FES - Take 2

Great points! Sometimes the Winter months provide good RAS posts.
(Warning, I don't fly contests but have flown plenty of SLSP and currently own a "pure" sailplane)
Agree that the point of avoiding long retrieves with a late return is good for everyone, whether by the old fashioned chase crew on the entire task or by landing or climbing over a nice safe airport.
Another twist: How do you handicap non-MGs on weak days when a pure sailplane can dump ballast? Getting rid of the engine and fuel weight is impossible in flight.
Possibly you've already found a fair solution?
Jim

Another twist: How do you handicap non-MGs on weak days when a pure sailplane can dump ballast? Getting rid of the engine and fuel weight is impossible in flight.

Possibly you've already found a fair solution?

Jim

Actually, if you look at the handicap tables, it goes the other way. The scratch handicaps adjust for empty weight, so the turbo and motor versions of the same glider pay a handicap penalty, typically 0.01 (Discus 2: 0.91 Discus 2T 0.90). When conditions are strong, ok, but as you point out they can't dump it. If you think this is stronger than deserved, then you have the little anti-motor handicap you're looking for.

John Cochrane

On Monday, February 17, 2014 12:48:35 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Another twist: How do you handicap non-MGs on weak days when a pure sailplane can dump ballast? Getting rid of the engine and fuel weight is impossible in flight. Possibly you've already found a fair solution?

Or another answer to what John provided: Have you ever seen a day so weak that a non-motorized version of an otherwise IDENTICAL plane can stay up when the motorized one with an equaly experienced pilot can not stay up? And not just stay up, but climb and be able to move along?

Yes, I know there is a weight penalty. Which increases the sink rate and speed at which that sink rate happens. But, we are talking of 3-4 knots in thermalling speed, and probably less than 25 ft/min change in sink rate. Pilot technique can mask that pretty easily.

And to be totally honest, the only one ever happy with the handicap is the guy or gal on top of the scoresheet at the end of the contest. Handciaps are set based on a series of assumptions about the weather. Unless you want to really make everyone mad and change the handicaps every day based on either forecast or results submitted, I think that the system in place right now is pretty good. If there are adjustments that need to be made on the handicapping, please contact the Contest Board and the Hadicapping Committee.. Info available from ssa.org.

Steve Leonard

On Monday, 17 February 2014 19:40:33 UTC, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Monday, February 17, 2014 12:48:35 PM UTC-6, wrote:

Another twist: How do you handicap non-MGs on weak days when a pure sailplane can dump ballast? Getting rid of the engine and fuel weight is impossible in flight. Possibly you've already found a fair solution?



Or another answer to what John provided: Have you ever seen a day so weak that a non-motorized version of an otherwise IDENTICAL plane can stay up when the motorized one with an equaly experienced pilot can not stay up? And not just stay up, but climb and be able to move along?



Yes, I know there is a weight penalty. Which increases the sink rate and speed at which that sink rate happens. But, we are talking of 3-4 knots in thermalling speed, and probably less than 25 ft/min change in sink rate. Pilot technique can mask that pretty easily.



And to be totally honest, the only one ever happy with the handicap is the guy or gal on top of the scoresheet at the end of the contest. Handciaps are set based on a series of assumptions about the weather. Unless you want to really make everyone mad and change the handicaps every day based on either forecast or results submitted, I think that the system in place right now is pretty good. If there are adjustments that need to be made on the handicapping, please contact the Contest Board and the Hadicapping Committee. Info available from ssa.org.



Steve Leonard

So to recap, unless I have missed something, a glider with an engine has two disadvantages - it cannot fly light for when conditions are weak (can be relevant where I fly, and can make an enormous difference to scores on a very weak day) and if flown by a cautious/prudent pilot it will abandon the task higher than a pure glider will commit to a field landing. It has one big advantage - that the pilot will not have to cope with late and tiring retrieves. As mentioned the extent of benefit or disadvantage for each difference will depend entirely on conditions. I don't believe there could be a fair way to adjust handicap ratings.

If motor glider handicap ratings were adjusted adversely I suspect keen pilots flying handicapped comps would take their engines out.

BTW, I fly a self-launcher in Regionals in the UK. The rules say the engine must be off not more than 100 feet above designated launch height. Obviously one wants to leave a little safety margin, and cooling and putting the engine away can cost significantly more than 100 feet. This is a high workload and stressful start to a competition flight, although it is not likely to affect the results. On the other hand, when I needed a relight, the ability to taxi back to the launch point was a significant advantage (once at the launch point you obviously have to wait for your place in the grid before relaunching).

Mark Burton

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:27:03 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider.

For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable.

Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope?

Lou

As a competition sustainer pilot, would I go for that Cu 50mi away over unlandable terrain? Nope. Never! And Darwin's theory of Natural Selection will eventually catch up to those who would.

Kirk, I fly a LS 8 st which has one of those simple engines, quite like a lawn mower, no starter, no alternator, engine only. To start, the engine is fully extended, equivalent to about half airbrakes out as earlier explained.. I the have to dive start, accelerating to 80 kts. That will be app 500 feet lower than at the beginning of the exercise. If the engine starts, I gain about 300 of those back immediately. How much safety would you put onto those 500 ft? For me the engine extract point is 1,500 ft. If I would fly competition with serious ambitions the engine would come out. There is absolutely no sense to have it.

Rolf