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
  #171  
Old May 5th 21, 07:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these?
https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/access...type/underwear
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.

You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.

As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better.. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.

Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.

You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.

As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
#1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home.. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.

#2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).

#3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.

Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.

Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
He's just emulating, well, you know....
Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch.. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
"I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.

Tom
Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).

Tom

Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.

  #172  
Old May 5th 21, 08:59 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, May 5, 2021 at 2:53:41 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these?
https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/access...type/underwear
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.

You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.

As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.

Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.

You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land.. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.

As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
#1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose.. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.

#2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).

#3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.

Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.

Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
He's just emulating, well, you know....
Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent.. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater.. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
"I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.

Tom
Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).

Tom

Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.


My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob






  #173  
Old May 6th 21, 06:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 12:59:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:53:41 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these?
https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/access...type/underwear
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.

You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.

As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.

Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.

You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree..
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.

As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
#1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.

#2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).

#3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.

Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.

Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
He's just emulating, well, you know...
Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
"I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.

Tom
Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).

Tom
Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.

My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob


Hey Bob, NEWS FLASH: OLC doesn't record ANYTHING - that is done by FAI approved flight loggers. If you have a problem with how loggers function take it up with the FAI, not OLC. You STILL have presented a SINGLE case of an OLC MG flight that has had an unrecorded engine start. What are you waiting for? Do you even have ONE? I doubt it...

Also, if you are going to go for OLC points you will have to FLY - I just don't see you doing much of that. I have, unfortunately, had to spend time with whiners like you - they just make life unpleasant for everyone around them without accomplishing a damn thing.

Tom
  #174  
Old May 6th 21, 09:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:50:04 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 12:59:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:53:41 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these?
https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/access...type/underwear
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.

You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.

As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.

Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't).. In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.

You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.

As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
#1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.

#2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).

#3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.

Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.

Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
He's just emulating, well, you know...
Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist.. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
"I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.

Tom
Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).

Tom
Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.

My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob

Hey Bob, NEWS FLASH: OLC doesn't record ANYTHING - that is done by FAI approved flight loggers. If you have a problem with how loggers function take it up with the FAI, not OLC. You STILL have presented a SINGLE case of an OLC MG flight that has had an unrecorded engine start. What are you waiting for? Do you even have ONE? I doubt it...

Also, if you are going to go for OLC points you will have to FLY - I just don't see you doing much of that. I have, unfortunately, had to spend time with whiners like you - they just make life unpleasant for everyone around them without accomplishing a damn thing.

Tom

Andy, I would probably think that the only person that I have made life unpleasant for is YOU! Looks like I accomplished my goal, you remind me of a great movie line when Doc Holiday said of Johnny Ringo, "Your Just A Little Too High Strung". You are correct about one thing, I haven't been flying much in my sailplane, I did make over 100 tows in March and 80 in April, I doubt that you did anything to help the sport.
Now about the evidence, yes it exist, a few have it, just not you.
  #175  
Old May 6th 21, 10:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Whisky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

Just repeating your nonsense over and over again doesn't make it any less nonsense.
Maybe you should get a life.

Le mercredi 5 mai 2021 Ã* 21:59:21 UTC+2, a écritÂ*:
My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob

  #176  
Old May 7th 21, 05:01 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:05:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:50:04 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 12:59:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:53:41 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these?
https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/access...type/underwear
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.

You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.

As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.

Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.

You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.

As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
#1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.

#2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).

#3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.

Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.

Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
He's just emulating, well, you know...
Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button.. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
"I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.

Tom
Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market.. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).

Tom
Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.
My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob

Hey Bob, NEWS FLASH: OLC doesn't record ANYTHING - that is done by FAI approved flight loggers. If you have a problem with how loggers function take it up with the FAI, not OLC. You STILL have presented a SINGLE case of an OLC MG flight that has had an unrecorded engine start. What are you waiting for? Do you even have ONE? I doubt it...

