If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
2007 US Contest Rules
Have they been published yet? All I can find are the 2006 ones. I know
there are significant changes in the scoring formulae and have seen the proposed documents. Where and when are the actual rules going to be finalized? It is almost time for the first contest. Larry Goddard "zero one" USA |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
2007 US Contest Rules
On Mar 22, 7:47 pm, "01-- Zero One" wrote:
Have they been published yet? All I can find are the 2006 ones. I know there are significant changes in the scoring formulae and have seen the proposed documents. Where and when are the actual rules going to be finalized? It is almost time for the first contest. Larry Goddard "zero one" USA Larry, you know better - The first contest is always held before the rules are published. At the seniors the handicaps were still discussed as were the rules for wingloading adjustments. I'm more confused than before I went there, but the Antares 20E gets an .820 handicap (it did last week anyway). See ya, Dave http://www.ssa.org/test/sport/PhotoG...p?PhotoId=1672 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
2007 US Contest Rules
" wrote in message
oups.com: On Mar 22, 7:47 pm, "01-- Zero One" wrote: Have they been published yet? All I can find are the 2006 ones. I know there are significant changes in the scoring formulae and have seen the proposed documents. Where and when are the actual rules going to be finalized? It is almost time for the first contest. Larry Goddard "zero one" USA Larry, you know better - The first contest is always held before the rules are published. At the seniors the handicaps were still discussed as were the rules for wingloading adjustments. I'm more confused than before I went there, but the Antares 20E gets an .820 handicap (it did last week anyway). See ya, Dave ..820!!?? If it is as good as you claim, it should be around .650 shouldn't it? :-) Larry |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
2007 US Contest Rules
And, by the way, how are the SSA rules handling sailplanes
with electric self launch capablity, since there are not any IGC flight recorders capable of detecting Antares 20E engine operation? At 01:30 23 March 2007, wrote: On Mar 22, 7:47 pm, '01-- Zero One' wrote: Have they been published yet? All I can find are the 2006 ones. I know there are significant changes in the scoring formulae and have seen the proposed documents. Where and when are the actual rules going to be finalized? It is almost time for the first contest. Larry Goddard 'zero one' USA Larry, you know better - The first contest is always held before the rules are published. At the seniors the handicaps were still discussed as were the rules for wingloading adjustments. I'm more confused than before I went there, but the Antares 20E gets an .820 handicap (it did last week anyway). See ya, Dave http://www.ssa.org/test/sport/PhotoG...p?PhotoId=1672 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
2007 US Contest Rules
On Mar 23, 5:57 am, Peter Purdie
wrote: And, by the way, how are the SSA rules handling sailplanes with electric self launch capablity, since there are not any IGC flight recorders capable of detecting Antares 20E engine operation? We did some initial tests with the Volkslogger, and it easily showed the noise level from self-launch (though its quiet enough the headset is not really needed). We didn't fool around with measurement of low power levels yet, but the prop noise is probably enough at least for the Volkslogger. The 20E is a pusher and it makes a bit of whop-whop-whop noise, I think from the prop hitting the wake of the pylon. Perhaps John Good and Rick Sheppe can comment as they did the Seniors scoring and looked at this more than I. Anyway, we'll figure something out... See ya, Dave |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
2007 US Contest Rules
...the Antares 20E gets an .820 handicap (it did last week anyway).
