FES - Take 2

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 7:17:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 2:51:32 PM UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:

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



JJ, your proposal might be a little over the top. Imagine a speed task with two turnpoints and a long final leg. The motorized sailplane is now doubly incentivized to finish. If he lands 5 mi short (or starts his engine) he only gets distance points to the second turnpoint, a significant reduction from the distance he has accomplished. On top of that comes the discussed-at-length final glide pressure.

I would prefer a handicap-driven correction factor for motorized sailplanes. OLC flights worldwide are now dominated by motorized gliders for the very reasons we discussed. Earlier starts and longer flights at the day's end as well as other tactical considerations greatly advantage the motorized guy.

Herb

If a motor glider actually lands, he gets distance to his landing spot like everyone else. Its getting distance to the point he cranks up the put-put that I find unfair. Also, am I reading the proposed rule changes correctly? Motor gliders get the 25 point bonus for NOT landing at an approved airport? Why don't we just give them the trophy and the rest of us can race to see who gets second place!

Time for the silent majority to speak up!
Cheers, JJ

On Friday, February 14, 2014 11:12:50 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
I should stay out of this, but you know what they say,"too soon old, too late smart". Anyway, let's play one of One Tango's scenarios. Your at a nationals and flying a one turn MAT. About the time you log the mandatory turn-point, you see a Cu pop about 50 miles out in the boonies. You could probably milk enough altitude to give it a try, but if you try and don't connect...............you will be down in a rough area that doesn't even have roads.. Should you go for it? Nope, the risk/reward ratio is too lopsided toward the risk side.



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



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



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



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



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



OK, flash back to the decision point in our little scenario. If the motor glider

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

Cheers,

JJ

JJ, what about this? You both go of course to a nice looking cloud. You both make it there except the lift is only half a knot. You climb away but the motor glider lands there (starts the motor) as he was to heavy to use the lift. Then you go to the next cloud and get 5 kts. You are screaming home while the motor glider's day is over. What about hauling all that extra weight on marginal days.

There are cons and pros to motor glider. Please don't make it one side of the story only. Sometimes a motor glider has an edge sometimes a pure glider has an edge.

AK

One factor not yet mentioned is that competition rules will drive pilots' choice of new gliders. A large proportion of new glider sales (in Europe at least) are to competition pilots who want the machine which will be most competitive - for those not bothered about competition, much better value is available from the previous generation of machines. Currently, a high proportion of new gliders are fitted with engines - if the rules change to make engines less attractive for competition pilots that will also change. Personally, I love having an engine, so I think that would be a pity.

Mark Burton, London Gliding Club, UK

On Friday, 14 February 2014 00:27:03 UTC, MNLou wrote:
Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider.



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



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



Lou

Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

What makes you say motorgliders crash more?

At 09:08 17 February 2014, waremark wrote:
What makes you say motorgliders crash more?

In the words of Watty "There is no crash like a turbo crash"

The proposed rule change allows a MG to claim an airport bonus without actually overflying the bonus airport. The new rule only requires he show that he had sufficient altitude to glide to the approved airport, at the time of engine start. The airport bonus is given as an incentive to land at a safe airport and not attempt a shaky glide towards the next turn point. Question; What if the engine doesn't start? Not an uncommon occurrence out west where high altitude cold-soaks the engine. If the engine didn't start as the MG overflew the bonus airport, it would be a non event. If the engine fails to start half way down final glide...................?

Doesn't the proposed rule change negate the reason for giving an airport bonus in the first place?
:) JJ

On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:40:22 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
The proposed rule change allows a MG to claim an airport bonus without actually overflying the bonus airport. The new rule only requires he show that he had sufficient altitude to glide to the approved airport, at the time of engine start. The airport bonus is given as an incentive to land at a safe airport and not attempt a shaky glide towards the next turn point. Question; What if the engine doesn't start? Not an uncommon occurrence out west where high altitude cold-soaks the engine. If the engine didn't start as the MG overflew the bonus airport, it would be a non event. If the engine fails to start half way down final glide...................? Doesn't the proposed rule change negate the reason for giving an airport bonus in the first place? :) JJ

Nope- The airport bonus is a scoring incentive to encourage pilots to land safely at an airport instead of gliding on to land in a field to get more distance points.
UH

On Monday, February 17, 2014 6:00:24 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:40:22 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:

The proposed rule change allows a MG to claim an airport bonus without actually overflying the bonus airport. The new rule only requires he show that he had sufficient altitude to glide to the approved airport, at the time of engine start. The airport bonus is given as an incentive to land at a safe airport and not attempt a shaky glide towards the next turn point. Question; What if the engine doesn't start? Not an uncommon occurrence out west where high altitude cold-soaks the engine. If the engine didn't start as the MG overflew the bonus airport, it would be a non event. If the engine fails to start half way down final glide...................? Doesn't the proposed rule change negate the reason for giving an airport bonus in the first place? :) JJ



Nope- The airport bonus is a scoring incentive to encourage pilots to land safely at an airport instead of gliding on to land in a field to get more distance points.



OK, the MG "glides on" to get more distance points, but gets an airport bonus anyway................. What it his engine doesn't start? Just trying to understand the RC thinking.
JJ