Motorgliders (long)

Eric,
You are side-stepping the issue;
With conditions deteriorating, two experienced pilots declined to attempt the
glide, while two motorgliders felt comfortable attempting it. I say again, The
REAL inequity was that you were able to sample air for another 20 miles, had
you found a thermal that was strong enough to climb in, you would have
finished. That finish would have been a DIRECT result of you having an engine
for back-up.
This inequity will always be present as long as there is NO PENALTY to be paid
for attempting a marginal glide.
JJ Sinclair

In article ,
says...
There will always be pilots that do dumb things.
So, based on anecdotal here-say, you'd like to prevent
the rest of us from competing, or make it unpalatable ?
Really now...

The story was not here-say. It was an eyewitness report
from a pilot who was next to the runway when the motor
glider landed. He even said that although he was standing
less than 300 feet from the runway and there were runway
lights on he didn't know the glider was on the runway
until he heard the wheel chirp on the asphault.

I contacted Hannes Linke, one of the primary people running the Hilton
Cup and who has been with it from the start, about this story. He says
he is not aware of it. Perhaps you could give us some details, like a
year and a name? It's hard to understand how a glider pilot flies in
pitch black conditions, even in a DG 400.

Even if the story is true, back then the Hilton Cup was run very
differently than our contests are now, which use GPS loggers.
Obviously, getting points for flying after sunset isn't possible in a
contest.

It is still possible for motorglider pilot to fly low over unlandable
terrain, planning to use the engine to save him if he doesn't find
lift. Possible isn't the same as probable, and I don't see any
evidence that this kind of behavior is a problem in our contests. I
think this is because most motorglider pilots are conservative, and
the situation where this kind of risk would be worth taking doesn't
occur very often.

I'm reminded of a conversation years ago, even before there were
motorgliders in contests, when I tried to persuade a pilot to enter a
contest. Basically, he claimed you had to take crazy risks to win a
contest, like landing out in bad fields or flying low over unlandable
terrain to get the good lift, and he wasn't going to fly like that, so
he had no chance of winning a contest, so why enter?

Well, most of us are still willing enter contests, even though we know
it is possible that some pilot might gain an advantage by taking undue
risk. I hope we'll be willing to enter contests with motorgliders,
until there is evidence that "low flight over ugly terrain" is
changing the contest results.


Give them an inch and they will take a mile. You motor
guys weren't happy just being allowed to enter competitions
with non motorized gliders. Now you not only want to deny
there are any advantages to motor gliders.

I don't think any of us have claimed there are no advantages to flying
a motorglider in contests. We have stated our belief that, overall, a
serious competitor will almost always be better off in a motorless
glider. A pilot less serious about winning, who flies so he can always
land at an airport, may or may not have an advantage over a
motorglider pilot that is willing to start his engine over a field
(depends on the contest area and the weather). A motorglider pilot
that flies to be at an airport when he gets low, whether he actually
lands at the airport or starts the engine over the airport, will be at
a distinct disadvantage to the other pilots.

But you want to
claim you have disadvantages and want even more concessions.

Eric wants to be able to get airport bonus points for not
landing at an airport worth bonus points. He says it's
safer for a motor glider to start his motor and fly away
rather than land for airport bonus points. He claims
that at Coulee he gave up the airport bonus points by
starting his motor in order to make it safer for other
gliders. I guess we should assume that the fact that
the runway is only an 18 foot wide gravel runway, had
no bearing on his decision.
http://www.airnav.com/airport/WA15

Whether I am a self-serving, cynical, son-of-a-bitch or not, the
current airport bonus does not encourage the safest action from a
pilot flying a motor glider. Since the only purpose of the bonus is
encourage a safer termination of the flight, I believe my proposal is
worthy of consideration. Please consider that the bonus for "landing
at an airport" is not intended to encourage LANDING, since a motorless
glider is going to land regardless, but to encourage AT THE AIRPORT.

The Coulee strip is narrow, but 25 meter span Nimbus 3's can take off
from this runway, and so can my 18 meter span ASH 26 E. We do need a
wing runner to do it, and there were plenty of them that day. If there
were no other gliders there (and consequently no wing runners), I
might have decided not to land, and give up the 25 points. So, we have
a situation where the availability of 25 point bonus and wing runners
(a consequence of the other gliders landing there) is encouraging me
to do the less safe thing.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

"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

In the never-ending pursuit of fairness how about a
totally new approach to contests. Competition results
are determined by pilot skill, glider performance and
uncontrolled conditions (luck). Each factor has variables,
which can provide unfair advantages so they all need
to be standardized. The following format is therefore
proposed for consideration.

Contests would be conducted on simulators with a standard
aircraft computer model constructed from all existing
gliders so no one will have an advantage. For example
it may turn left like a 1-26, right like an LS-8, dive
like a Miller Tern, climb like a Czech made Discus
and land like a DG800 with the mast extended. The contestants
will be permitted to select an on-board engine but
it will only start ever 4th time and the mast will
extend at random during left turns.

