FES - Take 2

Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider.

For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable.

Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope?

Lou

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:27:03 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:

Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope?

Sure it does. But who cares? Pure glider racers get all the chicks.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:27:03 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider. For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable. Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope? Lou

Of course it does for the simple reason that there are always opportunities to improve the score by adding risk to the flight. For the purpose of my comment let's assume that we are talking about risk of not completing the task and not of extending the risk to potential accident. Many times we might consider risking the flight, but don't because of the added issue of landing out and needing a retrieve, on top of getting a poor score. For crewless pilots this can be an even bigger consideration.
If I have a way to retrieve myself, and I think it will probably will work, of course I might cross that dead area. Without the retreive capability, it is a much harder decision.
Throw in high risk weather, or bad terrain, and the potential advantage is obviously increased.
Is there a way to quantify it? Not that we've found yet.
Why let them play in our races? Easy, we're too small a sport to send people home.
The guys with engines will also argue that they have to quit higher in order to safely use the engine. Obviously not so with FES.
And we even like some of them. LOL

UH

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:27:03 PM UTC-6, MNLou wrote:
Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider. For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable. Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope? Lou

As the others have said, "OF Course it does!". Especially since you made the assumption of 100% reliability and no drag penalty. It probably does even with some drag penalty, and the existing weight penalty. But, as Hank says, you really can't put a number on confidence, and we want all the participation we can get. So, get your FES and come play!

Steve

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:04:32 PM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:27:03 PM UTC-6, MNLou wrote:

Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider. For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable. Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope? Lou



As the others have said, "OF Course it does!". Especially since you made the assumption of 100% reliability and no drag penalty. It probably does even with some drag penalty, and the existing weight penalty. But, as Hank says, you really can't put a number on confidence, and we want all the participation we can get. So, get your FES and come play!



Steve

Yup - what Steve and Hank said.

My personal view is that risk mitigation from a reliable power source offers more advantage than any difference in performance and improved tactical decision making from having two capable pilots in the glider can trump a fair amount of both of the two above factors. It's very hard, if not impossible to quantify the benefits of carrying a motor or an additional soaring tactician/spotter/relief pilot - so we don't try to adjust for these things for now.

9B

I will also point out that there are practical limits to how much of a benefit the sustainer can be for "stretching your glide":

Below a certain altitude, you are unlikely to catch an organized thermal AT ALL. Those super-low-altitude saves happen, but are rare and hard to pull off (and thermalling within a few hundred feet of the ground isn't just about risking a landout; you're also risking a stall/spin death - FES or not).

Above that altitude, you may find lift but you're going to be below the optimum working band so again most of the time when you stretch a glide down into this range the gamble is not going to pay off. Consistently gambling down in this range may help you win one day in a contest; but at the cost of a lower _average_ finish (for all the days that you wind up having to slowly grind your way up from this below-nominal altitude).

--Noel

On 02/13/2014 8:04 PM, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:27:03 PM UTC-6, MNLou wrote:
Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider. For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable. Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope? Lou

As the others have said, "OF Course it does!". Especially since you made the assumption of 100% reliability and no drag penalty. It probably does even with some drag penalty, and the existing weight penalty. But, as Hank says, you really can't put a number on confidence, and we want all the participation we can get. So, get your FES and come play!

Steve

All of the above plus the big advantage that hasn't been mentioned yet;
the mass landout scenario. Guys without motors are stuck in a field and
get home late, pilots with motors get home have a nice dinner and are
well rested for flying the next day...

Luke

I should stay out of this, but you know what they say,"too soon old, too late smart". Anyway, let's play one of One Tango's scenarios. Your at a nationals and flying a one turn MAT. About the time you log the mandatory turn-point, you see a Cu pop about 50 miles out in the boonies. You could probably milk enough altitude to give it a try, but if you try and don't connect...............you will be down in a rough area that doesn't even have roads. Should you go for it? Nope, the risk/reward ratio is too lopsided toward the risk side.

OK, lets put ourselves in a motor glider. How does the risk/reward ratio look now? If I connect with that tempting Cu, you could win the day. If you miss the Cu, you will crank up your trusty put-put and get distance to where I started up and still be home for a cool shower and a hot meal..........I believe you will give it a go!

I didn't dream up this scenario , it is exactly what happened at a Sports Nationals at Parowan a few years back and yes, the motor glider did win the day!

The RC thinking on this is: We know is isn't fair, but we don't have enough gliders showing up at our contests to restrict the motor glider in any way..

Question: How many don't attend a contest because they know a certain good pilot (who flies a motor glider) will be there?

I there a way to allow motor gliders to fly with pure gliders and make things a little more equal? Yes, change the rules to state: If a motor glider starts his motor, he will be landed at his last recorded turn-point before the point where he cranked up.

OK, flash back to the decision point in our little scenario. If the motor glider
tries for the Cu, he could win the day, but if it doesn't work he will loose the 50 miles he flew trying to get to the Cu. I submit the risk/reward ratio is pretty much the same for both pilots and I'd bet the motor glider pilot would have not pressed his advantage that day.
Cheers,
JJ

Excellent suggestion JJ! I hope that idea finds its way into the rules soon.

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 2:51:32 PM UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:
Excellent suggestion JJ! I hope that idea finds its way into the rules soon.

JJ, your proposal might be a little over the top. Imagine a speed task with two turnpoints and a long final leg. The motorized sailplane is now doubly incentivized to finish. If he lands 5 mi short (or starts his engine) he only gets distance points to the second turnpoint, a significant reduction from the distance he has accomplished. On top of that comes the discussed-at-length final glide pressure.
I would prefer a handicap-driven correction factor for motorized sailplanes.. OLC flights worldwide are now dominated by motorized gliders for the very reasons we discussed. Earlier starts and longer flights at the day's end as well as other tactical considerations greatly advantage the motorized guy.
Herb