A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old April 13th 21, 08:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 11:49 AM:

On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 10:45:17 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:

Probably the motorgliders had a better day THAT day. But what if one
had crashed in the mountains (possibly fatally) because his engine
wouldn't start?

The engine is a double edged sword. Use it well and it will be a great
benefit to your soaring experience. Rely on it too heavily and it will
rise up and bite thine ass.

Dan
5J
On 4/12/21 7:39 PM, Wallace Berry wrote:

Just a sort of relevant anecdote: Was flying a contest at Uvalde where the task area has both flat land and mountains. One day a MAT task was called. It was almost totally blue over the flat ground but cu's were popping in the mountains. The motorgliders pretty much all went into the mountains to fly their extra turns. The non-motors stayed in the flats. Guess who had the better day.


Yes, I fully understand the risks depending on the MOP. Has happened to a number of people I know with varying consequences from complete destruction of the glider with severe personal injury, to last-minute-last-ditch ground loop landings in brushy pea patches, to normal off-field landings. My point is: In that competition situation, it was less risky for the motorgliders to go up into the hills than it was for the pure gliders. So much so that the pure gliders just didn't go there. The motorgliders gained a distinct competitive advantage. I am not a particularly serious race guy, so doesn't bother me much. I do get a bit tired of the "motorgliders have no competitive advantage in racing" refrain. Would I penalize motorgliders or banish them back to a motorglider class? Heavens, no. We are having enough problems getting contests to fill up as it is. Besides, the technological race going on between IC, electric, and jet MOP is interesting. Before I understood some of the tech problems, I even made serious inquiries into having my glider modified with electric propulsion.


" My point is: In that competition situation, it was less risky for the motorgliders to go up
into the hills than it was for the pure gliders."

That's an unusual situation to me, so I'd like to learn more about it. Can you tell me what
contest and what day that was? And specifically, what made it "less risky" for the powered
gliders: less safety risk, less scoring risk, less risk of a long retrieve, or something else?

--
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
  #32  
Old April 14th 21, 12:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BobWa43
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 12:00:02 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
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.

At Dan: Landing at Zorro Ranch no big deal.
  #33  
Old April 14th 21, 12:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

With Cu's over the higher ground I would expect those pilots to do better. There are no mountains in the Uvalde flight area, hills.
On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 6:39:17 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 4:59:35 PM UTC-5, waremark wrote:
"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."
All that is true, and I think in a competition the motorglider therefore has a net disadvantage, and more so for a self-launcher with its higher minimum wing loading. On the other hand, for what I might call the relaxed leisure pilot, motorglider pilots at my club tend to attempt flights further away from home or in more dubious conditions than pilots of pure gliders - because for a relaxed leisure flight pilots are less keen to risk a landout far from home. I accept that there must be pilots with enthusiastic crews who are more bold, but I don't know them!

Most of the pilots at my club who now fly motorgliders were being rude about motorglider pilots 20 years ago. But virtually everyone who has bought a new glider in the last 10 years has bought it with an engine, whether internal combustion, jet or electric.

Both in my club and on the UK BGA Ladder there is a trophy for the best result in a 'non MOP' glider.

Just a sort of relevant anecdote: Was flying a contest at Uvalde where the task area has both flat land and mountains. One day a MAT task was called.. It was almost totally blue over the flat ground but cu's were popping in the mountains. The motorgliders pretty much all went into the mountains to fly their extra turns. The non-motors stayed in the flats. Guess who had the better day.

  #34  
Old April 14th 21, 02:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Wallace Berry[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

OK, yes. The "Hill Country". Beautiful place. For the purposes of this conversation, does it matter whether it's technically a mountain or a hill if landing out there means you crash and probably die?

The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?

This was at the Sports Nats at Uvalde a few years ago. Maybe not every motorglider went up in the hills that day, but I seem to remember that most did.. There may have been a pure glider or two that chanced the hills.

The point is: Tasking and terrain can significantly favor motorgliders. Not sure there's a situation where tasking and terrain ever favors the pure glider. Only on weak lift days do pure gliders have any potential advantage. Again, it doesn't matter very much to me from a competition standpoint. I just wish the motorglider guys would quit saying they have no competitive advantages.
  #35  
Old April 14th 21, 04:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
5Z
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 405
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 6:54:16 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
...
I'm having trouble understanding your concerns, because these issues haven been worked on (at
least in the US) for at least the 25 years I've owned a motorglider, and the current rules
reflect the consensus of pilots flying competitions, whether it's Regionals, Nationals, or even
SSA records. The OLC doesn't have separate classes, either. There doesn't seem to be any need
to "resist the idea of a separate competition group", because I'm not aware of any formal (or
informal, either) attempts to change the competition classes into motor/non-motor.


Actually, the OLC has created a rule to "penalize" motorglider pilots in the speed league. One must begin a soaring flight within 15 km of the takeoff airport.

At California City we would often tow to the hills about 20 km away, so had to remember to come back within 15km after getting some altitude in order to score. Folks at Williams, CA, tow much farther, so don't get to compete in the sped league.

