Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 10:39:42 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Your OLC (or FAI for that matter) flight ends when you start the engine
so the only advantage is that of not having to wait for a trailer. I
recall a flight in a friend's ASW-24E where I flew far into
deteriorating lift. No worries! I'll just start the engine and fly
back to the lift. It started just fine and then quit within minutes due
to lack of fuel. Had to drive around Pike's Peak to get back to the
airport.

In the case of the Stemme, I don't have a trailer and, though it's never
failed me, I won't trust the engine to save me; it's strictly for launch
or travel to another location.

Dan
5J
On 4/11/21 6:54 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
BobWa43 wrote on 4/11/2021 5:19 AM:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:10:18 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote on 4/10/2021 8:32 PM:
I guess being in the Kuiper belt is not that bad. I guess us purist
have a distinct habit of
staying away from home. I guess next year we will name or gathering
the Kuiper Safari.

Don't read too much into the Pluto part: I just wanted some
alliteration - Pluto/Purist,
Mars/Motorglider. :^)
I suggest "Kuiper Kamp" to keep the alliteration going.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Do I think that having or not having an engine is a predictor of
piloting skills or testosterone levels? No, absolutely not. Do I
think that having an engine provides a significant advantage in
scoring OLC points? Absolutely, Yes. I have nothing against motor
gliders, particularly the self launching variety,(I would like to own
one except for the expense) but you have to admit that the sustainers
have only one purpose and that is to save a flight that would
otherwise end in landing out. How can anyone deny that this is a huge
psychological advantage on the average OLC flight where there is
nothing at stake but bragging rights. Bottom line, motor gliders
should compete against motor gliders on OLC.

I had flown 2000 hours in unpowered sailplanes when I switched to a
motorglider, and I did not feel I had a huge psychological advantage.
And when I fly at the Parowan motorglider event each year, somehow my
"huge psychological advantage" isn't enough to keep pilots like Rami
Yanetz and Thorsten Streple from clobbering me on the OLC! There is some
advantage, but it's not huge, or even big.

So, of all the factors that go into an OLC score, why do you focus only
on the motor? The place has a much larger effect, I think. Who has the
greater advantage: the sustainer pilot launching from Seminole lake, or
the pilot launching from Ridge Soaring on a good ridge day? Or a pilot
in South Africa?

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 6:00:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-4, BobWa43 wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:17:08 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
It would make more sense to stratify OLC results on glider price, than motor/no motor. Dinging a guy with a Pik20E compared to a JS1 is plain silly. A separate class or handicap for motorgliders is either a wealth or convenience tax - not a performance tax. And certainly not a testosterone measure. Probably, anyone who has to get on a public forum and boast of testosterone levels, is lacking same.

I continue to find that nearly every glider pilot who is deprecating of motorgliders for how they are operated or the advantage they have, has never operated one for any length of time. The actual advantage has everything to do with convenience and nothing to do with performance.
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:39:42 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Your OLC (or FAI for that matter) flight ends when you start the engine
so the only advantage is that of not having to wait for a trailer. I
recall a flight in a friend's ASW-24E where I flew far into
deteriorating lift. No worries! I'll just start the engine and fly
back to the lift. It started just fine and then quit within minutes due
to lack of fuel. Had to drive around Pike's Peak to get back to the
airport.

In the case of the Stemme, I don't have a trailer and, though it's never
failed me, I won't trust the engine to save me; it's strictly for launch
or travel to another location.

Dan
5J
On 4/11/21 6:54 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
BobWa43 wrote on 4/11/2021 5:19 AM:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:10:18 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote on 4/10/2021 8:32 PM:
I guess being in the Kuiper belt is not that bad. I guess us purist
have a distinct habit of
staying away from home. I guess next year we will name or gathering
the Kuiper Safari.