See ya, Dave .820!!?? If it is as good as you claim, it should be around .650 shouldn't it? Please be quiet Larry, I need all the help I can get... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
2007 US Contest Rules
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
2007 US Contest Rules
On Mar 23, 12:54Â*pm, wrote:
On Mar 23, 5:57 am, Peter Purdie wrote: And, by the way, how are the SSA rules handling sailplanes with electric self launch capablity, since there are not any IGC flight recorders capable of detecting Antares 20E engine operation? We did some initial tests with the Volkslogger, and it easily showed the noise level from self-launch (though its quiet enough the headset is not really needed). We didn't fool around with measurement of low power levels yet It is those "low power levels" that are critical in showing a clear difference (or not) between engine-on flight and gliding flight with a noisy cockpit. The latter includes thermalling with cockpit panels open. See my posting on 16 October 2006 on this subject. It is worth looking at because it gave a a lot of background including the critical cockpit noise cases. Full power is easy, it is running a quiet engine at reduced power, say, for level flight, that is the difficult case. This posting included the following: "In an Antares flight in August 2006, ENL with engine off was recorded in the IGC file from 130 to 448 when cockpit panels were open and some sideslip was present. In comparison, in a run with level-flight engine power and a well-sealed cockpit, recorded ENL was from 019 to 120 and about 50 feet was gained. In another August Antares flight, climb with engine at about a 200 ft/minute gave ENL between 155 and 398 with an average of about 280. In this flight, ENL at full power was recorded between 294 and 769 with an average of about 450. " IGC has been in correspondence with Lange Flugzeugbau for some time in order to resolve this problem for flights that are to be validated to IGC standards of evidence. That is, FAI badge and diploma flights, world records and competition flights that use the criteria of Annex A to the Sporting Code. And any other flights that are a National responsibility (BGA, SSA etc) and that use IGC standards of evidence, such as some national or regional competitions, national records etc. In these cases the National body does not have to stick to the IGC rules and procedures, but frequently does. Also, at the IGC Plenary meeting earlier this month, a paper was passed on engine recording of motor gliders. This paper was Appendix 2 to the GFAC report to IGC and has been available on the IGC web pages since January as part of the Plenary agenda. Lange Flugzeugbau was sent a copy in December 2006. Here is an extract: "4. Low noise Motor Gliders. Where the engine system produces low ENL values that are difficult to differentiate between power-on and power-off flight, an additional system shall be provided in the motor glider concerned that produces a signal that can be used in the IGC file as an indication of forward thrust generated by the engine system (the RPM three-letter code in the Technical Specification). This will be subject to GFAC evaluation and decision on the type of motor glider concerned." As you might anticipate, correspondence on this is going on right now between IGC and Lange Flugzeugbau and the results will be announced in due course. The issue is not just for the electric versions of the Antares, it applies to any "quiet" motor glider and there is at least one other type of electric MG flying today, understood to be in prototype form at the moment. To comfort existing owners of motor gliders, there is no problem with the cockpit noise signatures of MGs powered by internal combustion engines whether they be four-stroke, two-stroke or Wankel (rotary). Ian Strachan Chairman IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
2007 US Contest Rules
On Mar 25, 6:16 am, "Ian Strachan" wrote:
...there is no problem with the cockpit noise signatures of MGs powered by internal combustion engines whether they be four-stroke, two-stroke or Wankel (rotary). That is, other than hearing-loss ;-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
2007 US Contest Rules
On Mar 25, 12:33 pm, wrote:
On Mar 25, 6:16 am, "Ian Strachan" wrote: ...there is no problem with the cockpit noise signatures of MGs powered by internal combustion engines whether they be four-stroke, two-stroke or Wankel (rotary). That is, other than hearing-loss ;-) True. Myself, I (almost) always wear a headset when running a Motor Glider engine in the air. In the UK Air Force there was a syndrome called "Shackleton Ear" which was permanent deafness on certain frequencies. The Shack had four Griffon piston engines (a sort of "double Merlin") and flew maritime patrol sorties many hours long. People who got "the ear" were generally those who took off their headsets for long periods of time. Ian Strachan Lasham Gliding Centre, UK |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BGA Comp rules 2007 | Dan G | Soaring | 3 | February 14th 07 10:52 PM |
2007 USA contest rules review....# 711 reporting | [email protected] | Soaring | 5 | December 26th 06 10:38 PM |
SSA 2005 Contest Rules Posted | Ken Kochanski (KK) | Soaring | 2 | March 26th 05 06:12 PM |
Contest rules for 04 | Duane Eisenbeiss | Soaring | 5 | February 3rd 04 02:11 PM |
US Contest Rules Committee Election | Ken Sorenson | Soaring | 4 | August 9th 03 07:06 PM |