectives of flying far and fast.

I think hardly any of us don't know what it is. It's not just lift down
low. Next chance you get, attend a talk by Gary Osoba.

Microlift probably looks a lot
better if you live and fly under a 2000 foot inversion with 1 knot thermals.
If you fly at 10-12 pound wing loading in 15 knot thermals at 18000 feet,
it's superfluous.

We don't do that kind of extreme soaring here in the state of Washington
(or most places I've flown). I suspect there are many days here when
microlift soaring would be a lot fun, in the right glider. These are the
days when it'd be worthless to rig my 18 meter, 8 pound wing loading glider.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Thermals are thermals, some are bigger than others. What you fly and when,
where and how you fly are determined by what you want to do. If you want to
fly high, far and fast, you need a big, heavy glider - and a place to fly it
where big thermals live - like the high deserts of North America.

If all you want to do is play around the gliderport, then any glider will
do.

An excellent pilot like Gary Osoba can so wonderful things in any glider.

I once did Silver Distance at altitudes under 500 feet AGL in a 1-26. It
took me five hours. I don't ever want to do that again. (I really wanted
that Silver C)

I'm sure these ultralight gliders are wonderful machines but they are aimed
at something I don't want to do anymore. Very low altitude (Under 300')
dynamic soaring works - I've done it in several gliders. Just glide down
wind and as you get lower, chandelle back up into the higher wind speeds to
regain energy. Fine, if you are over a dry lake, want to go downwind and
make no mistakes - I'm not about to do that out of range of a landing spot.

The "Mini-glider" idea has been bubbling just under the surface for as long
as I have been around soaring. I remember Irv Prue's 215 and others like it
that were built in the 1950's. Oh sure, today they can be built lighter and
smoother out of advanced composites - but so can big gliders. Both benefit
about as much.

I expect that ultralight sailplanes will succeed but I don't see them as a
paradigm shift in soaring. It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually find
that we are kidding ourselves about microlift.

Ask yourself this; if you had dumped ballast to get home in weak conditions,
would you also trade your 20 meter wing for a 12 meter at the same time? I
doubt it.

Bill Daniels

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
Bill Daniels wrote:
Reading Morelli's paper made me think of the times that I thermalled
away
from 2 - 300 feet in a 1300 pound glider. (Now, I don't do this often -
just when there is a landing spot handy as when flying over a dry lake.)
I've done it in a TG-3, 2-32, Lark and a Nimbus - not exactly ultralight
gliders. The point is that it doesn't take a Sparrowhawk to do it.

You weren't doing it! Those were actual thermals, not the microlift that
Morelli was talking about.

And, the SparrowHawk is not the kind of glider to use what he is talking
about, but the LightHawk is (5 pound wing loading vs 2.5 pounds).

(I'm
sure it's EASIER in an ultralight glider though...)

THe point seemed to be it's _only_ possible in one. We're talking Carbon
Dragon here.


Thermalling away from low altitude is not something that a glider pilot
should look to do - in fact it's probably the result of a mistake and
means
wasting a lot of time that would be better spent working the best
thermals
and running at high altitude. It's better than landing in a crop,
however.

"Low" is relative to the glider's handling. Take another look at the
comments on the Dragon, such as stall recovery with a 25 foot loss of
altitude. Using altitudes under 500' AGL isn't the result of a mistake,
it's a chosen operating range.


It's also true that microlift starts much earlier than the main thermal
day
and lasts later. Back when I started cross country in a 1-26, I tended
to
start too early and suffered the consequences. I wasted a lot of
personal
energy just trying to stay aloft until the big thermals started. Later,
I
learned to wait until I could make a good start and expend my personal
energy reserves on course. Late in the day is not a good time to be
thermaling at 300 feet. You're tired and likely to make a fatal
mistake.

In a Ventus, yes; Carbon Dragon, different story. Did you read the part
about "microlandings"?

Somehow, I think we have always known about microlift but it just didn't
fit
the objectives of flying far and fast.

I think hardly any of us don't know what it is. It's not just lift down
low. Next chance you get, attend a talk by Gary Osoba.

Microlift probably looks a lot
better if you live and fly under a 2000 foot inversion with 1 knot
thermals.
If you fly at 10-12 pound wing loading in 15 knot thermals at 18000
feet,
it's superfluous.

We don't do that kind of extreme soaring here in the state of Washington
(or most places I've flown). I suspect there are many days here when
microlift soaring would be a lot fun, in the right glider. These are the
days when it'd be worthless to rig my 18 meter, 8 pound wing loading
glider.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Bill Daniels wrote:
Thermals are thermals, some are bigger than others. What you fly and when,
where and how you fly are determined by what you want to do. If you want to
fly high, far and fast, you need a big, heavy glider - and a place to fly it
where big thermals live - like the high deserts of North America.

You really, really should go listen to Gary the next chance you get.
Thermals are thermals, but they aren't microlift.


If all you want to do is play around the gliderport, then any glider will
do.

