Soaring and Critical Mass of Participation.

John Shelton wrote:
snippage

A Sprint Race (invented by ME) involves a few aircraft starting in a
cylinder at the same time (yes, i know the Euros are doing something
similar
now but I proposed it long before them), flying a short task (to
quarter
mile AST turnpoints) designed to last no more than an hour and a
half, and
finishing at a FINISH LINE in front of the gate/audience/crews. The
time
limit is important for several reasons; not the least of which is the
boredom that exists back at the strip while you are out in your ship
scratching around in two knots. Fellows: She isn't coming back out to
help
you ever again after you put her through that. But if she doesn't
have to
commit the family vacation and the entire lifestyle, gets to visit
with
other people who are excited about a race they are watching, then she
just
might. And with 30:1 ships, you just might need a crew again.....

The ships and trailers will be painted in a variety of bright colors
and
covered with vinyl advertisements not unlike the vehicles of the most
popular sport in America. If one wants to push it, then the
production
methods proposed by me for a televised race bought by Fox to be shown
ten
times could be employed. Lipstick cameras, camera ships, computer
images
(held to a minimum) and all that stuff could be used to create a
venue that
is watchable, exciting and inviting...especially when a young pilot
crawls
out of the winning ship to stand on the podium to collect his/her
check and
put his Red Bull cap on for the cameras to see.

Gee, John. It sounds like you're volunteering to CD the 1-26
Championships.
We already have "Soaring in full color". (Buy the T-shirt at the 1-26
site). It's not 30:1, but hey, put 'em in the Owens Valley in the
summertime (so you have those spectacular Sierra views and booming
lift), and nobody at home will know the difference.
Not a laminar flow wing, so put all the sponsor stickers you can afford
on 'em. A vinyl edge here and there won't hurt a thing but the gross
weight.
You can even mention that getting into competition with these things is
cheaper than some hang gliders. (The ATOS VX is about 15 grand US, a
good 1-26 is probably less than 10. That difference even pays for the
instruction, for most people.

Tim Ward

Mark James Boyd wrote:



Could there be a rash of accidents in Quicksilver gliders that
might damage the sport of gliding as a whole? Require transponders
and ELTs in all gliders? Perhaps. But I don't see this.

*******Transponders become mandatory?*******

If transponders (especially mode S) and ELTs end up becoming mandated
in gliders, I don't see the Quicksilver gliders being the cause.

It would depend on the numbers, I think. A few hundred won't enlarge the
number "gliders" flying, and hence the increased risk of causing a
serious accident that would be attributed to a glider are small. But if
a few thousand become "gliders"...

Any idea of the numbers we might be talking about? How many Quicksilver
type aircraft are there out there?


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I meant to write

The ASTM standards committee for gliders could perhaps attract
these Quicksilver aircraft to become SLSA Gliders instead of
certifying as

AIRPLANES.

Sorry...

In article 4202b0be$1@darkstar, Mark James Boyd wrote:
I believe there are thousands of kits that have been sold.
In the current FAA climate, I think at most dozens of them
will become experimental-amatuer built or ELSA gliders
by 2010.

Anywhere from hundreds to thousands will become ex-AB or ELSA
or SLSA airplanes by 2010.

The ASTM standards committee for gliders could perhaps attract
these Quicksilver aircraft to become SLSA Gliders instead of
certifying as aircraft.

The upside for gliding is growth and a lot of glider takeoffs
and landings at airports that attract funds by numbers of operations.

The upside for the Quicksilvers is the reduced equipment requirements,
access to runways which are friendly to lightweight
aircraft, and a community with something to share.

If ASA wanted to push for them to come into the glider fold,
I think these disenfranchised Ultralight pilots
would slowly enter our ranks and be grateful.

But this may just be a case of water and oil. I personally
find the LSA stuff fascinating for the same reasons
I like soaring. But there seem to be quite a few glider
pilots who seem to prefer the status quo.

If left without any catalyst, the Quicksilver gliders will
end up being very, very few. With a catalyst, they
could number perhaps a thousand, or a few thousand if SLSA,
best case.

I don't know which SHOULD happen. But there is
an opportunity here that deserves a look anyway.

In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:



Could there be a rash of accidents in Quicksilver gliders that
might damage the sport of gliding as a whole? Require transponders
and ELTs in all gliders? Perhaps. But I don't see this.

*******Transponders become mandatory?*******

If transponders (especially mode S) and ELTs end up becoming mandated
in gliders, I don't see the Quicksilver gliders being the cause.

It would depend on the numbers, I think. A few hundred won't enlarge the
number "gliders" flying, and hence the increased risk of causing a
serious accident that would be attributed to a glider are small. But if
a few thousand become "gliders"...

Any idea of the numbers we might be talking about? How many Quicksilver
type aircraft are there out there?


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Mark James Boyd wrote:
I think it's a glider.

Really? If that's a glider, then the term "glider" is a worthless one,
isn't it? It becomes the name of catch-all category, not a description
of the aircraft.

The pilot thinks it's a glider.

Why does the pilot think it's a glider? Has he never seen even a 2-33?

The AC
defines it as a glider. The DAR thinks it's a glider.

He may accept is as fitting in the glider category, but I doubt that he
thinks it's a glider.

The FAA
thinks it's a glider.

And I'm sure they know it's not a glider, but some of them are willing
to go along with registering it that way.

The instructor who signed him off
for self-launch thinks it's a glider.

I'd like to hear the instructor say that with a straight face.


And there are now at least several dozen ultralight pilots who
think it is a glider.

I suspect they are also willing to go along with the charade. Bonus
time! It doesn't have to make sense if you get to do what you want.

Eric, if you're so sure it isn't a glider,
you better get in and STOP this craziness, before it ruins gliding!

The glider category has a number of regulatory perks we treasure, and I
don't want these to disappear by filling the category with such
enormously different aircraft. I'm not sure that they will disappear,
especially if the numbers of ultralights remains low. It might even be
an asset, if it leads those pilots to discover soaring and the aircraft
that do it (I call them gliders and sailplanes, almost interchangeably),
but it's an experiment that likely can't be undone if it goes badly.

Call and write the people who make the rules and tell them how
wrong it is to use span and weight calculations to define a glider.
And how wrong it is to use minimum sink as a parameter, and
how penetration is what really matters.

Isn't this the problem? None of these criteria apply to experimentally
licensed aircraft. Surely, the Quicksilver is not _certified_ as glider?


Of course, you might want to be careful. If you're too
convincing, they'll cancel making ultralights gliders, but
will start certifying jet airliners all as gliders.

Jet airliners don't meet the certification requirements for gliders,
regardless of how convincing I am.

Then
you'll need a type rating and part 121 check to fly
your self-launcher!!!!

In some European countries (maybe all), a self-launcher is NOT treated
like a glider, but instead requires a license much like a power plane. I
hope that never happens here, but I get very uneasy when I see such
non-glider aircraft like the Quicksilver being considered
"motorgliders". If problems occur because of "motorgliders" of any sort
(ultralight or powered sailplanes), it's easy to imagine that an FAA
solution might be separating them from the glider category and treating
them more like airplanes. That would be loss for everyone and sport. I
think we've been lucky so far that powered sailplanes and touring
motorgliders are still in the glider category.


:P

Hmmm...thinking about John's idea, yeah I'd love to watch
a half dozen of these gliders jamming around a short triangle course
at Avenal. And a toilet paper cutting contest too...

But that's ok, Eric. If you don't want them, we'll take them.
After all, they have to spend their money SOMEWHERE, right?

I like John's idea, but I don't think he had Quicksilvers in mind. They
would not be able to soar around the course. To me, this not analogous
to having snow boarders show up at the ski hill: it's more like ATVs
showing up at the ski hill.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

This talk about the Quicksilver becoming a certified glider got my
attention.

Isn't a glider defined as: "A fixed-wing aircraft specially designed to
glide, or to glide and soar."

FAA AC 21.17-2A "Type Certification --- Fixed Wing Gliders (Sailplanes),
Including Powered Gliders." indicates that powered gliders are aircraft for
which the number of occupants does not exceed two, the maximum weight does
not exceed 1,874 pounds, and the maximum weight-to-wing span squared does
not exceed 0.62 lb/ft^2.

Well the Quicksilver is definitely less then 1,874 lbs.; however, the
Quicksilver web site (http://www.quicksilveraircraft.com/sport.htm) states
that the Quicksilver's wing span is 28 feet and max takeoff weight is 525
lbs. That makes the wings squared equal 784 ft^2. When divided into 525
lbs you end up with 0.67 lb/ft^2. Not much over weight; however,
overweight.

In conclusion, I don't think the Quicksilver meets the basic definition of a
glider and is too heavy to be certified as such. Of course, when you get
into the "amateur built" airworthiness arena, the aircraft is experimental
and, as such, is what every the builder says it is. If the inspector will
go along with you. (I have seen a Windrose motor gliders licensed as
airplanes. I believe this was done so the builder could avoid having to get
a glider rating.)

Respectfully,
Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
Mark James Boyd wrote:



Could there be a rash of accidents in Quicksilver gliders that
might damage the sport of gliding as a whole? Require transponders
and ELTs in all gliders? Perhaps. But I don't see this.

*******Transponders become mandatory?*******

If transponders (especially mode S) and ELTs end up becoming mandated
in gliders, I don't see the Quicksilver gliders being the cause.

It would depend on the numbers, I think. A few hundred won't enlarge the
number "gliders" flying, and hence the increased risk of causing a
serious accident that would be attributed to a glider are small. But if
a few thousand become "gliders"...

Any idea of the numbers we might be talking about? How many Quicksilver
type aircraft are there out there?


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:

Isn't this the problem? None of these criteria apply to experimentally
licensed aircraft. Surely, the Quicksilver is not _certified_ as glider?

Scrivner Quicksilver MX, tail number N69QT, experimental glider.
Chuck Scrivner is a glider pilot, initially trained in aerotowed gliders.
He now has a self-launch endorsement and exercises this privilege
whenever he launches his Quicksilver glider.

It meets the span to weight criteria, so he certified it as a glider.

Why does the pilot think it's a glider? Has he never seen even a 2-33?

He has. He has also looked at his airworthiness certificate.
And he has thermalled and ridge soared this Quicksilver glider.

The glider category has a number of regulatory perks we treasure, and I
don't want these to disappear by filling the category with such
enormously different aircraft. I'm not sure that they will disappear,
especially if the numbers of ultralights remains low. It might even be
an asset, if it leads those pilots to discover soaring and the aircraft
that do it (I call them gliders and sailplanes, almost interchangeably),
but it's an experiment that likely can't be undone if it goes badly.

Again, I didn't say this SHOULD happen, just that it IS happening,
and it is worth looking into. I'd like to see the ASA consciously
decide to help accelerate, decelerate, or ignore this certification
of Quicksilver aircraft as gliders vs. airplanes.

I for one see these as hang gliders that have simply added an
engine to self-launch, much like your glider. I personally would
like to see them welcomed to soaring. But without organizational
encouragement from ASA and perhaps SSA, Quicksilver gliders will
come into soaring in ones and twos, not in any significant numbers.

In some European countries (maybe all), a self-launcher is NOT treated
like a glider, but instead requires a license much like a power plane. I
hope that never happens here,

I hope it doesn't either. But I'm not willing to actively exclude a
whole group of eager pilots to avoid this "maybe."

******I have changed a few words from Eric's post to make a point****

but I get very uneasy when I see such
non-glider aircraft like the ASH-26E being considered
"gliders".

******Changes end*******

I wonder how the "pure glider" folks felt when the early "self-launch"
gliders started appearing. I wonder if they had some of the same
comments. In fact, isn't this kind of discrimination something we still
face today, just a little more under the surface? Tell me, Eric,
how does it feel when someone snickers at your "non-glider" ?

If problems occur because of "motorgliders" of any sort
(ultralight or powered sailplanes), it's easy to imagine that an FAA
solution might be separating them from the glider category and treating
them more like airplanes. That would be loss for everyone and sport. I
think we've been lucky so far that powered sailplanes and touring
motorgliders are still in the glider category.

I wonder if the pure glider pilots wondered the same thing about
the first motorgliders too?

I like John's idea, but I don't think he had Quicksilvers in mind. They
would not be able to soar around the course. To me, this not analogous
to having snow boarders show up at the ski hill: it's more like ATVs
showing up at the ski hill.

If Quicksilver gliders are ATVs on the ski hill, then you
are looking a little naked there on your ASH snowmobile. :O brrrrrrrr

Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I dunno where this is going to end up, but there is an opportunity
here, that I am sure. Whether it is an opportunity the gliding community
wants to take, hmmmmmm...., that's something clubs and airports
across the country are going to have to decide a little at a time.

To quote one local club President:
"There will be no problem about the insured UL's landing at
the field. The rule is as long as they are coming to participate
in club activities they are welcome (that goes for any non-club aircraft)."
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Wayne,

I think right near the limit there is leeway as to what to
certify it. I also could see someone lowering the factory
recommended gross weight a tiny bit as needed, especially
if the pilot/owner is a bit lighter.

Beyond that, whether something is "supported in flight
by the dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces
and whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine"
is a loose call. Cessna 182 pilots have soared the Sierra
wave, right? If they do it more than 50% of the time, does
that make it a glider?

I'm not going to call it right or wrong. But it is possible,
and it will happen again that a Quicksilver will be a glider.
Will there be a dozen or a thousand? I guess we'll see
in the next decade or so...

In article ,
Wayne Paul wrote:
This talk about the Quicksilver becoming a certified glider got my
attention.

Isn't a glider defined as: "A fixed-wing aircraft specially designed to
glide, or to glide and soar."

FAA AC 21.17-2A "Type Certification --- Fixed Wing Gliders (Sailplanes),
Including Powered Gliders." indicates that powered gliders are aircraft for
which the number of occupants does not exceed two, the maximum weight does
not exceed 1,874 pounds, and the maximum weight-to-wing span squared does
not exceed 0.62 lb/ft^2.

Well the Quicksilver is definitely less then 1,874 lbs.; however, the
Quicksilver web site (http://www.quicksilveraircraft.com/sport.htm) states
that the Quicksilver's wing span is 28 feet and max takeoff weight is 525
lbs. That makes the wings squared equal 784 ft^2. When divided into 525
lbs you end up with 0.67 lb/ft^2. Not much over weight; however,
overweight.

In conclusion, I don't think the Quicksilver meets the basic definition of a
glider and is too heavy to be certified as such. Of course, when you get
into the "amateur built" airworthiness arena, the aircraft is experimental
and, as such, is what every the builder says it is. If the inspector will
go along with you. (I have seen a Windrose motor gliders licensed as
airplanes. I believe this was done so the builder could avoid having to get
a glider rating.)

Respectfully,
Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
Mark James Boyd wrote:



Could there be a rash of accidents in Quicksilver gliders that
might damage the sport of gliding as a whole? Require transponders
and ELTs in all gliders? Perhaps. But I don't see this.

*******Transponders become mandatory?*******

If transponders (especially mode S) and ELTs end up becoming mandated
in gliders, I don't see the Quicksilver gliders being the cause.

It would depend on the numbers, I think. A few hundred won't enlarge the
number "gliders" flying, and hence the increased risk of causing a
serious accident that would be attributed to a glider are small. But if
a few thousand become "gliders"...

Any idea of the numbers we might be talking about? How many Quicksilver
type aircraft are there out there?


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA




--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:42030e13$1@darkstar...
Wayne,
snip discussion of whether the Quick is a glider or not
Well, Dave Cronk won the rigid-wing World Champioship on a Quicksilver C
(essentially the same wing) some years ago.
So if a Quicksilver with a motor isn't a glider, then neither is any other
motor glider.

Tim Ward

I really, really think ultralights becoming FAA aircraft
has MUCH more in common with gliders than airplanes.

The rules the ultralight community have lived by are MUCH more
alike the glider rules than the airplane rules.

All of the following characteristics match gliders AND ultralights.
NONE of the following characteristics match the majority of airplanes.

Ultralight aircraft (fixed wing, weight shift, powered parachute):

1) Have minimal instrumentation
2) Fly 99% day VFR
3) Fly 90% within 50nm of home
4) Have very light weight
5) Have very slow landing speeds
6) Have minimal training requirements
7) Have excellent motorized climb in FT per NM ratios
8) Need to be aware of the effects of turbulence, slope lift, etc.
9) Used to be hang gliders
10) Never required ELTs or Transponders
11) Fly frequently out of private, dirt, and cropduster strips
12) Remove or assemble wings without a mandatory mechanic signoff
13) Fly for fun instead of practical transportation
14) Wear chutes or install BRS parachutes commonly
15) Have a very high ratio of experimentals vs. standard aircraft
16) Commonly use a stick or bar instead of a yoke
17) Don't require any medical, and a denied medical is no problem

Airplanes don't have ANY of this in common with ultralights.
Gliders have ALL of this in common. Think about it.

Look at that Quicksilver picture again. It's a glider.
USUA, ASC, and the Ultralight part of EAA are
gonna need support to get these things into the FAA system by
Jan 31, 2010. SSA and ASA seem to me the BEST fit these guys have.
Do you really think they'll fit into AOPA? Do you think
EAA is a good fit?

www.usua.org
www.aerosports.org
www.eaa.org/ultralights

In article et,
Tim Ward wrote:

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:42030e13$1@darkstar...
Wayne,
snip discussion of whether the Quick is a glider or not
Well, Dave Cronk won the rigid-wing World Champioship on a Quicksilver C
(essentially the same wing) some years ago.
So if a Quicksilver with a motor isn't a glider, then neither is any other
motor glider.

Tim Ward



--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Mark James Boyd wrote:

I really, really think ultralights becoming FAA aircraft
has MUCH more in common with gliders than airplanes.

The rules the ultralight community have lived by are MUCH more
alike the glider rules than the airplane rules.

All of the following characteristics match gliders AND ultralights.
NONE of the following characteristics match the majority of airplanes.

Ultralight aircraft (fixed wing, weight shift, powered parachute):

1) Have minimal instrumentation
2) Fly 99% day VFR
3) Fly 90% within 50nm of home
4) Have very light weight
5) Have very slow landing speeds
6) Have minimal training requirements
7) Have excellent motorized climb in FT per NM ratios
8) Need to be aware of the effects of turbulence, slope lift, etc.
9) Used to be hang gliders
10) Never required ELTs or Transponders
11) Fly frequently out of private, dirt, and cropduster strips
12) Remove or assemble wings without a mandatory mechanic signoff
13) Fly for fun instead of practical transportation
14) Wear chutes or install BRS parachutes commonly
15) Have a very high ratio of experimentals vs. standard aircraft
16) Commonly use a stick or bar instead of a yoke
17) Don't require any medical, and a denied medical is no problem

I can see why we disagree: we have very different opionions of what a
glider characteristic is.
Of those in your list, I'd say only # 8 is characteristic of a glider. I
certainly don't think ELT or transponder
usage has anything to do with being a glider, but is just pilot
preference, nor do medicals, pilot rescue systems,
and so on. In fact, I'd say the list fits _ultralights_ a lot better
than gliders. The craft we fly are
markedly different from a Quicksilver


Airplanes don't have ANY of this in common with ultralights.

For me, the essence of airplane is not the instruments, ELTs, medicals,
etc. These are just features of
regulations, as "airplane" can go from an Aeronca Champ to a 747. What's
common is the use of the motor
to sustain flight.

Gliders have ALL of this in common. Think about it.

So do model airplanes and their pilots. Think about it.


Look at that Quicksilver picture again. It's a glider.
USUA, ASC, and the Ultralight part of EAA are
gonna need support to get these things into the FAA system by
Jan 31, 2010. SSA and ASA seem to me the BEST fit these guys have.

Best Fit still does not mean "good enough". If they don't fit with those
other folks, either, maybe by 2010,
there will be a place for them. I don't think it's in soaring. We can
and should be friends with them, as with other
aviators.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA