FES - Take 2

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

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:27:03 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:

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?

Sure it does. But who cares? Pure glider racers get all the chicks.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:49:44 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:

Sure it does. But who cares? Pure glider racers get all the chicks.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Right on, Evan! Engines are not sexy. Besides, it's no fun if you don't have a good retrieve story every once in a while.

J9 (aka SM Ground)

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

Of course it does for the simple reason that there are always opportunities to improve the score by adding risk to the flight. For the purpose of my comment let's assume that we are talking about risk of not completing the task and not of extending the risk to potential accident. Many times we might consider risking the flight, but don't because of the added issue of landing out and needing a retrieve, on top of getting a poor score. For crewless pilots this can be an even bigger consideration.
If I have a way to retrieve myself, and I think it will probably will work, of course I might cross that dead area. Without the retreive capability, it is a much harder decision.
Throw in high risk weather, or bad terrain, and the potential advantage is obviously increased.
Is there a way to quantify it? Not that we've found yet.
Why let them play in our races? Easy, we're too small a sport to send people home.
The guys with engines will also argue that they have to quit higher in order to safely use the engine. Obviously not so with FES.
And we even like some of them. LOL

UH

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:52:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
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

Of course it does for the simple reason that there are always opportunities to improve the score by adding risk to the flight. For the purpose of my comment let's assume that we are talking about risk of not completing the task and not of extending the risk to potential accident. Many times we might consider risking the flight, but don't because of the added issue of landing out and needing a retrieve, on top of getting a poor score. For crewless pilots this can be an even bigger consideration.
If I have a way to retrieve myself, and I think it will probably will work, of course I might cross that dead area. Without the retreive capability, it is a much harder decision.
Throw in high risk weather, or bad terrain, and the potential advantage is obviously increased.
Is there a way to quantify it? Not that we've found yet.
Why let them play in our races? Easy, we're too small a sport to send people home.
The guys with engines will also argue that they have to quit higher in order to safely use the engine. Obviously not so with FES.
And we even like some of them. LOL

UH

Yes, and few years later pure glider pilots will be considered kamikaze.
We have to change this before our grandchildren can ask us about it !

If I had a self launcher, I could live somewhere other than near a
glider port.

Dan Marotta

On 10/27/2014 10:05 PM, RW wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:52:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
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
Of course it does for the simple reason that there are always opportunities to improve the score by adding risk to the flight. For the purpose of my comment let's assume that we are talking about risk of not completing the task and not of extending the risk to potential accident. Many times we might consider risking the flight, but don't because of the added issue of landing out and needing a retrieve, on top of getting a poor score. For crewless pilots this can be an even bigger consideration.
If I have a way to retrieve myself, and I think it will probably will work, of course I might cross that dead area. Without the retreive capability, it is a much harder decision.
Throw in high risk weather, or bad terrain, and the potential advantage is obviously increased.
Is there a way to quantify it? Not that we've found yet.
Why let them play in our races? Easy, we're too small a sport to send people home.
The guys with engines will also argue that they have to quit higher in order to safely use the engine. Obviously not so with FES.
And we even like some of them. LOL

UH
Yes, and few years later pure glider pilots will be considered kamikaze.
We have to change this before our grandchildren can ask us about it !

Hahaaaa!
I'm not ready for winter either.
Jim


On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:15:42 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
If I had a self launcher, I could live
somewhere other than near a glider port.

Dan Marotta

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:27:03 PM UTC-6, 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 the others have said, "OF Course it does!". Especially since you made the assumption of 100% reliability and no drag penalty. It probably does even with some drag penalty, and the existing weight penalty. But, as Hank says, you really can't put a number on confidence, and we want all the participation we can get. So, get your FES and come play!

Steve

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:04:32 PM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:27:03 PM UTC-6, 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 the others have said, "OF Course it does!". Especially since you made the assumption of 100% reliability and no drag penalty. It probably does even with some drag penalty, and the existing weight penalty. But, as Hank says, you really can't put a number on confidence, and we want all the participation we can get. So, get your FES and come play!



Steve

Yup - what Steve and Hank said.

My personal view is that risk mitigation from a reliable power source offers more advantage than any difference in performance and improved tactical decision making from having two capable pilots in the glider can trump a fair amount of both of the two above factors. It's very hard, if not impossible to quantify the benefits of carrying a motor or an additional soaring tactician/spotter/relief pilot - so we don't try to adjust for these things for now.

9B

I will also point out that there are practical limits to how much of a benefit the sustainer can be for "stretching your glide":

Below a certain altitude, you are unlikely to catch an organized thermal AT ALL. Those super-low-altitude saves happen, but are rare and hard to pull off (and thermalling within a few hundred feet of the ground isn't just about risking a landout; you're also risking a stall/spin death - FES or not).

Above that altitude, you may find lift but you're going to be below the optimum working band so again most of the time when you stretch a glide down into this range the gamble is not going to pay off. Consistently gambling down in this range may help you win one day in a contest; but at the cost of a lower _average_ finish (for all the days that you wind up having to slowly grind your way up from this below-nominal altitude).

--Noel