Microlift ISN"T just about playing around the gliderport; it is also
about going cross country when the heavy gliders can't. I'm beginning to
think you didn't read the article.

An excellent pilot like Gary Osoba can so wonderful things in any glider.

He can't do microlift in a Sigma - ask him when you see him next!


I once did Silver Distance at altitudes under 500 feet AGL in a 1-26. It
took me five hours. I don't ever want to do that again. (I really wanted
that Silver C)

I'm sure these ultralight gliders are wonderful machines but they are aimed
at something I don't want to do anymore. Very low altitude (Under 300')
dynamic soaring works - I've done it in several gliders. Just glide down
wind and as you get lower, chandelle back up into the higher wind speeds to
regain energy.

Microlift isn't dynamic soaring, though dynamic soaring can be part of
using it.

Fine, if you are over a dry lake, want to go downwind and
make no mistakes - I'm not about to do that out of range of a landing spot.

Read the part about "microlandings". I think you missed it. A Carbon
Dragon isn't as hard to land as your Nimbus!

The "Mini-glider" idea has been bubbling just under the surface for as long
as I have been around soaring. I remember Irv Prue's 215 and others like it
that were built in the 1950's. Oh sure, today they can be built lighter and
smoother out of advanced composites - but so can big gliders. Both benefit
about as much.

With 6 pound wing loading, the 215 doesn't even come close to being an
ultralight glider. It's just a smaller conventional glider, and inferior
to the even smaller SparrowHawk of today. No one claims the SparrowHawk
is an "ultralight" in concept, only in category. Take a look at the
LightHawk, and you will see what I mean about a different glider,
designed for microlift.

http://www.glidersport.net/default.htm
Glidersport.net - Home of the LightHawk Ultralight 15m glider


I expect that ultralight sailplanes will succeed but I don't see them as a
paradigm shift in soaring. It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually find
that we are kidding ourselves about microlift.

Ask yourself this; if you had dumped ballast to get home in weak conditions,
would you also trade your 20 meter wing for a 12 meter at the same time? I
doubt it.

If I were at 500 feet without a thermal, I'd trade my 18 meter wing for
the 15 meter wing of the LightHawk (and it's 2.5 pound wing loading).
And were did the 12 meters come from? Even the Carbon Dragon is 13.7 m.
Microlift isn't about small sailplanes, it's about light wing loading.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric, I've read them all. I even test flew a 3 pound wing loading glider
at El Mirage - in 1968.

The Lighthawk is supposed to have an L/D of 35 - but at what speed? 35
Knots? A min sink of 60FPM at 25Kts? What can it do against a 20 knot
headwind? 18:1? What's the L/D at 100Kts?

The Nimbus 2C (a 1980 20M glider) has a min sink of .5 M/S (98FPM) at 40
knots, 49:1 at 62Kts and 35:1 at 100 Kts. Against a 20 knot headwind,
flying at 100Kts. IAS, it can do 27:1 while making 80 Kts ground speed. The
2C's touchdown speed, in ground effect, is 30 knots and it stops darn fast.

The Nimbus 2C is a quarter century older than the Lighthawk. Is this
progress?

When I get beat by a Lighthawk flying in the conditions I like to fly in,
I'll be less skeptical.

Bill Daniels


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
Bill Daniels wrote:
Thermals are thermals, some are bigger than others. What you fly and
when,
where and how you fly are determined by what you want to do. If you
want to
fly high, far and fast, you need a big, heavy glider - and a place to
fly it
where big thermals live - like the high deserts of North America.

You really, really should go listen to Gary the next chance you get.
Thermals are thermals, but they aren't microlift.


If all you want to do is play around the gliderport, then any glider
will
do.

Microlift ISN"T just about playing around the gliderport; it is also
about going cross country when the heavy gliders can't. I'm beginning to
think you didn't read the article.

An excellent pilot like Gary Osoba can so wonderful things in any
glider.

He can't do microlift in a Sigma - ask him when you see him next!


I once did Silver Distance at altitudes under 500 feet AGL in a 1-26.
It
took me five hours. I don't ever want to do that again. (I really
wanted
that Silver C)

I'm sure these ultralight gliders are wonderful machines but they are
aimed
at something I don't want to do anymore. Very low altitude (Under 300')
dynamic soaring works - I've done it in several gliders. Just glide
down
wind and as you get lower, chandelle back up into the higher wind speeds
to
regain energy.

Microlift isn't dynamic soaring, though dynamic soaring can be part of
using it.

Fine, if you are over a dry lake, want to go downwind and
make no mistakes - I'm not about to do that out of range of a landing
spot.

Read the part about "microlandings". I think you missed it. A Carbon
Dragon isn't as hard to land as your Nimbus!

The "Mini-glider" idea has been bubbling just under the surface for as
long
as I have been around soaring. I remember Irv Prue's 215 and others
like it
that were built in the 1950's. Oh sure, today they can be built lighter
and
smoother out of advanced composites - but so can big gliders. Both
benefit
about as much.

With 6 pound wing loading, the 215 doesn't even come close to being an
ultralight glider. It's just a smaller conventional glider, and inferior
to the even smaller SparrowHawk of today. No one claims the SparrowHawk
is an "ultralight" in concept, only in category. Take a look at the
LightHawk, and you will see what I mean about a different glider,
designed for microlift.

http://www.glidersport.net/default.htm
Glidersport.net - Home of the LightHawk Ultralight 15m glider


I expect that ultralight sailplanes will succeed but I don't see them as
a
paradigm shift in soaring. It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually
find
that we are kidding ourselves about microlift.

Ask yourself this; if you had dumped ballast to get home in weak
conditions,
would you also trade your 20 meter wing for a 12 meter at the same time?
I
doubt it.

If I were at 500 feet without a thermal, I'd trade my 18 meter wing for
the 15 meter wing of the LightHawk (and it's 2.5 pound wing loading).
And were did the 12 meters come from? Even the Carbon Dragon is 13.7 m.
Microlift isn't about small sailplanes, it's about light wing loading.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Bill Daniels wrote:

Eric, I've read them all. I even test flew a 3 pound wing loading glider
at El Mirage - in 1968.

The Lighthawk is supposed to have an L/D of 35 - but at what speed? 35
Knots? A min sink of 60FPM at 25Kts? What can it do against a 20 knot
headwind? 18:1? What's the L/D at 100Kts?

The Nimbus 2C (a 1980 20M glider) has a min sink of .5 M/S (98FPM) at 40
knots, 49:1 at 62Kts and 35:1 at 100 Kts. Against a 20 knot headwind,
flying at 100Kts. IAS, it can do 27:1 while making 80 Kts ground speed. The
2C's touchdown speed, in ground effect, is 30 knots and it stops darn fast.

The Nimbus 2C is a quarter century older than the Lighthawk. Is this
progress?

When I get beat by a Lighthawk flying in the conditions I like to fly in,
I'll be less skeptical.

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.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Bill Daniels wrote:

If you fly at 10-12 pound wing loading in 15 knot thermals at 18000 feet,
it's superfluous.

Hello Bill:

You are correct, a glider designed to optimize Microlift conditions
would not be as well suited to cruising in these conditions. I, too,
enjoy flying very heavy wing loadings in the strongest reasonable
conditions. I am presently woking closely with Dr. Marsden on an
experimental 15m racer which will ballast to 13 psf normally, and have
designed a special system which would allow for 15 psf. This type of
flying is very exciting, and a worthwhile area to explore and push the
envelope. It is also ideally suited to pitch-based dynamic soaring
with high inertias, something that mostly captivates my attention
these days.

However, there are other fields of endeavor which are also worthwhile.
Have you ever stood on the ground in a 20 knot wind, and watched a
vulture fly from horizon to horizon at an altitude of 200' - never
once circling- against the wind? Ever wondered where is he getting
this energy? Or which of the lateral movements he is constantly making
are reactive and which ones are harvesting energy from random
turbulence? Some of us find this simple scenario at least as
interesting and exciting as the former one. At the very least, we
would like to understand it better and at the most, emulate or even
exceed it. This is one (and only one) of the things that Microlift
optimized designs are capable of doing which higher W/S approaches do
not. As it turns out, there are not simply quantitative differences
which are taking place at lower altitudes in the convecttive
environment but qualitative ones as well. The near-earth environment
does not simply contain thermal plumes which are lower than those
normally encountered in soaring flight at higher altitudes. There are
structural differences between the super-adiabatic layer, the next
mixed layer, and the higher normal soaring environment. Scale is
important here. The size of less organized structures which are not
yet thermal plumes in these lower environments is not well suited to a
12 psf W/S glider, or even a 6 spf one. Likewise, the magnitude of
stochastic but often widespread gusting and turbulence may comprise a
large fraction of the total flight energy of a low inertia glider,
whereas its nothing more than an annoyance in higher inertia systems.
With proper coordination and flight maneuvering, these smaller
turbulent events can impart repeating and substantial amounts of
energy to flight systems. However, the systems used must be matched to
the environment and it is not simply a function of wing loading. The
entrained air mass of the flying system, which is a function of not
only W/Sbut also mac and other factors must be considered.
Manueverability is very important, particularly rolling responses.

Until you have experienced this, it his hard to appreciate how it
could be as exciting as cruising at redline and 18k north of Tonopah,
while still 5k *under* cloudbase. However, I find it to be at least as
exciting. Not as high. Not as fast. But somehow just as amazing.

Not better. Not worse. Different, Bill. Something new to explore,
which is very, very old.

I guess it could be stated another way. I have never had the
opportunity to watch the launch of the Space Shuttle. I would like to.
However, if I had unlimited opportunity I suppose I would tire of it
after enough times.

I don't beilieve I will ever tire of watching vultures, or sea gulls,
or even butterflies doing their thing.

Still skeptical.

That's your prerogative. I would prescribe a little more time for
direct observation of the natural world, and a little less time trying
to view it as it rapidly recedes in your high speed rear-view mirror.

Best Regards,
Gary Osoba