Best Glider for Altitude Record Attempt?

SparrowHawk: All CARBON, strong as hell, no gelcoat to crack, and if
you can get above your release altitude, in most states you have set a
new ultralight climb record.

If you are talking world records then anything you look at will need to be
either pressurised or big enough to allow you to fly in a spacesuit. You
will need the manufacturers assistance to develop a variant with a higher
VNE and probably control surfaces ballasted beyond the 100% range to get
their flutter speeds as high as possible.

If you want to go high for a national record most glass ships will get you
to the 40k mark given the right conditions.

Get ready to dig deep into your wallet, short of incredible luck setting
soaring records is IMHO purely a money thing. Any plonker with a big enough
wallet can do it.

Ian

I don't agree that it's "purely a money thing", but it certainly helps. Not
only with respect to altitude records, but also many distance and speed
records.I suppose that if you have enough money and interest you can hire a
real pilot to fly your two place ship for you and go down in the record books.
Perhaps it's my old age showing, but I think of the pioneering flights of
Scott, Streidick, ect. as legendary (See also Taming the Monster). These were
primarily individuals pushing the limits. Many contemporary records and record
attempts sound more like goverment projects. I wonder if they will be viewed
with the same awe.

RWEpp wrote:
I don't agree that it's "purely a money thing", but it certainly helps. Not
only with respect to altitude records, but also many distance and speed
records.I suppose that if you have enough money and interest you can hire a
real pilot to fly your two place ship for you and go down in the record books.
Perhaps it's my old age showing, but I think of the pioneering flights of
Scott, Streidick, ect. as legendary (See also Taming the Monster). These were
primarily individuals pushing the limits. Many contemporary records and record
attempts sound more like goverment projects. I wonder if they will be viewed
with the same awe.

Well, I believe the National and World records for altitude
both require a "level 1" calibration facility for your
logger, and don't allow the use of trusty old barographs.
Something about a calibration within ten days after the
flight also...

I called the only level 1 listed on the www.ssa.org/Calibration.asp
website "Airtech Instrument Co." and thought I was talking to
aliens. They had no idea what I was asking, and
said they didn't do that, and wondered why anyone would want
to calibrate a Volkswagon.

So I sent it to trusy old Carl Herold, a level 2
calibration facility. No hassle, cheap, quick turnaround,
and got some state records instead.

I think some of the reason there are so many open records
(the NV motorglider records are all open), is the "hassle factor."

Instead of strong fingers to wind the $200 baro, some tape,
a pen and a bit of baro paper, one needs a thousand dollar device,
a continuous power source, a computer, and an O/O who is
sophisticated with computers. A much rarer find indeed.

There are times when perfection hinders efficiency...

Mark James Boyd wrote:

I think some of the reason there are so many open records
(the NV motorglider records are all open),

Uh, actually, they are some of the highest in the nation, as some of the
are also National records. Try this URL:

http://www.geocities.com/nvsoar/nv.html
Nevada State Soaring Records

and you will see that only two of the unrestricted records are open
(most of the Feminine records are open).

is the "hassle factor."

But this remark is correct on a State level. It is easier now with
flight recorders, and for speed records, it's _much_ easier, but many
people don't realize this.

Instead of strong fingers to wind the $200 baro, some tape,
a pen and a bit of baro paper, one needs a thousand dollar device,
a continuous power source, a computer, and an O/O who is
sophisticated with computers. A much rarer find indeed.

You can still use the "$200 baro, some tape, a pen and a bit of baro
paper" if you wish, but now there are other options. If you don't want
to buy a flight recorder, try borrowing one (like we used to borrow
barographs) or buy one as a partnership. The power to run them is
minimal, computers are everywhere, and the OO doesn't need to be
computer "sophisticated". Running one of the programs (there are several
available) to check the flight is easy. We have more people in our club
that can run SeeYou than can qualify as OOs - computer "expertise" is
widespread these days.

