OK, it's really simple. Clear your mind and listen closely.

"Motorgliders" are airplanes. Got it??

Rick Lake

At least I was trying to be a little delicate about it. ;^) But this is what I was trying to say. They are not gliders, in the true sense.

Boggs

On Friday, May 3, 2013 10:25:44 AM UTC-5, Waveguru wrote:
At least I was trying to be a little delicate about it. ;^) But this is what I was trying to say. They are not gliders, in the true sense.



Boggs

The motorglider category goes all the way up to Mr. Branson's fast toys, Spaceships 1 and 2. I wouldn't mind being in that company...
Seeing things black and white only is narrow minded, there are lots of good reasons for some pilots to have an engine on board. Many of them are more than capable of beating the snot out of the engines-are-from-the-devil crowd.
Herb

I agree with Herb. I think that the future of soaring as a viable
sport will involve hybrid solutions that blur a lot of the lines that
we draw now. For example, consider a ground launch to about 1000 feet
and then powered cruise on an 18 kw electric sustainer until the first
thermal is encountered. Is that a motorglider?

Thanks, Bob K.

On Friday, May 3, 2013 9:25:52 AM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
I agree with Herb. I think that the future of soaring as a viable

sport will involve hybrid solutions that blur a lot of the lines that

we draw now. For example, consider a ground launch to about 1000 feet

and then powered cruise on an 18 kw electric sustainer until the first

thermal is encountered. Is that a motorglider?

But isn't the whole argument about racing/competition? I have no doubt that having a sustainer would change the way I fly XC. So would having a heavy self-launcher. The question is whether it is fair to lump these together and score the same way in a contest environment.

Personally, when I win the lottery I'm getting a jet sustainer. And If I lived somewhere with no-one to help with a ground launch, I would consider a self launcher. But I do enjoy the simplicity of not having any motor. It's all part of the wonderful spectrum of soaring!

Kirk
66

On 5/3/2013 8:17 AM, wrote:
"Motorgliders" are airplanes. Got it??

Nope. But, I'd be interested in why you want to make that distinction,
and how it will help the sport of soaring prosper.

I've done more soaring with my "airplane" than I did with my gliders; in
fact, I've soared my "airplane" more hours than my four gliders combined.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On Friday, May 3, 2013 10:17:26 AM UTC-5, wrote:
"Motorgliders" are airplanes. Got it?? Rick Lake

I am glad you don't work for the FAA, Rick. Motorgliders are NOT airplanes. They are aircraft. Got it??

On May 3, 11:13*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:

But isn't the whole argument about racing/competition?

Is it? If that is the case, then this thread has become detached from
its intended context.

The question is whether it is fair to lump these together and
score the same way in a contest environment.

Yes, good point. But I think that that is part of a larger
conversation about what constitutes a contest.

Thanks, Bob K.

Wow Steve, with that kind of profound insight
I'm guessing you do work for the FAA.

On Friday, May 3, 2013 11:17:26 AM UTC-4, wrote:
"Motorgliders" are airplanes. Got it?? Rick Lake

In a sport as small as we are there isn't much room for telling others
that "they are not one of us".
Mind clear and open.
UH