Motorgliders and gliders in US contests

"M B" wrote in message
...
.............. But is it OK for a motorglider pilot
to remove the engine and fly the whole contest without
it installed? Has anyone ever done this, or are there
weight and balance issues, as well as airworthiness
problems? ..............
How much of a hassle is it to remove or reinstall
an engine? Has anyone out there removed an engine
from a motorglider and then flown it?

Most motorgliders are certified with the engine installed. Flying without
the engine would be outside of certification.
15 - 20 years ago when I was writing the rules and there was much discussion
as to whether motorgliders should be allowed to enter FAI class contests,
Weibel told me that he was designing a motorglider (the ASH-26) that would
be certified both with and without the engine. He also said that
removal/installation of the engine would be simple (his words). This was
contemplated to end the problem. Since it has been in production I have not
heard of anyone doing engine removal for contest entry. Also other
manufactures did not seem to follow his idea of dual certification. Contest
rules have been slowly liberalized to permit entry by motorgliders. Now
removal of the engine is no longer needed, but could be done for only one
motorglider that I know of..

Duane

Sure its OK, if the manual permits it. I removed my motor for the
nationals in Uvalde, but I left it in (disabled) for Tonopah. It takes
"a couple hours" according to the factory; more like 5 by my
counting. The turbos are less time/hassle, but less weight so
why bother. As usual, the USA trails the world comps rules
in handling of motors...

Best Regards, Dave

"M B" wrote in message
...
It seems clear that the glider must have the same major
components throughout the contest as during the first
contest flight. But is it OK for a motorglider pilot
to remove the engine and fly the whole contest without
it installed? Has anyone ever done this, or are there
weight and balance issues, as well as airworthiness
problems? If not, it seems like it might be great
to own a motorglider, and if the contest looked like
it would be flown in light conditions, just remove
the engine for that contest. Or just for regular flying
too. How much of a hassle is it to remove or reinstall
an engine? Has anyone out there removed an engine
from a motorglider and then flown it?

I don't need to look at your traces, Eric. I saw it and NK saw it also. Now
lets discuss this self-launch a bit further. For years the US rules allowed
self-launching of motorgliders. In about year 2000 the rules were changed to;
ALL LAUNCHES
WILL BE BY AERO-TOW ONLY. Wonder why that change was made? Could it be because
of motorglider abuse of the self-launch privilege? That rule change didn't have
any affect on your Regionals though, you just kept right on allowing your
motorgliders to self-launch. Your not obeying this rule has produced guys like
Tom Siem, who thinks JJ is the guy that wouldn't allow him to self-launch.

You didn't discuss your leaving an airport without enough altitude to make it
home, at 5:00 PM on a day that had been completely overcast for hours. Your
glide was mostly over unlandable terrain, you cranked up the motor, a few miles
out and saved an off-field landing. We havent discussed the REAL inequity on
days like that. Suppose you did hit a bump and were able to climb 500 feet? You
would have been able to make it home and your success would have been a direct
result of your back-up (the put-put). This inequity will ALWAYS be there as
long as motorgliders are allowed to compete with pure sailplanes.

You didn't deny using the IN-FLIGHT RELIGHT, Ever do one of those?
JJ Sinclair

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:13:30 +0000, JJ Sinclair wrote:

I have given several examples where motorgliders have enjoyed a distinct
advantage in cotests. Self-launch so they can motor around until finding
a thermal, airborn-relight while pure sailplaned must land, attemting a
final glide without sufficient altitude. Oh, but JJ's just WHINING
again. JJ Sinclair

Of course motor gliders have many advantages (and some disadvantages) when
compared to pure gliders. A good illustration of this is Klaus Ohlmann's
3000km flight in the Andes. I suspect it would have taken him many more
seasons to reach this goal if all of his knowledge and experience had to
be gained flying a pure glider. This may explain why most new gliders
leaving the factory today, have a motor installed.

Perhaps the way to make to make the sport more 'fair' is to revise the
definitions of the various FAI classes. We already have Standard, 15m and
18m classes which are not separated by major technical features,
performance ability or price. Many gliders can compete competitively in
more than one class (given appropriate weather and/or a different set of
wing tips).


How about using the classes to separate the engine issues? For example:

Standard class, no engine permitted.

15m class. Sustainers permitted, but no self launchers.

18m. Self launchers permitted (encouraged?).

Open class, no limitations (well it is open class).

The guys with sustainers in their standard class ships could disable (or
remove) them, or fly 15m class. Same goes for 15m ships with self
launchers.

Open class pilots have always been faced with the prospect of somebody
with more money arriving at the flight line with a significantly better
performing glider. You may be safe for a couple of years if you fly an
Eta. (Sorry JJ, this won't help make your Nimbus III competitive - but I
am sure that you will continue to enjoy flying it safely!)

None of these changes would "obsolete" an existing competitive glider but
it would definitely help distinguish between the the classes in terms of
cost and performance.


Ian

PS: At the same time maybe vertical winglets and (dump-able) tail ballast
tanks should be banned from standard class. They add to the cost and
complexity with just a small increase in performance - which was never
really the intention of 'standard' class.

In article ,
says...
I don't need to look at your traces, Eric. I saw it and NK saw it also.

If this was just a email spat between us, I'd let it go. You do need
to see my traces, because you posted your claim for the world to see,
and you are wrong. I'm sending you my flight files for 2002; if that
isn't the right contest, tell me the year. Anyone else that's
interested can get them at

http://webpages.charter.net/engreenwell/index.html

Now
lets discuss this self-launch a bit further. For years the US rules allowed
self-launching of motorgliders. In about year 2000 the rules were changed to;
ALL LAUNCHES
WILL BE BY AERO-TOW ONLY. Wonder why that change was made? Could it be because
of motorglider abuse of the self-launch privilege? That rule change didn't have
any affect on your Regionals though, you just kept right on allowing your
motorgliders to self-launch.

I don't know what the reasoning was behind the rules change, but
Ephrata did get a waiver to allow self-launching after the change,
Getting a waiver is "following the rules", and we aren't the only
contest to get waivers for various reasons. At some point they got
sloppy, and stopped requesting the waiver. Shame on them.


You didn't discuss your leaving an airport without enough altitude to make it
home, at 5:00 PM on a day that had been completely overcast for hours. Your
glide was mostly over unlandable terrain,

This is completely wrong. The Coulee City to Ephrata route is
sprinkled with mile square farmed fields, either fallow (soft dirt) or
cut (short stubble). Any glider, even a 1-26 instead of an ASH 26,
leaving Coulee city with the altitude I had could stay within easy
reach of a safe field. Since you doubt this, please ask an experienced
Ephrata pilot that you trust about it.

you cranked up the motor, a few miles
out and saved an off-field landing. We havent discussed the REAL inequity on
days like that. Suppose you did hit a bump and were able to climb 500 feet? You
would have been able to make it home and your success would have been a direct
result of your back-up (the put-put).

Wrong. An unpowered ASH 26 (no E, no engine) pilot (6.7 wing loading
instead of 8.2) would either have been able to climb high enough in
the weak thermal I found; taken the 1700' agl over the airport (10 sm
out; 30:1) and pressed on over the even better fields south of Soap
Lake, maybe making it in; or could've have landed in the long, flat,
stubble field I chose to start over. At only 10 miles from Ephrata, it
would've been a quick and easy retrieve.

This inequity will ALWAYS be there as
long as motorgliders are allowed to compete with pure sailplanes.

My previous posts have detailed the tradeoffs already, so I will
simply point out, in a situation like this, the motor offers a
CONVENIENCE (no retrieve), not a SCORING advantage (better
thermalling).

Frankly, JJ, the biggest inequity in the contest was self-imposed: you
were flying a large, heavy ASH 25, which is difficult to retrieve, and
you were flying with a co-pilot that was handicapped. I admire you for
this, as you pretty much committed yourself to airport-only landings,
and gave up the flexibility that risking a field landing gives you.

You didn't deny using the IN-FLIGHT RELIGHT, Ever do one of those?
JJ Sinclair

No.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

Are you aware that an air-restart of the motorglider was out of the question
because of the extreme cold ? It was only for launch convenience. Should
give you additional appreciation for what Ohlmann has accomplished.

Best Regards, Dave


"Ian Forbes" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:13:30 +0000, JJ Sinclair wrote:

I have given several examples where motorgliders have enjoyed a distinct
advantage in cotests. Self-launch so they can motor around until finding
a thermal, airborn-relight while pure sailplaned must land, attemting a
final glide without sufficient altitude. Oh, but JJ's just WHINING
again. JJ Sinclair

Of course motor gliders have many advantages (and some disadvantages) when
compared to pure gliders. A good illustration of this is Klaus Ohlmann's
3000km flight in the Andes. I suspect it would have taken him many more
seasons to reach this goal if all of his knowledge and experience had to
be gained flying a pure glider. This may explain why most new gliders
leaving the factory today, have a motor installed.

Perhaps the way to make to make the sport more 'fair' is to revise the
definitions of the various FAI classes. We already have Standard, 15m and
18m classes which are not separated by major technical features,
performance ability or price. Many gliders can compete competitively in
more than one class (given appropriate weather and/or a different set of
wing tips).


How about using the classes to separate the engine issues? For example:

Standard class, no engine permitted.

15m class. Sustainers permitted, but no self launchers.

18m. Self launchers permitted (encouraged?).

Open class, no limitations (well it is open class).

The guys with sustainers in their standard class ships could disable (or
remove) them, or fly 15m class. Same goes for 15m ships with self
launchers.

Open class pilots have always been faced with the prospect of somebody
with more money arriving at the flight line with a significantly better
performing glider. You may be safe for a couple of years if you fly an
Eta. (Sorry JJ, this won't help make your Nimbus III competitive - but I
am sure that you will continue to enjoy flying it safely!)

None of these changes would "obsolete" an existing competitive glider but
it would definitely help distinguish between the the classes in terms of
cost and performance.


Ian

PS: At the same time maybe vertical winglets and (dump-able) tail ballast
tanks should be banned from standard class. They add to the cost and
complexity with just a small increase in performance - which was never
really the intention of 'standard' class.

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...
I don't need to look at your traces, Eric. I saw it and NK saw it also.

JJ, you've lost all touch with reality. Are you REALLY trying to argue
that your sight is to be trusted more than a sealed flight recorder? I
am very interested in hearing how you think that Eric beat the
security features. Get a grip, man, you are slipping over the edge.

Tom

Tom wroteI
am very interested in hearing how you think that Eric beat the
security features. Get a grip, man, you are slipping over the edge.

Thats just the problem Tom. Nobody checked the MG traces, because
self-launching wasn't allowed. This is the kind of trouble we can get into,
even if a waiver is granted, the CD wasn't instructed to check the traces.
Just JJ whining again,
JJ Sinclair

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...
Tom wroteI
am very interested in hearing how you think that Eric beat the
security features. Get a grip, man, you are slipping over the edge.

Thats just the problem Tom. Nobody checked the MG traces, because
self-launching wasn't allowed. This is the kind of trouble we can get into,
even if a waiver is granted, the CD wasn't instructed to check the traces.

Wrong again. All flight records of all contestants were checked by the
score keeper. One day he claimed that I used my engine because the
noise level exceeded some preset level in the scoring program. In
fact, the noise was caused by the location of the flight recorder near
the side window and was far less than normal engine noise. They were
convinced that I didn't use my engine when I pointed out I was going
120 kt and descending at 10 kt. All parts of the flight record above
this preset level show up as red and are obvious to the scorer. It is
very obvious, for instance, if a MG restarts in the air, before the
contest start, instead of landing an re-launching. There is really no
fooling the secure flight recorders. AFAIK all MG self-launches were
checked for launch altitude at Region 8. Beyond that, I would welcome
closer scrutiny of all contestant's flight records. Make ALL of the
flight records available to everyone. Furthermore, I think MGs should
be only permitted to enter contests with secure flight recorders with
noise sensors (contest directors ARE allowed to accept unsecure flight
recorders at regionals [6.7.3]).

You basically accused Eric and JN of breaking the rules and refused to
look at any evidence to the contrary. You represented NK as supporting
your accusation, which he refuted in a previous posting. You should
reconsider very carefully before making such unfounded accusations.

Tom

Eric wroteYou do need
to see my traces, because you posted your claim for the world to see,
and you are wrong.

On the day in question, 5 July, 2002, NK and I were the only ships in the
release area right after tow. There was no lift. I saw 2 long wings flashing
way up on the hill and assumed it must be 6A and JN. Eric has sent me his trace
for that day and it shows he shut down in the release area, at the release
altitude. I apologize for accusing him of motoring up to the thermal in
question. I would say in my defense, that MG pilots in that contest, have told
me they prefer to self-launch, because it allows them to search around for a
thermal, but Eric wasn't one of them.

I don't know what the reasoning was behind the rules change, but
Ephrata did get a waiver to allow self-launching after the change,
Getting a waiver is "following the rules", and we aren't the only
contest to get waivers for various reasons. At some point they got
sloppy, and stopped requesting the waiver. Shame on them.

It goes way beyond, "Shame on them", Eric. When we follow the rules and have
ALL LAUNCHES made by AERO-TOW only, the tow planes are instructed to plan their
routes, so as to be in the release area at 2000 AGL As you know, Guy Buyer's
outstanding scoring program looks at Time, Position and Altitude for Start,
Finish and all Turn Points. It does NOT look at self-launches for Position and
Altitude. Somebody, usually the CD, must check this.

Wrong. An unpowered ASH 26 (no E, no engine) pilot (6.7 wing loading
instead of 8.2) would either have been able to climb high enough in
the weak thermal I found; taken the 1700' agl over the airport (10 sm
out; 30:1) and pressed on over the even better fields south of Soap
Lake, maybe making it in;

If you don't like the performance of the ASH-26, then get another ship, but
don't use its capabilities to safely get you to a point where you use its
engine and then turn on it and blame it for not being able to dump the engine
and climb higher. You can't have it both ways, Eric.

Frankly, JJ, the biggest inequity in the contest was self-imposed: you
were flying a large, heavy ASH 25, which is difficult to retrieve, and
you were flying with a co-pilot that was handicapped. I admire you for
this, as you pretty much committed yourself to airport-only landings,
and gave up the flexibility that risking a field landing gives you

Wrong, We were flying the ASH-25 at about 8.25 pounds per square foot wing
loading. It climbs quite well, even in a 1 knot thermal. If you think I'm
limited to airfields only, you should ask Patricia about carrying it out of a
plowed field at the Avenal contest last year.
JJ Sinclair