I flew for five different records this year, including 3 speed records,
using a flight recorder, and the "hassle" is minimal and comes after
the flight, in the evening, with a beer in one hand. I would never have
tried the speed records without a flight recorder, because the visual
gate required is a big hassle. For non-speed records, the flight
recorder is still easier, but not by as much.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:

Uh, actually, they are some of the highest in the nation, as some of the
are also National records. Try this URL:

http://www.geocities.com/nvsoar/nv.html
Nevada State Soaring Records

and you will see that only two of the unrestricted records are open
(most of the Feminine records are open).


This is my mistake. I sometimes browse too quickly through
files, on the internet, or get information which is
outdated. Eric is correct.

In that same vein, the NV state record seems to indicate
a record for multi-place motorglider altitude (C. Herold), but the US
www.ssa.org/records/natmotor2.pdf
records seem to leave that category open...why is that?
Perhaps these files are not accurate, the pilot
found it too much "hassle" to calibrate the equipment
after the flight, or the pilot simply opted to
not apply...

is the "hassle factor."

But this remark is correct on a State level. It is easier now with
flight recorders, and for speed records, it's _much_ easier, but many
people don't realize this.

For speed and distance records, I agree that flight recorders have been
an absolute godsend.


Instead of strong fingers to wind the $200 baro, some tape,
a pen and a bit of baro paper, one needs a thousand dollar device,
a continuous power source, a computer, and an O/O who is
sophisticated with computers. A much rarer find indeed.

You can still use the "$200 baro, some tape, a pen and a bit of baro
paper" if you wish, but now there are other options. If you don't want
to buy a flight recorder, try borrowing one (like we used to borrow
barographs) or buy one as a partnership. The power to run them is
minimal, computers are everywhere, and the OO doesn't need to be
computer "sophisticated". Running one of the programs (there are several
available) to check the flight is easy. We have more people in our club
that can run SeeYou than can qualify as OOs - computer "expertise" is
widespread these days.

I flew for five different records this year, including 3 speed records,
using a flight recorder, and the "hassle" is minimal and comes after
the flight, in the evening, with a beer in one hand. I would never have
tried the speed records without a flight recorder, because the visual
gate required is a big hassle. For non-speed records, the flight
recorder is still easier, but not by as much.

For me, the hassle came before the flight. It involved
getting a computer, purchasing a logger, getting
the logger calibrated, loading software,
downloading a manual, soldering several connectors,
designing a power source (portable drill
batteries worked best), configuring a hardware port,
arranging velcro attachment points so the
GPS antenna worked, and training the not terribly
computer savy O/O how to download the trace.

Compared to my 30 minute lesson on how to use a drum
baro and then sticking it in a box in the back,
this logger stuff was quite time consuming.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In that same vein, the NV state record seems to indicate
a record for multi-place motorglider altitude (C. Herold), but the US
www.ssa.org/records/natmotor2.pdf
records seem to leave that category open...why is that?
Perhaps these files are not accurate, the pilot
found it too much "hassle" to calibrate the equipment
after the flight, or the pilot simply opted to
not apply...


I don't know about this case, but I do know people who have claimed a state
record but not the national record because of the significant expense
associated with applying for the national record.

Larry Pardue 2I

Mark James Boyd wrote:

For me, the hassle came before the flight. It involved
getting a computer, purchasing a logger, getting
the logger calibrated, loading software,
downloading a manual, soldering several connectors,
designing a power source (portable drill
batteries worked best), configuring a hardware port,
arranging velcro attachment points so the
GPS antenna worked, and training the not terribly
computer savy O/O how to download the trace.

It sounds like you were setting up a club aircraft instead of your own.
That can vary from simple to complex. It can be a lot easier, if you buy
a new logger (Cambridge model 20), as I did:

-it came calibrated for two years, so that didn't have to be done
-cables came with it, so no soldering was needed
-the glider had a battery, so there was already power available
-my computers (and the ones at contests) recognized the flight recorder
immediately
-drilling one hole let me bolt it down
-and I didn't have to train the OO, because the OO is not required to do
the download, but merely observe it

Compared to my 30 minute lesson on how to use a drum
baro and then sticking it in a box in the back,
this logger stuff was quite time consuming.

If all you need is the barograph function, a flight recorder is
overkill. If you need to round turnpoints, now you need a camera, a
written declaration (which you can also use with a flight recorder
instead of putting in turnpoints and declaring electronically, thus
requiring the computer for download only), and a lot more than the 30
minutes instruction to get it all right when you include mounting the
cameras and learning how to use them.

Then you need an OO that knows how to control the cameras, knows what
the turnpoints look like, knows how to interpret turnpoint photos, knows
how to get the altitudes off a paper chart, plus chasing down the
towpilot for release point, and of course, getting the film developed
without having the important frames severed from each other!

And, as you already realize, a speed task without a flight recorder
means setting up a visual gate, which is the biggest hassle of all.

Another "and": without a flight recorder, IGC approved or not, the pilot
misses out on some fun later on, when everyone else is replaying their
traces on SeeYou!
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In article 3fdcc446$1@darkstar, Mark James Boyd
writes

snip

Well, I believe the National and World records for altitude
both require a "level 1" calibration facility for your
logger, and don't allow the use of trusty old barographs.
Something about a calibration within ten days after the
flight also...

Its mostly in the Sporting Code and is not quite what you say above.

There are no "levels" of IGC calibration facility, this must be an SSA
thing.

World records do indeed require a flight recorder that is IGC-approved
for world record flights. A straight drum baro is not enough, as you
say.

Pressure altitude calibrations must be done within 2 years before the
flight and also a check calibration up to one month after. This general
rule has been in for records for many years, the only difference being
that for non-IGC-approved recorders the period is one year, not two.
For badges the calibrations are "either/or" and not "both" as for
records. Earlier this year I proposed that for IGC-approved flight
recorders the post-flight period should be extended to the same ratio as
the pre-flight (ie to two months) but I cannot get through to the FAI
web site at the moment to see whether that got into the Code for the
edition valid from 1 Oct 2003.

--
Ian Strachan

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

Ian Strachan wrote:

Well, I believe the National and World records for altitude
both require a "level 1" calibration facility for your
logger, and don't allow the use of trusty old barographs.

There are no "levels" of IGC calibration facility, this must be an SSA
thing.

Perhaps they are just paraphrasing. I don't know the
validity of the information on the website. If in fact
Carl Herold's calibration of my Volkslogger is valid for
World Record altitude attempts, I would be interested, since this
directly contradicts www.ssa.org/Calibration.asp


World records do indeed require a flight recorder that is IGC-approved
for world record flights. A straight drum baro is not enough, as you
say.


When did this change, and why? Drum baros are stone cold simple.
Flight recorders are not. I'm baffled why such a robust and
cheap system would be discarded.

Pressure altitude calibrations must be done within 2 years before the
flight and also a check calibration up to one month after. This general
rule has been in for records for many years, the only difference being
that for non-IGC-approved recorders the period is one year, not two.
For badges the calibrations are "either/or" and not "both" as for
records. Earlier this year I proposed that for IGC-approved flight
recorders the post-flight period should be extended to the same ratio as
the pre-flight (ie to two months) but I cannot get through to the FAI
web site at the moment to see whether that got into the Code for the
edition valid from 1 Oct 2003.


Ian, good for you trying to get the IGC to make the technicalities and
timelines less daunting. If it comes up, encourage those same
folks to continue to allow drum baros and to simplify the
technicalities of badge and record soaring whenever possible.
I for one was certainly daunted by the volume of technical
requirements, and ultimately choose to forego two world record
attempts because of these barriers (can't use drum baro,
calibration facilities rare, lack of O/O confident with
computer use, etc.).

--
Ian Strachan

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND