Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

Doesn't sound like you need to worry about engine life, either, unless your TBO
is Real Soon Now.

On 4/28/2021 2:23 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
I've owned my Stemme now for 5 years and have logged around 850 hours (327
flights) on it.Â* I think I've used around 80 engine hours during that time which
is about 15 minutes per flight (start, taxi, takeoff, and cool down).Â* I tow the
glider from my hangar to the apron before rigging.

And yes, I fly with a different mind set than I did in my LAK-17a:Â* I must be
within range of a runway suitable to make a normal takeoff at all times.

Dan
5J

On 4/28/21 3:06 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
Yep, and wears out quicker.

Dan
5J

On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
cold engine develops more power.

The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine. If it
only lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40 years! The Stemme
is usual for a self-launcher because it's also a good airplane, and 200 hours
might be only two or three years.



--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

On 4/28/2021 2:39 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:06:23 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
Yep, and wears out quicker.

Dan
5J

On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
cold engine develops more power.
The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine. If it only
lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40 years! The Stemme is
usual for a self-launcher because it's also a good airplane, and 200 hours might
be only two or three years.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
Eric, are you hitting on the bong? You cannot even admit that you must manage your flight differently. This is beginning to become comical.

Yes, I do manage the flights differently than when I flew towed gliders - that's
the POINT of owning a motorglider: to do things differently from tow planes and
retrieval crews. We keep telling you this over and over, but you obsess over the
idea we do it for some huge flight performance and safety reason. Again, in
order of importance to me: self-launching means I can fly from my home airport,
or almost any airport around the country, even Canada and Alaska (me and my
glider have made that trip); I can reliably make it home, even if I misjudge the
weather, which I like and delights my wife ("best glider we've ever had", she
says); and I can sometimes push my "lift luck" and risk a field landing if the
engine doesn't start.

You also miss the point that there is a large variation in flight management
between pilots; for example, between Ramy Yanetz and Bob Youngblood, even though
they both fly unpowered gliders. Skills, crew availability, wealth,
work/retirement status, health, personality, motored/towed, and more all affect
how a pilot manages a flight. The motored/towed is just one these many factors
involved.

If you'd fly in some contests, or attempted record flights, or just got out of
Florida and flew out a few other places than your nest in Vero, I think you
might better understand what we are trying to tell you.

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:28:50 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/28/2021 2:39 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:06:23 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
Yep, and wears out quicker.

Dan
5J

On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
cold engine develops more power.
The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine. If it only
lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40 years! The Stemme is
usual for a self-launcher because it's also a good airplane, and 200 hours might
be only two or three years.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
Eric, are you hitting on the bong? You cannot even admit that you must manage your flight differently. This is beginning to become comical.

Yes, I do manage the flights differently than when I flew towed gliders - that's
the POINT of owning a motorglider: to do things differently from tow planes and
retrieval crews. We keep telling you this over and over, but you obsess over the
idea we do it for some huge flight performance and safety reason. Again, in
order of importance to me: self-launching means I can fly from my home airport,
or almost any airport around the country, even Canada and Alaska (me and my
glider have made that trip); I can reliably make it home, even if I misjudge the
weather, which I like and delights my wife ("best glider we've ever had", she
says); and I can sometimes push my "lift luck" and risk a field landing if the
engine doesn't start.

You also miss the point that there is a large variation in flight management
between pilots; for example, between Ramy Yanetz and Bob Youngblood, even though
they both fly unpowered gliders. Skills, crew availability, wealth,
work/retirement status, health, personality, motored/towed, and more all affect
how a pilot manages a flight. The motored/towed is just one these many factors
involved.

If you'd fly in some contests, or attempted record flights, or just got out of
Florida and flew out a few other places than your nest in Vero, I think you
might better understand what we are trying to tell you.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
Bob seems to want a different contest category for motorgliders for some perceived advantage they do or do not have. Well, this is the WRONG forum for addressing said grievance - take it to OLC if you want some special category. I think that Bob already knows what the answer will be and just wants to vent ad nauseum.

Personally, my experience in actual contests is that MGs have a DISADVANTAGE in the form of undumpable ballast - the pure gliders get get back on weak days and us MGs had to land out (literally at that time). I quickly concluded that if I wanted to compete I would have to buy a pure glider. Not being that interested in competitions, I stopped participating in contests. OLC is more like a handicapped golf tournament - a friendly way to compare flights, not a serious contest per se.

Tom

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

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 7:57:32 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:28:50 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/28/2021 2:39 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:06:23 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
Yep, and wears out quicker.

Dan
5J

On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
cold engine develops more power.
The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine.. If it only
lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40 years! The Stemme is
usual for a self-launcher because it's also a good airplane, and 200 hours might
be only two or three years.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
Eric, are you hitting on the bong? You cannot even admit that you must manage your flight differently. This is beginning to become comical.

