Motorgliders and gliders in US contests

The rules say you may not exchange aircraft or even major components.

I belive there is an exception that a component may be replaced with
an exact replacement if the original compenent has been damaged
through no fault of the pilot or crew.

Here are the exact rules for regional contests:

6.1 General
6.1.1 The Contest Competition Committee has the authority to
reject a sailplane that it considers unsuitable for competition or a
sailplane that does not meet the requirements of the class in which it
is entered.
6.1.2 The CD has the right to inspect equipment at any time
during the contest.
6.1.3 Exchange of components
6.1.3.1 A sailplane's major components include the
fuselage, wings (including separable wingtips), empennage, and power
unit (in the case of a motorized sailplane).
6.1.3.2 Except as provided in these Rules, the exchange
of a sailplane or major component is not allowed.
6.1.3.3 If the CD determines that a sailplane was
damaged through no fault of the pilot or crew, exchange is permitted
provided the replacement exactly matches the damaged component.
6.1.3.4 In the case of damage to separable wingtips
whose span is less than 40 inches, exchange is permitted without
considering fault and without the requirement that the replacement be
an exact match. The CD must be informed and such an exchange may not
be done more than once during a contest.
6.1.4 Official Configuration
6.1.4.1 A sailplane's official configuration is the one
used during the first competition takeoff.
6.1.4.2 Except as provided in these Rules, the official
configuration may not be altered unless such alteration may be
performed in flight.


M B wrote in message ...
Hmmm...I'm wondering. Can a competition pilot change
aircraft in the middle of a contest? Could someone
own both a motorglider and a Nimbus 3 and pick which
one to fly depending on the conditions and task? Have
pilots who have damaged their gliders been allowed
to fly in a new/different replacement glider in contests?
I'm interested in how this works...

Mark Boyd

Eric wrote...
If you mean contest flying, I'd like to hear about it, too. I've never
been in a position where I had a "distinct" advantage for a contest,
so I'd like to hear how this happens.

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

In article ,
says...
Eric wrote...
If you mean contest flying, I'd like to hear about it, too. I've never
been in a position where I had a "distinct" advantage for a contest,
so I'd like to hear how this happens.

I have given several examples where motorgliders have enjoyed a distinct
advantage in cotests. Self-launch so they can motor around until finding a
thermal,

I've never been in a contest where I've had these advantages, because
I didn't do those things. Whether the pilots involved did so out of
ignorance of the requirements originally imposed when we began self-
launching in Region 8 or because they were willing to cheat, I think
we're all agreed these tactics are unacceptable and should be
penalized. With GPS loggers we can do this, and we will do this at the
next contest I fly in, or I won't enter.

airborn-relight while pure sailplaned must land, attemting a final
glide without sufficient altitude. Oh, but JJ's just WHINING again.
JJ Sinclair

And these last two are what we are discussing. JJ believes these give
a motorglider a distinct advantage; I and Dave Nadler have described
why we think they do not. Now, let's get back to the poster's
question:

"It sure would be a breath of fresh air, for some of the MOTOR GLIDER
PILOTS to actually publish some of the instances where having a motor
gave them a distinct advantage compared to if they had been a non
motorized gliders in xc." (emphasis added)

I'd still like to hear from some MOTOR GLIDER PILOTS about this. I
doubt we'll hear from the cheaters that JJ is so rightly angry at, but
perhaps there are legal situations that some motorglider pilot is
willing to describe.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

JJ,
I agree with you regarding motor gliders in contests.
Even if there would be no perceived advantage to the motor glider
competitor, the fact remains the advantage is there.
Example: when most every one is landing out at least three times in five
days as in the past Sports Class Nat's and seeing the rested smiles on the
faces of the motor glider pilot, it makes it very clear as to who has the
advantage.
Plus the psychological advantage is indeed very powerful all being equal.
I have voted to restrict motor gliders to region sports class only.
Regards
Udo



"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
Eric wrote...
If you mean contest flying, I'd like to hear about it, too. I've never
been in a position where I had a "distinct" advantage for a contest,
so I'd like to hear how this happens.

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

Eric wrote,

I've never been in a contest where I've had these advantages, because
I didn't do those things.

I guess I got to spell it out. Eric, I'm talking about YOU and JN.
I tell you about launch inequities and you say, Oh that, we will be getting a
waiver and fixing all that next year. We are right now, in the process of
amending the rules, so that WAIVERS won't be required next year. Let me add one
more advantage you are requesting, Give motorgliders a 25 point (approved
airport landing) bonus for NOT LANDING. But it's s SAFETY issue, isn't it? It
would be much safer to crank up the old put-put and not congest the airport
with all those pure sailplane slobs, down there, fighting for a spot on the
runway. I consider that part of the sport. If you want to play, you must accept
all the hazards along with the rewards this sport offers.

Just JJ, whining again,


JJ Sinclair

In article ,
says...
Eric wrote,

I've never been in a contest where I've had these advantages, because
I didn't do those things.

I guess I got to spell it out. Eric, I'm talking about YOU and JN.

I would be glad to send you (or anyone) my flight files for any
contest. They will show I did not "motor around" until I got a thermal
where the towed gliders didn't go.

I tell you about launch inequities and you say, Oh that, we will be getting a
waiver and fixing all that next year. We are right now, in the process of
amending the rules, so that WAIVERS won't be required next year.

Here is what I said in my email to you. Please note the first eight
words, as I do realize we are filling out a survey that will influence
the rules for 2004:

------
If the 2004 SSA rules don't address this, and we get a waiver for the
2004 Region 8 contest, I'll insist that the contest inform the MG
pilots that they are to follow the towplane path, release at the
correct height (I suggest 2200' AGL, but would accept 2000' AGL
without complaint), and expect their flight files to be checked for
adherence to these rules, with a penalty for non-compliance (I suggest
something like the graduated penalties for missing a turnpoint).
-------------

Let me add one
more advantage you are requesting, Give motorgliders a 25 point (approved
airport landing) bonus for NOT LANDING. But it's s SAFETY issue, isn't it? It
would be much safer to crank up the old put-put and not congest the airport
with all those pure sailplane slobs, down there, fighting for a spot on the
runway. I consider that part of the sport. If you want to play, you must accept
all the hazards along with the rewards this sport offers.

One more time: the Airport Bonus was implemented to increase safety by
encouraging gliders to land at airports instead of landing out. An
unintended consequence of the current implementation is it, in some
circumstances, has the opposite effect of discouraging the safest
practice. The change I propose requires the motorglider to go to the
airport before starting. Tactically speaking, it's better to plan to
land, so I can thermal about 300'-500' lower than I can if I plan an
in-air restart. I gain only convenience (and sometimes safety), by air
starting, not a contest advantage.

I fail to see how encouraging a less safe practice, after the task is
over, helps anyone, including those that have landed or are about to
land at the airport. Why would anyone want one more glider on the
runway? One solution is to eliminate the airport bonus entirely (as
Eisenbeiss suggests), but I am in favor of the airport bonus, and if I
must land to collect it, and can do so without decreasing the safety
of the other pilots using the airport, I will.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

On 21 Sep 2003 20:13:30 GMT, (JJ Sinclair) wrote:

Eric wrote...
If you mean contest flying, I'd like to hear about it, too. I've never
been in a position where I had a "distinct" advantage for a contest,
so I'd like to hear how this happens.

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


Results of this year's WGC, 18m class.

I'd be glad if you could point out how precisely the existence of an
engine turned out to be an advantage for the pilot in the final
results.
Do a search for yourself - but I did not find any competition result
where the motorgliders had an advantage that showed up in the results.


1 WO Janowitsch Wolfgang Austria Ventus 2cx 10594 No engine
2 250 Jones Stephen Great Britain Ventus 2cxt 10135 engine
3 210 Jones Philip Great Britain Ventus 2cxt 9978 engine
4 EP Henry Francois-Louis France Ventus 2c 9873 No engine
5 RB Brigliadori Riccardo Italy Lak17 9818 No engine
6 GR Rossier Gabriel Switzerland DG 800 s 9794 No engine
7 XT Termaat Ronald Netherlands Ventus 2cxt 9740 engine
8 MZ Breidahl Henrik A. Denmark LAK 17a 9655 no engine
9 IK Krejcirik Petr Czech Republic Ventus 2c xt 9625 engine
10 IAB Wujczak Stanislaw Poland LS6 18 9588 no engine
11 SV Sabeckis Vytautas Lithuania LAK 17A 9439 no engine
12 808 Fischer Ralf Germany DG 808S 9334 no engine
13 SP Jonker Uys South Africa Lak 17 9284 no engine
14 DG Tabart Tracey Australia DG808S 9192 no engine
15 BG Pristavec Bostjan Slovenia LAK 17A 9126 no engine
16 LI Kubovcik Viliam Slovak Republic Ventus C 8689 no engine
17 ZQ Ittner Gary USA Ventus 2cx 8533 no engine
18 UG Brialmont Olivier Belgium DG 800S 8214 no engine
19 HI Verebelyi Zoltan Hungary Ventus 2CXT 8002 engine
20 OG Raudsandmoen Geir Norway LS 8/18 7872 no engine
21 A1 Hollestelle Ed Canada LS 8-t 7613 engine
22 1 Ottosson Curt-Olle Sweden LS 8-18 7408 no engine
23 JM Salokannel Ismo Finland LAK 17A 6848 no engine



Bye
Andreas

Sorry Udo, that's a very bad example. You don't need a motorglider
for this, just a motorhome and a crew willing to drive while you
sleep.

Tom Serkowski
ASH-26E (for the last 2 years, and over 1500 hours in ASW-20B prior)

"Udo Rumpf" wrote in message ...
JJ,
I agree with you regarding motor gliders in contests.
Even if there would be no perceived advantage to the motor glider
competitor, the fact remains the advantage is there.
Example: when most every one is landing out at least three times in five
days as in the past Sports Class Nat's and seeing the rested smiles on the
faces of the motor glider pilot, it makes it very clear as to who has the
advantage.

Subject: Motorgliders and gliders in US contests
From: Eric Greenwell Tnet

When the top pilots start showing up in motorgliders, we'll know for
sure that motorgliders are an advantage overall. PY, are you looking
for a motorglider to fly in the next contest?

Not really as a top pilot would win anyway. Case in point Ron Tabery.

In article 4tubb.543101$o%2.240229@sccrnsc02,
says...

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
Eric wrote,


One solution is to eliminate the airport bonus entirely (as
Eisenbeiss suggests), but I am in favor of the airport bonus, and if I
must land to collect it, and can do so without decreasing the safety
of the other pilots using the airport, I will.

Eric Greenwell

Whoa, Eisenbeiss never said anything like that!

Oops, sorry! It was the aero tow retrieves you would disallow, not the
bonus.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)