Don't read too much into the Pluto part: I just wanted some
alliteration - Pluto/Purist,
Mars/Motorglider. :^)
I suggest "Kuiper Kamp" to keep the alliteration going.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Do I think that having or not having an engine is a predictor of
piloting skills or testosterone levels? No, absolutely not. Do I
think that having an engine provides a significant advantage in
scoring OLC points? Absolutely, Yes. I have nothing against motor
gliders, particularly the self launching variety,(I would like to own
one except for the expense) but you have to admit that the sustainers
have only one purpose and that is to save a flight that would
otherwise end in landing out. How can anyone deny that this is a huge
psychological advantage on the average OLC flight where there is
nothing at stake but bragging rights. Bottom line, motor gliders
should compete against motor gliders on OLC.

I had flown 2000 hours in unpowered sailplanes when I switched to a
motorglider, and I did not feel I had a huge psychological advantage.
And when I fly at the Parowan motorglider event each year, somehow my
"huge psychological advantage" isn't enough to keep pilots like Rami
Yanetz and Thorsten Streple from clobbering me on the OLC! There is some
advantage, but it's not huge, or even big.

So, of all the factors that go into an OLC score, why do you focus only
on the motor? The place has a much larger effect, I think. Who has the
greater advantage: the sustainer pilot launching from Seminole lake, or
the pilot launching from Ridge Soaring on a good ridge day? Or a pilot
in South Africa?

At Dan "When you start the engine the flight is over" true, but as the man in the earlier referenced video said most times you don't have to start the engine. You get to take the chance on whether there will be lift under that distant cloud with no real penalty if there isn't. If that is not a great advantage, I don't what is. If you would agree to disable the engine after take off then it would be a level playing field. It currently is not. Why do motor glider pilots resist the idea of a separate competition group?

It is very much of an advantage to the motorglider pilot, the self launch I can accept as an equal, only if the engine is retracted and not started again. On the other hand the sustainer is different in how it is utilized to continue a flight that would otherwise be terminated. The mindset for the motorglider pilot changes just after release from tow, there is always a safety cushion, us purist do not have that cushion.
Went to Home Depot today and bought that white Gorilla Tape so if some of these motorglider enthusiast come down and fly in the Safari next year I can tape their motor doors shut and we will all go for a flight.

Unless the engine doesn't start.

Dan
5J

On 4/11/21 3:38 PM, BobWa43 wrote:
You get to take the chance on whether there will be lift under that distant cloud with no real penalty if there isn't.

The argument that "purists" are better than "motorgliderists" is an argument used by miserable old men who try to assert that flying "pure" gliders is more difficult that flying motorised gliders in order to discourage the next generation from adopting emerging technologies.
They do this because they themselves own a "pure" (unmotorised) glider and they don't want their large investment to reduce to $0 as people move away from unmotorised gliders.
It's self-interest, through and through.
Simple as that.

Motorised gliders are far better for several different reasons:

1. Reduce risks associated with landouts
2. Faster turn around time between flights
3. No need for expensive equipment for a launch
4. Reduce the number of people required to launch
......etc....

On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 6:45:09 AM UTC-4, wrote:
The argument that "purists" are better than "motorgliderists" is an argument used by miserable old men who try to assert that flying "pure" gliders is more difficult that flying motorised gliders in order to discourage the next generation from adopting emerging technologies.
They do this because they themselves own a "pure" (unmotorised) glider and they don't want their large investment to reduce to $0 as people move away from unmotorised gliders.
It's self-interest, through and through.
Simple as that.

Motorised gliders are far better for several different reasons:

1. Reduce risks associated with landouts
2. Faster turn around time between flights
3. No need for expensive equipment for a launch
4. Reduce the number of people required to launch
.....etc....

Richardson, I do not recall mentioning the word difficult on any of my post, that word never came into the conversation. This is all about advantage. Sustainers would have the same turn around time as the purist since the sustainer cannot self launch. The expense of a self launch is probably comparative to a pure glider and a respectable tow plane.
I guess it is just the miserable old man syndrome that keeps us going.