Yes, I do manage the flights differently than when I flew towed gliders - that's
the POINT of owning a motorglider: to do things differently from tow planes and
retrieval crews. We keep telling you this over and over, but you obsess over the
idea we do it for some huge flight performance and safety reason. Again, in
order of importance to me: self-launching means I can fly from my home airport,
or almost any airport around the country, even Canada and Alaska (me and my
glider have made that trip); I can reliably make it home, even if I misjudge the
weather, which I like and delights my wife ("best glider we've ever had", she
says); and I can sometimes push my "lift luck" and risk a field landing if the
engine doesn't start.

You also miss the point that there is a large variation in flight management
between pilots; for example, between Ramy Yanetz and Bob Youngblood, even though
they both fly unpowered gliders. Skills, crew availability, wealth,
work/retirement status, health, personality, motored/towed, and more all affect
how a pilot manages a flight. The motored/towed is just one these many factors
involved.

If you'd fly in some contests, or attempted record flights, or just got out of
Florida and flew out a few other places than your nest in Vero, I think you
might better understand what we are trying to tell you.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
Bob seems to want a different contest category for motorgliders for some perceived advantage they do or do not have. Well, this is the WRONG forum for addressing said grievance - take it to OLC if you want some special category. I think that Bob already knows what the answer will be and just wants to vent ad nauseum.

Personally, my experience in actual contests is that MGs have a DISADVANTAGE in the form of undumpable ballast - the pure gliders get get back on weak days and us MGs had to land out (literally at that time). I quickly concluded that if I wanted to compete I would have to buy a pure glider. Not being that interested in competitions, I stopped participating in contests. OLC is more like a handicapped golf tournament - a friendly way to compare flights, not a serious contest per se.

Tom
2G, I do not recall saying anything about contest scoring as you have stated, I give you this opportunity to correct me if I have advocated that idea. Possibly you do not read well and draw incorrect conclusions much too often. What I have said from the beginning is that there is a difference in the advantage that a MG has over a pure glider, you seem to think that this is incorrect. You mentioned ballast, I fly often with ballast, I have filled the damn thing up to the rim and added even more weight to the cockpit, do I look at this as a disadvantage, hell no, I know when to dump! For your information I have flown in many different places, none are more challenging than year around flying in Florida. Don't knock Vero, you should be so lucky, I walk out my back door on to my own runway and enjoy life, maybe you don't have that luxury, I wish you better success in the future.
What I have said is that there should be a different class for MG flight as compared to the purist. I do not have that luxury of closing a triangle and starting my engine to get back to where I started from, that certainly is an advantage, say you?
Let me extend the same invitation to you as I extended to Eric, come on down to Florida, you can stay here at the ranch, fly from the backyard and I will join you and others on a great flight throughout the swampy terrain.
I know what your response will be, yes we both flew the same distance , but wouldn't you agree that our flight management is a bit different, wound you not say that the risk assessment is a bit different.
I met a guy named George, back in or around 1980's, I guess he would be in his 90's now, what do you think his take on all this would be? Your friend , Old Bob

On 4/28/2021 7:19 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 7:57:32 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:

What I have said is that there should be a different class for MG flight as compared to the purist. I do not have that luxury of closing a triangle and starting my engine to get back to where I started from, that certainly is an advantage, say you?
Let me extend the same invitation to you as I extended to Eric, come on down to Florida, you can stay here at the ranch, fly from the backyard and I will join you and others on a great flight throughout the swampy terrain.
I know what your response will be, yes we both flew the same distance , but wouldn't you agree that our flight management is a bit different, wound you not say that the risk assessment is a bit different.
I met a guy named George, back in or around 1980's, I guess he would be in his 90's now, what do you think his take on all this would be? Your friend , Old Bob

What would be better if motorless and motored gliders are in separate classes?
Would you fly in contests if that was done? Why do you think it hasn't happened
already?
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

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

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 7:19:53 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 7:57:32 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:28:50 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/28/2021 2:39 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 5:06:23 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/28/2021 10:31 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
Yep, and wears out quicker.

Dan
5J

On 4/27/21 4:48 PM, waremark wrote:
cold engine develops more power.
The typical self-launcher puts maybe 5-10 hours a year on the engine. If it only
lasts 200 hours before a major overall, that's 20 to 40 years! The Stemme is
usual for a self-launcher because it's also a good airplane, and 200 hours might
be only two or three years.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
Eric, are you hitting on the bong? You cannot even admit that you must manage your flight differently. This is beginning to become comical.

Yes, I do manage the flights differently than when I flew towed gliders - that's
the POINT of owning a motorglider: to do things differently from tow planes and
retrieval crews. We keep telling you this over and over, but you obsess over the
idea we do it for some huge flight performance and safety reason. Again, in
order of importance to me: self-launching means I can fly from my home airport,
or almost any airport around the country, even Canada and Alaska (me and my
glider have made that trip); I can reliably make it home, even if I misjudge the
weather, which I like and delights my wife ("best glider we've ever had", she
says); and I can sometimes push my "lift luck" and risk a field landing if the
engine doesn't start.

You also miss the point that there is a large variation in flight management
between pilots; for example, between Ramy Yanetz and Bob Youngblood, even though
they both fly unpowered gliders. Skills, crew availability, wealth,
work/retirement status, health, personality, motored/towed, and more all affect
how a pilot manages a flight. The motored/towed is just one these many factors
involved.

