Motorgliders (long)

In article ,
says...
As for the motor allowing me to get home every day and be rested, a
good crew whith a motorhome will also provide that. Should we force
all retrieves to be by car to prevent this advantage some of us may
have?

It doesn't even take a motorhome. An SUV, station wagon, van, or mini-
van will provide plenty of room for the pilot to stretch out and sleep
while the crew drives back. Some people can sleep well in a mostly
reclined passenger seat in a regular sedan.

In the olden days, the serious pilots would have their crew out on
course well before they landed, even if they thought they might get
back, just to keep the retrieve as short as possible. I don't know if
anyone does that anymore.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

in article , Tom Serkowski at
wrote on 2003/09/24 17:54:

As for the motor allowing me to get home every day and be rested, a
good crew whith a motorhome will also provide that. Should we force
all retrieves to be by car to prevent this advantage...?

It's not a motor home competition, it's a _glider_ competition. So glide
already. What a bunch of whiners you MG people seem to be.

Sure, having a motor is a great training tool. But once you've learned
enough that you think you are competitive as a _glider_, not a powered ship,
then enter competitions for _gliders_ and leave the training wheels at home.



Jack

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'm beginning to wonder if there shouldn't be some sort of contest
penalty for people who repair their own gliders.

Consider for a moment a long final glide over sagebrush terrain. Two
competitors are at the same position and zero-margin height. One can
repair his glider overnight if he lands in the sage. The other can't.
Which one will be more likely to attempt the marginal final glide?

Maybe we ought to level the playing field by landing the guy with the
repair station certificate back at the last turnpoint unless he
finishes at 500 feet...



Bob "juuuuust kidding!" K.

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

No Bob, you're definitely on to something here. Let's also dock the best
bull$hit artists 100 points per day because even with poor results, they'll
still have better stories than the rest of us.


"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
om...
I'm beginning to wonder if there shouldn't be some sort of contest
penalty for people who repair their own gliders.

Consider for a moment a long final glide over sagebrush terrain. Two
competitors are at the same position and zero-margin height. One can
repair his glider overnight if he lands in the sage. The other can't.
Which one will be more likely to attempt the marginal final glide?

Maybe we ought to level the playing field by landing the guy with the
repair station certificate back at the last turnpoint unless he
finishes at 500 feet...



Bob "juuuuust kidding!" K.

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

Hey, Tom. I wasn't talking about you. I have no doubt that you could have
done your 1000K with a pure sailplane. You did your homework and deserve
the bragging rights. I was speaking of others who just keep relying on the
engine to save the day when it goes bad until they get lucky and bag a big
flight.

There are also sailplane pilots who venture over dangerous terrain and get
lucky enough to get away with it - for awhile.

However, there are others who make their own luck with skill and knowledge
and have flown astonishing flights for many decades with incident. These
people have done their homework, understand the risks and how to manage
them. Most of them kept notebooks with drawings and notes about safe
landing sites in difficult areas. they spent a lot of time driving remote
area to get this information. As I said, it takes work and perseverance to
make the big flights without a motor. I respect that.

Bill Daniels


"Tom Serkowski" wrote in message
m...
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