Also, if you are going to go for OLC points you will have to FLY - I just don't see you doing much of that. I have, unfortunately, had to spend time with whiners like you - they just make life unpleasant for everyone around them without accomplishing a damn thing.

Tom

Andy, I would probably think that the only person that I have made life unpleasant for is YOU! Looks like I accomplished my goal, you remind me of a great movie line when Doc Holiday said of Johnny Ringo, "Your Just A Little Too High Strung". You are correct about one thing, I haven't been flying much in my sailplane, I did make over 100 tows in March and 80 in April, I doubt that you did anything to help the sport.
Now about the evidence, yes it exist, a few have it, just not you.


No, there IS NO evidence and there NEVER WAS. It is ALL in your fertile imagination.

And you have NO IDEA what I have done for the sport, so you are just BLOWING SMOKE.

And I am NOT Andy, but you are demented.

Tom
  #177  
Old May 7th 21, 12:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 12:01:10 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:05:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:50:04 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 12:59:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:53:41 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these?
https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/access...type/underwear
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards.. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.

You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours.. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.

As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.

Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.

You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.

As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
#1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.

#2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).

#3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.

Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.

Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
He's just emulating, well, you know...
Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer..
At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
"I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.

Tom
Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).

Tom
Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.
My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob
Hey Bob, NEWS FLASH: OLC doesn't record ANYTHING - that is done by FAI approved flight loggers. If you have a problem with how loggers function take it up with the FAI, not OLC. You STILL have presented a SINGLE case of an OLC MG flight that has had an unrecorded engine start. What are you waiting for? Do you even have ONE? I doubt it...

Also, if you are going to go for OLC points you will have to FLY - I just don't see you doing much of that. I have, unfortunately, had to spend time with whiners like you - they just make life unpleasant for everyone around them without accomplishing a damn thing.

Tom

Andy, I would probably think that the only person that I have made life unpleasant for is YOU! Looks like I accomplished my goal, you remind me of a great movie line when Doc Holiday said of Johnny Ringo, "Your Just A Little Too High Strung". You are correct about one thing, I haven't been flying much in my sailplane, I did make over 100 tows in March and 80 in April, I doubt that you did anything to help the sport.
Now about the evidence, yes it exist, a few have it, just not you.

No, there IS NO evidence and there NEVER WAS. It is ALL in your fertile imagination.

And you have NO IDEA what I have done for the sport, so you are just BLOWING SMOKE.

And I am NOT Andy, but you are demented.

Tom

Now Andy, you better grasp ahold of reality! You are displaying so much heat that my Matrice 300 thermal imaging drone could record you from miles away. Old Bob
  #178  
Old May 8th 21, 06:58 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 4:46:54 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 12:01:10 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:05:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 1:50:04 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 12:59:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:53:41 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, I'd guess you'd mean like these?
https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/access...type/underwear
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The FAI already (and for many years) has already dealt with this. The ENL or MOP device *and* installation has to meet certain standards. Jet and electric sustainers are specifically called out and dealt with. It requires a high ENL or MOP indication anytime there is positive thrust from the Means of Propulsion. An ENL logger intended for an ICE may do a poor job of sensing a jet or an electric and not show up on OLC. That is not an FAI compliant flight recorder installation. It is just one of the dozens of ways to cheat on OLC, nearly all of them available as well to the purist. If you get your panties in a twist because someone may have cheated on OLC, your panties are going to be seriously and permanently twisted.
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 12:34:11 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:34:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:48:24 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Well Bob, at least we are getting somewhere as you have finally put some specifics on your objections. The question I asked you was, "Do you INTENTIONALLY fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing?". It sounds as though you do. I will stipulate that, comparing two pilots - one MG and one not - both of whom willingly fly low over unlandable terrain, that the MG has an advantage. Both are fools and future statistics, only the MG pilot will live a little longer. The couple of times I have unintentionally found my self there I consider an abject lack of judgement. If you do NOT intentionally fly over unlandable terrain too low to glide to a safe landing, the risk management between the two is the same. I do not "rely on that last thermal", nor do I rely on the engine. I do not wish to compete with pilots who do this whether MG or not, that is why I proposed a hard deck rule. Soaring competition should be about skill, not risk tolerance. I say this as someone who has many hundreds of hours in hang gliders, who has bungie jumped, raced motorcycles, etc. If you want a competition on risk tolerance, spend the afternoon in the hanger spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger.