5Z
  #36  
Old April 14th 21, 04:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
5Z
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 405
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 11:50:01 AM UTC-7, wrote:
My point is: In that competition situation, it was less risky for the motorgliders to go up into the hills than
it was for the pure gliders. So much so that the pure gliders just didn't go there. The motorgliders gained
a distinct competitive advantage. I am not a particularly serious race guy, so doesn't bother me much.
I do get a bit tired of the "motorgliders have no competitive advantage in racing" refrain.


You must have never flown against anyone such as some of the top 10 US racing pilots I flew with back in the 1980's - 1990's. Many would fly their ASW-20, Ventus, etc. deep into tiger country with no hope of a safe landing if no lift was found. On many occasions, I would choose that time to find a different route.

Once at Minden, I was an early starter and got as far south as some high terrain, but couldn't get high enough to clear it safely. After hanging out on a ridge for close to an hour, "the mob" showed up, all a few hundred feet below me. Off they went into the high ground. I followed because I now felt that they would either mark lift, or at least one would land somewhere without breaking their ship, marking a spot for me :-) Several landed in some tiny meadows and amazingly without damage. I completed the task!

5Z
  #37  
Old April 14th 21, 05:08 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?


What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?

Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.

If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.

Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
are/aren't they flying a motorglider.

--
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
  #38  
Old April 14th 21, 01:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?

What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?

Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.

If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.

Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
--

Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.


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

  #39  
Old April 14th 21, 02:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?

What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?

Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.

If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.

Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
--

Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.


But, you are not making progress. :^)

No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
advantage for contest flying.

What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?


--
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
  #40  
Old April 14th 21, 04:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Airport Bum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

Take a look back at the original post that started this whole mess of a string (two actually).... It regarded “testosterone levels” in “purists” vs motorized glider pilots. Zero useful or meaningful information or questions there. Obvious trolling....

I’m with Guy, time to wrap up this (and the other) post. And time to stop responding to and start ignoring trolling expeditions in general.

Signed,
Jim J6
A motorglider pilot who flys his ‘26 like a glider and considers every engine start a “pleasant surprise”



On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 8:29:42 AM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
wrote on 4/14/2021 5:17 AM:
On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Wallace Berry wrote on 4/13/2021 6:32 PM:
The risk was the high chance of injury or death if the lift did not pan out . The pure gliders had no "Plan B" if they went into the hills and did not find lift. The motorgliders had a "Plan B". Yes, Plan B had risk, but less risk of landing out than the pure gliders. Isn't that a big part of the attraction of motorgliders?
What contest was this, and when? Why are you certain the motorglider pilots were actually
risking a potentially fatal crash if their motor didn't start? Or, could it have been just a
very lengthy retrieve that they avoided if the motor did start?

Crashing if the motor does not start is not part any "plan" of the motorglider pilots I know.
Once again, the attraction of self-launching motorgliders is launching when and where the pilot
chooses, and the greater certainty of getting home if the weather is misjudged.

If the motorglider offers a real competitive advantage, the top ten pilots in National contests
should be flying almost entirely motorgliders. I'm not aware of any study showing that, but
it'd be an interesting one to do, and shouldn't take much time or effort.

Another interesting exercise would be to ask each of the top ten pilots in several contests why
are/aren't they flying a motorglider.
--

Eric, you are making progress, yes, the sustainer and the self start both compensate for misjudgment, I would consider that a pretty big advantage over a purist. The purist cannot compensate for that type of mistake, we must deal with the situation at hand and at times suffer the consequences. The purist flies with a different mindset, reality sets in real quick and making decisions on should or should not has a different price to pay.

But, you are not making progress. :^)

No one disputes the convenience of having a motor to avoid landing out - that's the #2 reason
for getting a motorglider, as the motorglider pilots here (including me) have repeatedly
pointed out. What I was discussing above is the claim that it is a "huge" or "pretty big"
advantage for contest flying.

What I'm trying to understand is your reasons for making an issue of the motor, when you don't
fly contests (AFAIK). The US contest rules don't distinguish between them, the SSA doesn't have
separate record classes for them, so why do you manufacture division, when most of us don't
care, and are just happy to see someone show up at the airport and fly with us? Are you
trolling, lonely, uninformed, or ?


--
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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Martin JRM Mars Flying Boat pics [18/21] - Martin-JRM-3-Mars-Bu_No__-76822-Marshall-Mars.jpg (1/1) Miloch Aviation Photos 0 July 7th 16 03:56 PM
Martin JRM Mars Flying Boat pics [17/21] - Martin-JRM-3-Bu_-No_-76822-Marshall-Mars-burning-off-Diamond-Head-5-April-1950_jpg.jpg (1/1) Miloch Aviation Photos 0 July 7th 16 03:56 PM
Martin JRM Mars Flying Boat pics [11/21] - Mars-2-wiki.jpg (1/1) Miloch Aviation Photos 0 July 7th 16 03:56 PM
Hornet for the Purists Glenn[_2_] Aviation Photos 4 September 25th 07 04:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.