Competitors will have 1 hour to practice, no more no
less and will have Novocain injected into their arms
so any genetic differences in eye/hand coordination
are nullified.

All competitors’ eyesight will be fitted with corrective
lenses & blinders to standardize sight and peripheral
vision. Masks will be worn to ensure even air consumption
during the event, which will prevent nose size from
giving an unfair edge and of course ear plugs.

I realized that even this format may have some inequities
but it’s a start!

Gosh, I think he's got it!

Ian

"Gary Evans" wrote in message
...
In the never-ending pursuit of fairness how about a
totally new approach to contests. Competition results
are determined by pilot skill, glider performance and
uncontrolled conditions (luck). Each factor has variables,
which can provide unfair advantages so they all need
to be standardized. The following format is therefore
proposed for consideration.

Contests would be conducted on simulators with a standard
aircraft computer model constructed from all existing
gliders so no one will have an advantage. For example
it may turn left like a 1-26, right like an LS-8, dive
like a Miller Tern, climb like a Czech made Discus
and land like a DG800 with the mast extended. The contestants
will be permitted to select an on-board engine but
it will only start ever 4th time and the mast will
extend at random during left turns.

Competitors will have 1 hour to practice, no more no
less and will have Novocain injected into their arms
so any genetic differences in eye/hand coordination
are nullified.

All competitors' eyesight will be fitted with corrective
lenses & blinders to standardize sight and peripheral
vision. Masks will be worn to ensure even air consumption
during the event, which will prevent nose size from
giving an unfair edge and of course ear plugs.

I realized that even this format may have some inequities
but it's a start!

Ian,
The Turbo gives you the ability to attempt a glide that a prudent un-powered
sailplane pilot wouldn't try, therefore I would place you in the same motored
category and *use of engine* penalty would apply.

I do agree with your post that suggested;

Standard class-------------No Engine
15 Meter----------------------Turbo only
18 Meter----------------------Engine
Open---------------------------Engine
Sports-------------------------??? I don't know, what do the rest think?

If this rule became *stable* (Good luck on that) most pilots in each class
could be appropriately equipped and inequity would, for the most part, be
eliminated.
JJ Sinclair

"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
Ian,
The Turbo gives you the ability to attempt a glide that a prudent
un-powered
sailplane pilot wouldn't try, therefore I would place you in the same
motored
category and *use of engine* penalty would apply.

I do agree with your post that suggested;

Standard class-------------No Engine
15 Meter----------------------Turbo only
18 Meter----------------------Engine
Open---------------------------Engine
Sports-------------------------??? I don't know, what do the rest think?

If this rule became *stable* (Good luck on that) most pilots in each class
could be appropriately equipped and inequity would, for the most part, be
eliminated.
JJ Sinclair

I seem to always be in agreement with JJ.

Last year I listened to an excellent pilot describe a 1000K flight over
difficult terrain in his MG without an engine start. Afterward, I wondered
if this flight would have happened without the safety net of the engine. If
the flight had been in a pure sailplane, I would have given the flight a
"10" - in a motorglider, only a "5".

There is always this question after a good flight in a MG - was the pilot
good or did he get lucky after a dumb decision? There's no way to tell.

Motorgliders, like pure sailplanes before them, will continue to improve and
the rules for their use will continue to liberalize. It all makes me wonder
if we will end up with mere powered airplanes that must only demonstrate an
ability to "glide" to a landing. This is a slippery slope and if we go that
far, it would be very sad.

We fly merely for the bragging rights. MG's are a very convenient, low
risk, low effort way to fly. Pure sailplanes are hard work and require that
an endless series of difficult decisions be made before and during flight.
Pure sailplanes will always earn the greatest bragging rights for any given
flight.

They should also earn the greatest points in contests.

I think JJ is right to dig in his heels and insist that this sport remain
soaring in the traditional sense.

Bill Daniels

I agree, motorgliders = discounted bragging rights.

I also tend to discount flights done by people who fly around with a
ground crew following them every step of the way.

"Bill Daniels" wrote in message link.net...

Last year I listened to an excellent pilot describe a 1000K flight over
difficult terrain in his MG without an engine start. Afterward, I wondered
if this flight would have happened without the safety net of the engine. If
the flight had been in a pure sailplane, I would have given the flight a
"10" - in a motorglider, only a "5".

There is always this question after a good flight in a MG - was the pilot
good or did he get lucky after a dumb decision? There's no way to tell.

Motorgliders, like pure sailplanes before them, will continue to improve and
the rules for their use will continue to liberalize. It all makes me wonder
if we will end up with mere powered airplanes that must only demonstrate an
ability to "glide" to a landing. This is a slippery slope and if we go that
far, it would be very sad.