You are suggesting that many MG pilots have intentionally disabled the secure ENL facility of their IGC logger. I'd like to hear any evidence you have of this. It isn't easy to do, and nearly impossible in a real contest as the engine must be started in-flight, prestart, to prove that the ENL is working. I think this is probably a fantasy of yours. On OLC you can just declare your glider a 29 instead of a 29ES and fly with no ENL, but surely someone would call you out? There are easier ways to cheat on OLC if that is your desire.

As I mentioned earlier, I have only started my engine six or eight times in 21 years for a retrieve, with 100% success. I have started it as many times for a relight when failing to contact the first thermal of the day, again with 100% success. In fact I have had only one failure to start at all in 21 years, due to a fouled plug on the first start after winter layup. None of that makes me confident enough in it to depend on it starting as my only means of staying out of a tree. I'd feel the same if it were a certified Lycoming or an electric.
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:52:52 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, once again you exhibit your ignorance of motorglider operations. If you fly over unlandable terrain without a safe landing site within easy glide in your pure glider, you are more of a fool than I had you pegged for. Depending on finding a thermal, even a well marked one, to keep you out of the trees or sea or off the rocks is foolhardy.. Depending on a motor start is equally foolhardy. You again suggest that (most) motorglider pilots do this and purists do not, or somehow manage that risk better. That is a provably false assertion. It is provably false because any OLC flight has a posted IGC file, all engine runs are recorded in that file, as well as positions and altitudes. From this it is easy to determine if there was an engine start in a position too low to glide safely to a landing site. If you look at enough of them, you will find some, those are the foolhardy MG pilots. You will find many more purist flights where a save was made too low to glide to a safe landing site. Those are the foolhardy purist pilots. Both contribute disproportionately to accident statistics and increased insurance rates.

Your other thread suggested that purists were more balsy apparently because they were willing to bet on the thermal to get them out of trouble while you judged it less balsy to depend on a motor start. Both are simply a form of Russian Roulette. Spin the chamber and pull the trigger. Now let me ask you a straight question: Do you ever intentionally fly over unlandable terrain where - without the help of a thermal - you cannot glide to a safe landing? I don't. In my soaring career, there have been a couple of instances when I found myself there due to unexpected sink, wind, or circumstance, I consider those grave errors of judgement and feel lucky to have escaped.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 4:00:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.

You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.

As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:18:59 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob my friend, don't want you to have to wait long for the answers:
#1) the flight management is the same, for the soaring part of the flight. Obviously a self launcher will manage the launch differently, and at the cessation of soaring flight, the MG may be able to start and drive home while the Purist will need to box and trail home. If there is a difference, it is that the MG will need to cease soaring flight first, due to things already mentioned many times. The MG will get home earlier and with less labor, at a higher cost. It will take the Purist more time and labor, but at a much lower cost. The Purist might hire a charter helicopter to fly him back to the airport, and a paid crew to retrieve the glider to the same (and more reliable) effect. It could still be cheaper than a motorglider. Might a MG owner, having already paid $60K for a lawnmower engine in the back, be more willing to find himself farther from home at the end of the soaring day, knowing that he is likely to still be home for dinner? Sure - but the Purist would as well, if he had written a non-refundable $60K check against future retrieves, which he could do if he chose. Spending money often saves you some extra work, and it does in this case.

#2) In a real (SSA or FAI) contest they should be scored the same as they fly to exactly the same rules requiring exactly the same skills. In OLC or other quasi-contests, scoring is largely arbitrary so do what you like. If you can get the OLC community to agree to scoring them differently, I've no objection (but I should admit I have little interest in OLC).

#3) Risk management is the same, as one can no more depend on the engine starting than one can depend on finding a thermal at 500 AGL. The same mindset that depends on the engine start will look for that elusive thermal until they hit the trees. Sadly this happens too often, just look at the accident record. With or without an unreliable engine, safe practice is and has always been to have a safe landing site within glide.

Rather than spread erroneous opinions on these subjects, I'd suggest you educate yourself by flying say 5000 miles cross country in a motorglider. Over the swamps and over the rocks.. Then you could speak from experience, rather than ignorance. I do not know anyone who has that experience spouting the same untruths. Here's some homework for you: fly your towplane out over the ocean 5 miles further than engine out glide from the beach. Then shut that reliable, certified engine off and let it cool a bit. You know you can restart it, right? Do that four or five times. How's your mindset?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:44:35 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
A common trait among the motorglider haters ("purist" is a misleading word for them, there are plenty of pilots who prefer non motor gliders without the hate for others), is they are absolutely sure of the advantage and mindset in a motorglider without the slightest experience in one. Nearly all motorglider pilots have at least some time (and usually a lot of time) in non motor gliders, and have opinions based on experience in both.

Regarding the oil solidifying, that isn't an issue with a pre-mixed 2-stroke but would be with a frozen Rotax 914 crankcase. Also an issue with the Wankel, and a brief warmup may not do much good as the oil tank is a bit remote from the engine. Schleicher recommends a warm up after flying at high altitudes but it could take many minutes for the oil tank to warm, during which time you may have limited or no lubrication.
On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:02:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On 4/23/2021 7:48 PM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
Bob, repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

Andrej! Apparently you haven't been following USA politics!
He's just emulating, well, you know...
Jon, right when I though you were making progress you reverted back to the same old idea of motorglider haters, as Maslow stated you often revert back. Let me see if I can make this much simpler, I have spoken about the difference in MG paradigms vs the Purist. We need to take a look at the two different approaches to soaring and finally agree that there is a difference. Flight management #1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot. I will let you decide? #2 Should MG and Purist flights be scored the same? #3 is risk management different in a MG vs the Purist pilot, again, I await your answer.
At this particular time I am a Purist and have been for 45 years, I may in the future become a MG pilot, and I I stated earlier I have flown a MG, more than once. Now we are both up there in age and trying to make things simpler, but trust me, there is no hatred for MG's, just a realization of the differences. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, my friend, I was anxiously awaiting your reply, I just knew that you would bloviate about the three scenarios that I presented. What is happening here is that you are suffering from MGD, a disease that is onset with the delusional thoughts and lack if understanding of reality. Scoring as I referenced is not associated with contest, I could care less about that. What I have advocated is that there should be a different scoring platform in OLC for Purist vs MG and that those two platforms are different in many ways, you seem not to think so. The flight management is not the same nor is the risk management the same, they are completely different IMHO. So we certainly differ on these three aspects, actually didn't think we would find much common ground. I did appreciate your reply.
I have a busy day tomorrow, must get the irrigation going on the mango trees. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob
Good afternoon Jon, I hope you are doing well, it has been a beautiful day here in sunny Vero Beach. I will take a minute or two to answer some of your questions and again, thanks for asking. Yes, many purist make saves whereas they could not make it back to a safe place to land, that is ballsy to say the least. And yes we all depend on that last thermal , purist even much more than the MG guys. Purist do manage risk much differently because we have no other choice.
You talk about engine starts and what interest me about your comments is that you do not equate possibility to probability, what do you thing the probability of sustainer engines starts is, 95 % or greater. As a purist my probability is ZERO, I do not have that start button, you seem to avoid that fact, we are not on a level playing field as you continue to assert.
You have asked me the question about flying over places where there was no place to land and getting low only to rely on that last thermal, the answer to that is unequivocally, YES, haven't we all?
One of the other misinformed points that you made is about recording of engine starts on IGC recording devices, if you think this is true then I have some beachfront property in Arizona for you to buy.
Now I was surprised that Amos and Andy have not commented a bit more about the purist paradigm vs the MG, maybe they are consulting about the possibility of a sustainer in a self start scenario. Have a good evening out there on the left coast, we are back in full business in Florida. Your friend, Old Bob
Jon, I did not say that many pilots had altered anything that would alter the OLC file. I can tell you for a fact that some flights that were made with the support of a propulsion device do not reflect that device. Contrary to you claim that all OLC flights that were assisted by propulsion were identified within the OLC file, completely incorrect!
Yes, I did fly today, rather difficult conditions here in Florida, looks like summer might just be here a bit early. It was a nice hop around the area and I did end rather well , check it out and see if you recognize something interesting. Your friend, Old Bob
"I can tell you for a fact" - then PRODUCE your facts, Bob. Otherwise, you are bloviating.

Tom
Bob is not wrong. ENLs may have a hard time picking up jet sustainers, as an example. I am not ashamed to share this because the owner of said flight put the note in his OLC flight comment section.
JBL, don't tell them too much, I almost have them right where I want them! It is like deep sea fishing, when you get the fish next to the boat you gaff them and eat them for dinner. Old Bob
WOW, jet sustainers - now that's a huge part of the MG market. But was that was Bob talking about? In any event, it is not up to us pilots to set the instrumentation requirements - that is up to the FAI. Jet sustainers should be dealt with just like they deal with electric MGs: make them put in an approved sensor that indicates engine operation. And it in no way addresses Bob's original request: separate gravity gliders from MGs in OLC scoring (yes, Bob, you DID state that).

Tom
Purist don't wear panties, we wear Levis and cowboy boots.
My friend Jon, you are letting your delicate emotions overrule your thought process, let me say it one more time, listen carefully.
1-Motorglider pilots compared to Purist have different parameters which are not on an equal playing field.
2- Motorglider vs the Purist should fly in a different category.
3- Flight management is different for the purist as compared to the MG.
4- OLC does not record all engine starts.
5- If I were going for OLC points I would fly my wife's ASW24, flown correctly it is amazing.
Now about the Levis, those were the good old days, brings back fond memories, thanks for the throwback in time. not bad! Old Bob
Hey Bob, NEWS FLASH: OLC doesn't record ANYTHING - that is done by FAI approved flight loggers. If you have a problem with how loggers function take it up with the FAI, not OLC. You STILL have presented a SINGLE case of an OLC MG flight that has had an unrecorded engine start. What are you waiting for? Do you even have ONE? I doubt it...

Also, if you are going to go for OLC points you will have to FLY - I just don't see you doing much of that. I have, unfortunately, had to spend time with whiners like you - they just make life unpleasant for everyone around them without accomplishing a damn thing.

Tom
Andy, I would probably think that the only person that I have made life unpleasant for is YOU! Looks like I accomplished my goal, you remind me of a great movie line when Doc Holiday said of Johnny Ringo, "Your Just A Little Too High Strung". You are correct about one thing, I haven't been flying much in my sailplane, I did make over 100 tows in March and 80 in April, I doubt that you did anything to help the sport.
Now about the evidence, yes it exist, a few have it, just not you.

No, there IS NO evidence and there NEVER WAS. It is ALL in your fertile imagination.

And you have NO IDEA what I have done for the sport, so you are just BLOWING SMOKE.

And I am NOT Andy, but you are demented.

Tom

Now Andy, you better grasp ahold of reality! You are displaying so much heat that my Matrice 300 thermal imaging drone could record you from miles away. Old Bob


Old Bob, you are whining again. Tom
 




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 12:10 PM.


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