Shortest distance flown by wood?? :D

Part of the reason for having a 5 hour requirement
is to experience changing weather conditions and prove
the ability to find enough thermals in such conditions
to be able to stay up that long. This means strong,
tight thermals early in the day, and weaker, wider,
lazy thermals in the afternoon -- usually. I think
it is a good requirement. I once got 4:56 and it
was another two years before I crossed the 5hr time
line -- with a flight of 6:49 in a TG-3A. I found
it to be an extremely rewarding challenge. Some of
the intervening flights also exceeded 4:00.

It is good practice for distance flights; there is
a psychological/physical barrier around 2:30 - 3:30,
and learning to get past that makes distance flights
easier. One might argue that doing the distance also
covers the time, but practicing the duration until
one can handle that is less troublesome because it
saves retrieve problems. I wouldn't want to eliminate
the task.

At 00:30 30 April 2007, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Shawn wrote:

In addition, I think the badge altitude requirements
are
unrelated to XC ability, especially given the sophistication
of modern
varios. A pilot who can stay aloft for more than
an hour is familiar
with cloud base. Altitude gain becomes entirely dependent
on weather
conditions. A XC pilot who can fly 500K, never getting
1200m off the
ground (or 100m off the ridge) shouldn't have to travel
to where the
weather enables a 3000m climb to earn his or her Gold.
The point of the
badges (as I understand it) is to encourage cross
country flight, not
vacation planning ;-)

My understanding is the badges were set up not just
to encourage
cross-country soaring, but to encourage pilots to extend
themselves. The
altitude requirement does that, though some pilots
might have to travel
to do it, just as some might have to travel to do a
500K.

When the 3000m and 5000m requirements were first set,
it was never
intended that they be done exclusively in thermals,
but also in cloud
climbs and (later on, I think - not sure) in wave.
While US pilots can't
easily do cloud climbs, wave is a good option. I believe
that most US
pilots are no more than a day's drive from a gliderport
near wave, and
the remainder are no more than two days drive. A couple
days drive to a
new soaring location for a week of flying doesn't seem
to onerous to me!

I do think the badges could be adjusted to encourage
more pilots extend
themselves in their flying, but I don't haven't thought
about it much,
except to wonder if it should/could be integrated with
the OLC. Reducing
the paperwork would encourage more participation.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
* 'Transponders in Sailplanes' http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* 'A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation' at
www.motorglider.org

I think every one should have to so the Silver Badge in one flight,
and twice, like I did.

Barograph incorrectly wound on day #1, correctly wound on Day #2!

I also think Dennis Wright had it right when he "Chose" to do it in a
1-26 rather than one of the glass ships available to him. It's like
the Spirit of the Thing!

Seriously, I think a 'Variable' task based on glide ratio would be a
great idea. I'm told that in the 'Old Days' a Silver C was considered
entrance to the world of Cross Country and Racing, the Gold was Master
of the Art, and Diamonds and Lennies were for Lengendary Status.

I throughly intend to fly my 1-26 for all my badges, and at least 1 or
2 Diamonds, then my Hanger Queen Libelle 301 can be flown!

Jay Walker

Hi Ray,

On 29 Apr 2007 16:49:34 GMT, Ray Lovinggood
wrote:

Back in previous century, in the mid 1980's, I belonged
to the 'DJK Segelfluggemienschaft' in Landau, Germany.
Their fleet consisted of:

Scheibe SF-25 (the side-by-side two seater, not the
tandem seater. I'm not sure of the model numbers.)
SF-25B

Ahh... those were the times...

And the towplane was a Robin model ?? Wooden, four
seater, tricycle gear, Lycoming 180 h.p. engine.

It was - and still is - a DR-300 Remorquer.


The club required those seeking the Silver Distance
to fly wood. In this case, the Ka-8 was the ship to
be used. I think the club thought making the flight
in something like the Standard Astir or ASW-15 would
make it too easy.

I wonder if they still do that?

Yup - we still do that.
Flying 50 km XC with a DG-300 is simply too easy.

There are (few) exceptions though.
The 50 km XC flight is necessary to get the German glider license, and
since a couple of years a 50 km XC flight can be flown as a triangle
(documented with GPS logger).

So occasionally, if some student pilot is running out of time (fall
coming closer), he is allowed to take the DG-300 and do his XC flight
Landau - Neustadt - Speyer - Landau. This happens about once per three
years.



Bye
Andreas

Nyal Williams wrote:
Part of the reason for having a 5 hour requirement
is to experience changing weather conditions and prove
the ability to find enough thermals in such conditions
to be able to stay up that long. This means strong,
tight thermals early in the day, and weaker, wider,
lazy thermals in the afternoon -- usually. I think
it is a good requirement. I once got 4:56 and it
was another two years before I crossed the 5hr time
line -- with a flight of 6:49 in a TG-3A. I found
it to be an extremely rewarding challenge. Some of
the intervening flights also exceeded 4:00.