We fly merely for the bragging rights. MG's are a very convenient, low
risk, low effort way to fly. Pure sailplanes are hard work and require that
an endless series of difficult decisions be made before and during flight.
Pure sailplanes will always earn the greatest bragging rights for any given
flight.

They should also earn the greatest points in contests.

I think JJ is right to dig in his heels and insist that this sport remain
soaring in the traditional sense.

Bill Daniels

Holy cow Bill, you can't be serious?!

The only differences I've observed so far a

- I can take a 'tow' when I feel like it and can 'release' at a place
convenient to me. In other words, I don't wait in line for takeoff
and I have the 'towplane' all to myself and can 'hang on' for 20 or 30
miles as I seek a good/convenient place to release. This, of course,
is not while participating in a contest.

- I worry less about needing a retreive. I still think about it and
plan my glides appropriately. I sweat just as hard in my ASH-26E as I
did in the ASW-20B when I'm low. I don't want to use the engine. It
'spoils' a soaring acheivement for me.

The bottom line is that flying a self-launcher or turbo, is probably
very similar to going XC back in the 40's and 50's. Back then
sailplanes flew slow enough that the crew could generally keep up and
stay below the pilot. Today, XC speeds are just too high (nost of the
time) for this to be possible. The motor is just an extension of the
crew. When I finally do start the engine and begin climbing away, I'm
just as exhausted and disappointed as I would have been if I'd landed.
And, I don't think I've put any less effort into the flight than your
'pure' sailplane pilot.

Flying as if the motor will ALWAYS start is a very bad idea and is
equivalent to pressing on because 'there will be a thermal ahead'. In
either case, the plane and the pilot may be hurt. Some people do it
anyway, whether they have a motor or not. So where on your 'hero
list' would you put the 'pure' sailplane pilot who pushed on into
unlandable terrain and got away with it?

-Tom
ASH-26E (5Z)

"Bill Daniels" wrote in message link.net...
We fly merely for the bragging rights. MG's are a very convenient, low
risk, low effort way to fly. Pure sailplanes are hard work and require that
an endless series of difficult decisions be made before and during flight.
Pure sailplanes will always earn the greatest bragging rights for any given
flight.

They should also earn the greatest points in contests.

I think JJ is right to dig in his heels and insist that this sport remain
soaring in the traditional sense.

Bill Daniels

On 25 Sep 2003 13:06:57 -0700, (Tom Serkowski)
wrote:

Holy cow Bill, you can't be serious?!

The only differences I've observed so far a

- I can take a 'tow' when I feel like it and can 'release' at a place
convenient to me. In other words, I don't wait in line for takeoff
and I have the 'towplane' all to myself and can 'hang on' for 20 or 30
miles as I seek a good/convenient place to release. This, of course,
is not while participating in a contest.

- I worry less about needing a retreive. I still think about it and
plan my glides appropriately. I sweat just as hard in my ASH-26E as I
did in the ASW-20B when I'm low. I don't want to use the engine. It
'spoils' a soaring acheivement for me.

The bottom line is that flying a self-launcher or turbo, is probably
very similar to going XC back in the 40's and 50's. Back then
sailplanes flew slow enough that the crew could generally keep up and
stay below the pilot. Today, XC speeds are just too high (nost of the
time) for this to be possible. The motor is just an extension of the
crew. When I finally do start the engine and begin climbing away, I'm
just as exhausted and disappointed as I would have been if I'd landed.
And, I don't think I've put any less effort into the flight than your
'pure' sailplane pilot.

Flying as if the motor will ALWAYS start is a very bad idea and is
equivalent to pressing on because 'there will be a thermal ahead'. In
either case, the plane and the pilot may be hurt. Some people do it
anyway, whether they have a motor or not. So where on your 'hero
list' would you put the 'pure' sailplane pilot who pushed on into
unlandable terrain and got away with it?

-Tom
ASH-26E (5Z)

I completely agree, Tom.
As I said the other day there are gliders and there are motorless
gliders.

Having to start the motor means the equivalent of a landout. Doesn't
feel real good but I can avoid the risk of actually landing in the
field I've picked. In this country we have a lot of SWER lines(Single
Wire Earth Return) for mains power distribution in rural areas. They
like to hide the poles in clumps of trees. We also have a lots of
rabbits and the two main hazards of landing out are dropping the wheel
in a rabbit hole(can't see from the air and there are other
equivalent surface hazards) or hitting a hidden SWER line.

I find flying a self launcher an immensely liberating experience due
to not depending on a towplane and pilot.

One other thing you might all like to contemplate is this:
With the growth of agribusiness, GM foods and things like the foot and
mouth disease outbreak in the UK last year do you think it will be
socially acceptable to fly motorless gliders cross country in the
future? And land willy nilly in fields? It is one thing to have an
engine fail to start and have to land out. It is another to not even
have the means to do so.

Mike Borgelt