On 4/12/2021 6:45 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
...

Motorised gliders are far better for several different reasons:

...
3. No need for expensive equipment for a launch

Ha!

That is some very convoluted logic. Once airborne, there are no significant operational differences between a sustainer and a self launch. Either *might* save you from unlandable terrain, however this behavior has severe negative feedback and is self limiting. I do know of a couple of pilots who behaved that way, both of them hung their gliders in trees and no longer fly.

What you are proving is that you have never flown a motorglider cross country, and have no idea what the mindset is and how they are operated. If anything, a motorglider has a performance disadvantage compared to a motorless, because the ballast choices are limited. It is operationally more complicated during a landout, as everything the "purist" must consider has to be considered, along with deploying and starting an engine. Abandoning further cross country flight has to be done earlier and higher, a disadvantage.

A motor is a convenience, like a pee tube or a fancy glide computer. It saves you from having to round up a tow plane to launch, and a retrieve crew to retrieve. That's it. If you want a separate class that includes motorgliders and any pilot with a retrieve crew, then at least that would be logically consistent. Or if you want a separate class that uses no engine power for launch or retrieve, that would be logically consistent (though limited to hang gliders).

I've flown "pure" gliders many thousands of cross country miles. Have you flown a motorglider cross country at all? Your posts suggest you have not, as they are ignorant of the most basic facts.

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:06:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 6:00:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-4, BobWa43 wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:17:08 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
It would make more sense to stratify OLC results on glider price, than motor/no motor. Dinging a guy with a Pik20E compared to a JS1 is plain silly. A separate class or handicap for motorgliders is either a wealth or convenience tax - not a performance tax. And certainly not a testosterone measure. Probably, anyone who has to get on a public forum and boast of testosterone levels, is lacking same.

I continue to find that nearly every glider pilot who is deprecating of motorgliders for how they are operated or the advantage they have, has never operated one for any length of time. The actual advantage has everything to do with convenience and nothing to do with performance.
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:39:42 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Your OLC (or FAI for that matter) flight ends when you start the engine
so the only advantage is that of not having to wait for a trailer.. I
recall a flight in a friend's ASW-24E where I flew far into
deteriorating lift. No worries! I'll just start the engine and fly
back to the lift. It started just fine and then quit within minutes due
to lack of fuel. Had to drive around Pike's Peak to get back to the
airport.

In the case of the Stemme, I don't have a trailer and, though it's never
failed me, I won't trust the engine to save me; it's strictly for launch
or travel to another location.

Dan
5J
On 4/11/21 6:54 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
BobWa43 wrote on 4/11/2021 5:19 AM:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:10:18 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote on 4/10/2021 8:32 PM:
I guess being in the Kuiper belt is not that bad. I guess us purist
have a distinct habit of
staying away from home. I guess next year we will name or gathering
the Kuiper Safari.

Don't read too much into the Pluto part: I just wanted some
alliteration - Pluto/Purist,
Mars/Motorglider. :^)
I suggest "Kuiper Kamp" to keep the alliteration going.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Do I think that having or not having an engine is a predictor of
piloting skills or testosterone levels? No, absolutely not. Do I
think that having an engine provides a significant advantage in
scoring OLC points? Absolutely, Yes. I have nothing against motor
gliders, particularly the self launching variety,(I would like to own
one except for the expense) but you have to admit that the sustainers
have only one purpose and that is to save a flight that would
otherwise end in landing out. How can anyone deny that this is a huge
psychological advantage on the average OLC flight where there is
nothing at stake but bragging rights. Bottom line, motor gliders
should compete against motor gliders on OLC.

I had flown 2000 hours in unpowered sailplanes when I switched to a
motorglider, and I did not feel I had a huge psychological advantage.
And when I fly at the Parowan motorglider event each year, somehow my
"huge psychological advantage" isn't enough to keep pilots like Rami
Yanetz and Thorsten Streple from clobbering me on the OLC! There is some
advantage, but it's not huge, or even big.

So, of all the factors that go into an OLC score, why do you focus only
on the motor? The place has a much larger effect, I think. Who has the
greater advantage: the sustainer pilot launching from Seminole lake, or
the pilot launching from Ridge Soaring on a good ridge day? Or a pilot
in South Africa?

At Dan "When you start the engine the flight is over" true, but as the man in the earlier referenced video said most times you don't have to start the engine. You get to take the chance on whether there will be lift under that distant cloud with no real penalty if there isn't. If that is not a great advantage, I don't what is. If you would agree to disable the engine after take off then it would be a level playing field. It currently is not.. Why do motor glider pilots resist the idea of a separate competition group?
It is very much of an advantage to the motorglider pilot, the self launch I can accept as an equal, only if the engine is retracted and not started again. On the other hand the sustainer is different in how it is utilized to continue a flight that would otherwise be terminated. The mindset for the motorglider pilot changes just after release from tow, there is always a safety cushion, us purist do not have that cushion.
Went to Home Depot today and bought that white Gorilla Tape so if some of these motorglider enthusiast come down and fly in the Safari next year I can tape their motor doors shut and we will all go for a flight.

On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 10:57:04 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
That is some very convoluted logic. Once airborne, there are no significant operational differences between a sustainer and a self launch. Either *might* save you from unlandable terrain, however this behavior has severe negative feedback and is self limiting. I do know of a couple of pilots who behaved that way, both of them hung their gliders in trees and no longer fly..

What you are proving is that you have never flown a motorglider cross country, and have no idea what the mindset is and how they are operated. If anything, a motorglider has a performance disadvantage compared to a motorless, because the ballast choices are limited. It is operationally more complicated during a landout, as everything the "purist" must consider has to be considered, along with deploying and starting an engine. Abandoning further cross country flight has to be done earlier and higher, a disadvantage.

A motor is a convenience, like a pee tube or a fancy glide computer. It saves you from having to round up a tow plane to launch, and a retrieve crew to retrieve. That's it. If you want a separate class that includes motorgliders and any pilot with a retrieve crew, then at least that would be logically consistent. Or if you want a separate class that uses no engine power for launch or retrieve, that would be logically consistent (though limited to hang gliders).

I've flown "pure" gliders many thousands of cross country miles. Have you flown a motorglider cross country at all? Your posts suggest you have not, as they are ignorant of the most basic facts.
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:06:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 6:00:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-4, BobWa43 wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:17:08 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
It would make more sense to stratify OLC results on glider price, than motor/no motor. Dinging a guy with a Pik20E compared to a JS1 is plain silly. A separate class or handicap for motorgliders is either a wealth or convenience tax - not a performance tax. And certainly not a testosterone measure. Probably, anyone who has to get on a public forum and boast of testosterone levels, is lacking same.

I continue to find that nearly every glider pilot who is deprecating of motorgliders for how they are operated or the advantage they have, has never operated one for any length of time. The actual advantage has everything to do with convenience and nothing to do with performance.
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:39:42 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Your OLC (or FAI for that matter) flight ends when you start the engine
so the only advantage is that of not having to wait for a trailer. I
recall a flight in a friend's ASW-24E where I flew far into
deteriorating lift. No worries! I'll just start the engine and fly
back to the lift. It started just fine and then quit within minutes due
to lack of fuel. Had to drive around Pike's Peak to get back to the
airport.

In the case of the Stemme, I don't have a trailer and, though it's never
failed me, I won't trust the engine to save me; it's strictly for launch
or travel to another location.

Dan
5J
On 4/11/21 6:54 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
BobWa43 wrote on 4/11/2021 5:19 AM:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:10:18 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote on 4/10/2021 8:32 PM:
I guess being in the Kuiper belt is not that bad. I guess us purist
have a distinct habit of
staying away from home. I guess next year we will name or gathering
the Kuiper Safari.

Don't read too much into the Pluto part: I just wanted some
alliteration - Pluto/Purist,
Mars/Motorglider. :^)
I suggest "Kuiper Kamp" to keep the alliteration going.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Do I think that having or not having an engine is a predictor of
piloting skills or testosterone levels? No, absolutely not. Do I
think that having an engine provides a significant advantage in
scoring OLC points? Absolutely, Yes. I have nothing against motor
gliders, particularly the self launching variety,(I would like to own
one except for the expense) but you have to admit that the sustainers
have only one purpose and that is to save a flight that would
otherwise end in landing out. How can anyone deny that this is a huge
psychological advantage on the average OLC flight where there is
nothing at stake but bragging rights. Bottom line, motor gliders
should compete against motor gliders on OLC.

I had flown 2000 hours in unpowered sailplanes when I switched to a
motorglider, and I did not feel I had a huge psychological advantage.
And when I fly at the Parowan motorglider event each year, somehow my
"huge psychological advantage" isn't enough to keep pilots like Rami
Yanetz and Thorsten Streple from clobbering me on the OLC! There is some
advantage, but it's not huge, or even big.

So, of all the factors that go into an OLC score, why do you focus only
on the motor? The place has a much larger effect, I think. Who has the
greater advantage: the sustainer pilot launching from Seminole lake, or
the pilot launching from Ridge Soaring on a good ridge day? Or a pilot
in South Africa?

At Dan "When you start the engine the flight is over" true, but as the man in the earlier referenced video said most times you don't have to start the engine. You get to take the chance on whether there will be lift under that distant cloud with no real penalty if there isn't. If that is not a great advantage, I don't what is. If you would agree to disable the engine after take off then it would be a level playing field. It currently is not. Why do motor glider pilots resist the idea of a separate competition group?
It is very much of an advantage to the motorglider pilot, the self launch I can accept as an equal, only if the engine is retracted and not started again. On the other hand the sustainer is different in how it is utilized to continue a flight that would otherwise be terminated. The mindset for the motorglider pilot changes just after release from tow, there is always a safety cushion, us purist do not have that cushion.
Went to Home Depot today and bought that white Gorilla Tape so if some of these motorglider enthusiast come down and fly in the Safari next year I can tape their motor doors shut and we will all go for a flight.

Fitch, better take more blood pressure medicine quick!

On starting the engine in flight...

I recall a flight several years back with the late (and very missed) Tom
Bjork in his ASH-30mi. I was struggling mightily to keep the glider in
the air as Tom was working furiously to get the engine started to
prevent a land out. I was turning base to a private strip (with Xs
painted on both ends; Zorro Ranch for the Moriarty guys) when the engine
finally came to life and the flight was saved. Had that just been
desert and the engine not started, things would have been very inconvenient.

Dan
5J

On 4/12/21 8:57 AM, jfitch wrote:
That is some very convoluted logic. Once airborne, there are no significant operational differences between a sustainer and a self launch. Either *might* save you from unlandable terrain, however this behavior has severe negative feedback and is self limiting. I do know of a couple of pilots who behaved that way, both of them hung their gliders in trees and no longer fly.

What you are proving is that you have never flown a motorglider cross country, and have no idea what the mindset is and how they are operated. If anything, a motorglider has a performance disadvantage compared to a motorless, because the ballast choices are limited. It is operationally more complicated during a landout, as everything the "purist" must consider has to be considered, along with deploying and starting an engine. Abandoning further cross country flight has to be done earlier and higher, a disadvantage.

A motor is a convenience, like a pee tube or a fancy glide computer. It saves you from having to round up a tow plane to launch, and a retrieve crew to retrieve. That's it. If you want a separate class that includes motorgliders and any pilot with a retrieve crew, then at least that would be logically consistent. Or if you want a separate class that uses no engine power for launch or retrieve, that would be logically consistent (though limited to hang gliders).

I've flown "pure" gliders many thousands of cross country miles. Have you flown a motorglider cross country at all? Your posts suggest you have not, as they are ignorant of the most basic facts.

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:06:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 6:00:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-4, BobWa43 wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:17:08 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
It would make more sense to stratify OLC results on glider price, than motor/no motor. Dinging a guy with a Pik20E compared to a JS1 is plain silly. A separate class or handicap for motorgliders is either a wealth or convenience tax - not a performance tax. And certainly not a testosterone measure. Probably, anyone who has to get on a public forum and boast of testosterone levels, is lacking same.

I continue to find that nearly every glider pilot who is deprecating of motorgliders for how they are operated or the advantage they have, has never operated one for any length of time. The actual advantage has everything to do with convenience and nothing to do with performance.
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:39:42 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Your OLC (or FAI for that matter) flight ends when you start the engine
so the only advantage is that of not having to wait for a trailer. I
recall a flight in a friend's ASW-24E where I flew far into
deteriorating lift. No worries! I'll just start the engine and fly
back to the lift. It started just fine and then quit within minutes due
to lack of fuel. Had to drive around Pike's Peak to get back to the
airport.

In the case of the Stemme, I don't have a trailer and, though it's never
failed me, I won't trust the engine to save me; it's strictly for launch
or travel to another location.

Dan
5J
On 4/11/21 6:54 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
BobWa43 wrote on 4/11/2021 5:19 AM:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:10:18 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote on 4/10/2021 8:32 PM:
I guess being in the Kuiper belt is not that bad. I guess us purist
have a distinct habit of
staying away from home. I guess next year we will name or gathering
the Kuiper Safari.

Don't read too much into the Pluto part: I just wanted some
alliteration - Pluto/Purist,
Mars/Motorglider. :^)
I suggest "Kuiper Kamp" to keep the alliteration going.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Do I think that having or not having an engine is a predictor of
piloting skills or testosterone levels? No, absolutely not. Do I
think that having an engine provides a significant advantage in
scoring OLC points? Absolutely, Yes. I have nothing against motor
gliders, particularly the self launching variety,(I would like to own
one except for the expense) but you have to admit that the sustainers
have only one purpose and that is to save a flight that would
otherwise end in landing out. How can anyone deny that this is a huge
psychological advantage on the average OLC flight where there is
nothing at stake but bragging rights. Bottom line, motor gliders
should compete against motor gliders on OLC.

I had flown 2000 hours in unpowered sailplanes when I switched to a
motorglider, and I did not feel I had a huge psychological advantage.
And when I fly at the Parowan motorglider event each year, somehow my
"huge psychological advantage" isn't enough to keep pilots like Rami
Yanetz and Thorsten Streple from clobbering me on the OLC! There is some
advantage, but it's not huge, or even big.

So, of all the factors that go into an OLC score, why do you focus only
on the motor? The place has a much larger effect, I think. Who has the
greater advantage: the sustainer pilot launching from Seminole lake, or
the pilot launching from Ridge Soaring on a good ridge day? Or a pilot
in South Africa?

At Dan "When you start the engine the flight is over" true, but as the man in the earlier referenced video said most times you don't have to start the engine. You get to take the chance on whether there will be lift under that distant cloud with no real penalty if there isn't. If that is not a great advantage, I don't what is. If you would agree to disable the engine after take off then it would be a level playing field. It currently is not. Why do motor glider pilots resist the idea of a separate competition group?
It is very much of an advantage to the motorglider pilot, the self launch I can accept as an equal, only if the engine is retracted and not started again. On the other hand the sustainer is different in how it is utilized to continue a flight that would otherwise be terminated. The mindset for the motorglider pilot changes just after release from tow, there is always a safety cushion, us purist do not have that cushion.
Went to Home Depot today and bought that white Gorilla Tape so if some of these motorglider enthusiast come down and fly in the Safari next year I can tape their motor doors shut and we will all go for a flight.

Sounds like it is time to end this conversation.
Why does it always end up with personal attacks?