It is good practice for distance flights; there is
a psychological/physical barrier around 2:30 - 3:30,
and learning to get past that makes distance flights
easier. One might argue that doing the distance also
covers the time, but practicing the duration until
one can handle that is less troublesome because it
saves retrieve problems. I wouldn't want to eliminate
the task.


I've always thought the Silver C is a decent practical demonstration
that a pilot is ready for XC.

- the height gain shows the capability to find, center and ride a decent
thermal

- 5 hour duration, as other have pointed out, demonstrates ability to
deal with varying weather conditions as well as determination and the
ability to manage fluid intake and elimination

- distance is far enough to demonstrate basic navigation skills and to
overcome the big gulp the first time you fly out of gliding range of
your home field.

I did my Silver in an SZD Junior (nominally 35:1 but know as a slow
glider with fairly poor penetration).


I think the Silver is generally fine as it stands, but:

- the requirement that it should be flown as a solo effort needs
rigorous enforcing. Doing it as lead and follow (as described on here a
few years ago) should get the big DQ with no quibbling.

- the idea of adjusting the distance to suit the glider's handicap is a
good one. I too would regard doing it in, sat a Discus 1 or Pegase as
cheating.

- remove the free distance option, leaving either a goal flight to a
predeclared target airfield (preferably) or an out and return to a TP
that's 50 km or more away. Flying to and landing at a strange airfield
is really good experience for a beginning XC pilot.

In the UK we have a national 100km diploma which sits well with the
Silver: first you fly the Silver distance to another gliding site,
showing you can navigate to and land at an unknown airfield. Then on a
suitable day you fly a short task, showing that you can deal with
start/finish lines and heights as well as finding and rounding TPs.

On Apr 30, 5:32 am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
Nyal Williams wrote:
Part of the reason for having a 5 hour requirement
is to experience changing weather conditions and prove
the ability to find enough thermals in such conditions
to be able to stay up that long. This means strong,
tight thermals early in the day, and weaker, wider,
lazy thermals in the afternoon -- usually. I think
it is a good requirement. I once got 4:56 and it
was another two years before I crossed the 5hr time
line -- with a flight of 6:49 in a TG-3A. I found
it to be an extremely rewarding challenge. Some of
the intervening flights also exceeded 4:00.

It is good practice for distance flights; there is
a psychological/physical barrier around 2:30 - 3:30,
and learning to get past that makes distance flights
easier. One might argue that doing the distance also
covers the time, but practicing the duration until
one can handle that is less troublesome because it
saves retrieve problems. I wouldn't want to eliminate
the task.

I've always thought the Silver C is a decent practical demonstration
that a pilot is ready for XC.

- the height gain shows the capability to find, center and ride a decent
thermal

- 5 hour duration, as other have pointed out, demonstrates ability to
deal with varying weather conditions as well as determination and the
ability to manage fluid intake and elimination

- distance is far enough to demonstrate basic navigation skills and to
overcome the big gulp the first time you fly out of gliding range of
your home field.

I did my Silver in an SZD Junior (nominally 35:1 but know as a slow
glider with fairly poor penetration).

I think the Silver is generally fine as it stands, but:

- the requirement that it should be flown as a solo effort needs
rigorous enforcing. Doing it as lead and follow (as described on here a
few years ago) should get the big DQ with no quibbling.

- the idea of adjusting the distance to suit the glider's handicap is a
good one. I too would regard doing it in, sat a Discus 1 or Pegase as
cheating.

- remove the free distance option, leaving either a goal flight to a
predeclared target airfield (preferably) or an out and return to a TP
that's 50 km or more away. Flying to and landing at a strange airfield
is really good experience for a beginning XC pilot.

In the UK we have a national 100km diploma which sits well with the
Silver: first you fly the Silver distance to another gliding site,
showing you can navigate to and land at an unknown airfield. Then on a
suitable day you fly a short task, showing that you can deal with
start/finish lines and heights as well as finding and rounding TPs.

my extensive background in power before i started gliding doesnt help
me have a reference for what most pure glider pilots feelings are on
their first cross countries. to me another airport is just another
airport. I think that landing IN a strange FIELD is a really good
experience for a beginning XC pilot. out and returns are no fun with
my lousy glide ratio and horrible penetration. downwind dash, thats
where its at.

"Nyal Williams" wrote in message
...
Part of the reason for having a 5 hour requirement
is to experience changing weather conditions and prove
the ability to find enough thermals in such conditions
to be able to stay up that long. This means strong,
tight thermals early in the day, and weaker, wider,
lazy thermals in the afternoon -- usually. I think
it is a good requirement. I once got 4:56 and it
was another two years before I crossed the 5hr time
line -- with a flight of 6:49 in a TG-3A. I found
it to be an extremely rewarding challenge. Some of
the intervening flights also exceeded 4:00.

It is good practice for distance flights; there is
a psychological/physical barrier around 2:30 - 3:30,
and learning to get past that makes distance flights
easier. One might argue that doing the distance also
covers the time, but practicing the duration until
one can handle that is less troublesome because it
saves retrieve problems. I wouldn't want to eliminate
the task.

I would not eliminate the task, but would constrain it to a thermal only
flight. Five hours on the ridge isn't a challenge, IMO.

Nyal Williams wrote:
Part of the reason for having a 5 hour requirement
is to experience changing weather conditions and prove
the ability to find enough thermals in such conditions
to be able to stay up that long. This means strong,
tight thermals early in the day, and weaker, wider,
lazy thermals in the afternoon -- usually. I think
it is a good requirement. I once got 4:56 and it
was another two years before I crossed the 5hr time
line -- with a flight of 6:49 in a TG-3A. I found
it to be an extremely rewarding challenge. Some of
the intervening flights also exceeded 4:00.

It is good practice for distance flights; there is
a psychological/physical barrier around 2:30 - 3:30,
and learning to get past that makes distance flights
easier. One might argue that doing the distance also
covers the time, but practicing the duration until
one can handle that is less troublesome because it
saves retrieve problems. I wouldn't want to eliminate
the task.

I think the five hour requirement is good too. Did anyone challenge it?


Shawn

I think to be fair we must limit claims to flights that achieved a
normal launch with the intention of flying cross-country.

Our local pilot Matthew Sawhill set off in his Folka 4 a couple years
ago and landed just outside the NW edge of town. I'm sure he's got
you beat Tony though I'm uncertian of the exact mileage.

Though not flown in wood, Tony and I made an incredibly short XC in
the Lark a couple years ago (Tour of the Skunk River Valley at
http://www.knightglider.com/flightreports.htm). If I remember
correctly a hot air balloon passed us during that flight.

MM

At the risk of opening up a whole new thread...

Don't feel too bad. I have at least one contest flight in a 36:1
glass bird (my good old Grob Astir) of less than 10 miles. I think
the official distance was something like 6 miles out of Dansville,
NY. The worst part was that one of the locals came to pick us
up. As we were positioning the trailer, he pointed down the slope
toward the airport. "If you look between those two towers, you can
actually see the hangar..." Gee, thanks.

In a far better performance, I think I made it about 11 miles on the
3rd contest day of the 1997 Standard Class Nationals in Cordele.
IIRC, that wasn't even good enough for DFL, though it was pretty
close.

Erik Mann (LS8-18 P3)


On Apr 28, 9:25 pm, wrote:
Made it a whopping 16.5 nautical miles (30.5 kilometers) downwind from
the airport today. had a great landout in the perfect spot as heavy
rains last week made most of the plowed fields quagmire. put it in
some grass endrows at the crest of a hill. the field was
(surprisingly) dry, must have good drainage. we were actually able to
drive through it. Dont worry, no spring tilling or planting had been
done, no crops were injured in the production of this flight.

On Apr 30, 9:13 am, "Jim Vincent" wrote:
"Nyal Williams" wrote in message

...



Part of the reason for having a 5 hour requirement
is to experience changing weather conditions and prove
the ability to find enough thermals in such conditions
to be able to stay up that long. This means strong,
tight thermals early in the day, and weaker, wider,
lazy thermals in the afternoon -- usually. I think
it is a good requirement. I once got 4:56 and it
was another two years before I crossed the 5hr time
line -- with a flight of 6:49 in a TG-3A. I found
it to be an extremely rewarding challenge. Some of
the intervening flights also exceeded 4:00.

It is good practice for distance flights; there is
a psychological/physical barrier around 2:30 - 3:30,
and learning to get past that makes distance flights
easier. One might argue that doing the distance also
covers the time, but practicing the duration until
one can handle that is less troublesome because it
saves retrieve problems. I wouldn't want to eliminate
the task.

I would not eliminate the task, but would constrain it to a thermal only
flight. Five hours on the ridge isn't a challenge, IMO.

IMVHO, five hours on a ridge or in wave can be just as, or more
challenging than kicking around in thermals. I know one BGA
instructor that did his five hours above chimney heat from a brick
factory. For early solo pilots, one or two hours is challenging, five
hours is shattering. When more experienced and in pursuit of higher
goals, five or six hours is often not enough.

50K in the Netherlands or Alaska or Western Washington may not be
quite the cake walk some think it is. Not everyone has fast glass to
fly.

Frank Whiteley