If you'd fly in some contests, or attempted record flights, or just got out of
Florida and flew out a few other places than your nest in Vero, I think you
might better understand what we are trying to tell you.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
Bob seems to want a different contest category for motorgliders for some perceived advantage they do or do not have. Well, this is the WRONG forum for addressing said grievance - take it to OLC if you want some special category. I think that Bob already knows what the answer will be and just wants to vent ad nauseum.

Personally, my experience in actual contests is that MGs have a DISADVANTAGE in the form of undumpable ballast - the pure gliders get get back on weak days and us MGs had to land out (literally at that time). I quickly concluded that if I wanted to compete I would have to buy a pure glider. Not being that interested in competitions, I stopped participating in contests. OLC is more like a handicapped golf tournament - a friendly way to compare flights, not a serious contest per se.

Tom
2G, I do not recall saying anything about contest scoring as you have stated, I give you this opportunity to correct me if I have advocated that idea. Possibly you do not read well and draw incorrect conclusions much too often. What I have said from the beginning is that there is a difference in the advantage that a MG has over a pure glider, you seem to think that this is incorrect. You mentioned ballast, I fly often with ballast, I have filled the damn thing up to the rim and added even more weight to the cockpit, do I look at this as a disadvantage, hell no, I know when to dump! For your information I have flown in many different places, none are more challenging than year around flying in Florida. Don't knock Vero, you should be so lucky, I walk out my back door on to my own runway and enjoy life, maybe you don't have that luxury, I wish you better success in the future.
What I have said is that there should be a different class for MG flight as compared to the purist. I do not have that luxury of closing a triangle and starting my engine to get back to where I started from, that certainly is an advantage, say you?
Let me extend the same invitation to you as I extended to Eric, come on down to Florida, you can stay here at the ranch, fly from the backyard and I will join you and others on a great flight throughout the swampy terrain.
I know what your response will be, yes we both flew the same distance , but wouldn't you agree that our flight management is a bit different, wound you not say that the risk assessment is a bit different.
I met a guy named George, back in or around 1980's, I guess he would be in his 90's now, what do you think his take on all this would be? Your friend , Old Bob

Okay Bob, here are your own words:
"Do I think that having an engine provides a significant advantage in scoring OLC points? Absolutely, Yes."
and
"Bottom line, motor gliders should compete against motor gliders on OLC."
This is exactly what I said: you want a different categories for pure and motorgliders. You now seem to be denying that you said that. This is like trying to converse with Jello.
While it is great you can walk out your back door to your runway, I don't see how that is relevant to the issue you posed. Flying in Florida sounds intriguing, but is pretty impractical as I am about as far away from Florida as you can get in the lower 48.

Tom

On 4/28/2021 8:06 PM, 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?



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


It's the OLC scoring that bothers you? Holy buckets, don't you know the OLC is
not a real contest, and that you can tally up the scores any way you please?
Pilots are flying hugely different gliders in hugely different conditions all
over the world, and there is no way to handicap them evenly. The
motored/unmotored is the smallest factor in the pilot's performance.


--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Bob, you have asked 3 spcific questions which I will answer below, but let me ask you 2. What make and model motorglider have you flown, and how many flights.

#1, does the Purist have to manage his flight differently that the MG pilot..
Yes for retractable pylon motorgliders there is a big diference. If you intend to do a self retrieve you need to quit sooner. When you intend to start in the air you change your high performance open class glider into a ratty 1-26 (at best) with no guarantee you can turn it back. So not only do you need to have a Landing Option in reach but it must be much closer than you clean polar would show. Basically below you. You need to be high enough to absorb this loss of performance and still make a controlled approach with low performance configuration. Now if I was flying my unpowered glider where I wanted to insure an aero retrieve I would be limited to airports (in my club) and flight management would be diferent as well.

#2 I think motor gliders and unpowered gliders should be scored the same. In the OLC there are far greater contributers to the scoring than an ability to self retrieve. Availability to take advantage of the weather is the largest. If you can only fly on weekends or if you can fly when it is good make a huge difference. I am asuming you are looking for a "local" comparison of scores as location might be the biggest contributer to scores. You asked in a diferent thread how to evaluate the difficulty of a flight on olc.. In my case most of my best scoring flights were the easiest. Some good weather and high cloudbase and long flights are "easy". Having a motor does not make a soaring performance easer to me. That said, I have used my motor to fly to sharable conditions to start earlier. But I have taken longer tows to do the same thing. In the same light most all of my in flight starts are relights if I tried to start too early. But no diferent from a well staffed tow operation.



#3 I think this is where we differ the most. I do not think having a motor inhances safety other than hopefully keeping out of offlanding fields. Unfortunately I belive this is born out in accident statistics. Having a motor does not ever factor into my thinking about crossing unlandable terrain. I am only speaking from my personal perspective, but once I hear the engine bay doors close, a sence of relief sets in that I am in a glider again. I dont think about the motor until I start it up to taxi back to my trailer.. If I am getting low I manage my flight as if I did not have a motor, with the exception that I might need more margin.

I had an experience with my unpowered glider that illustrates this. I had to cross unlandable terrain and I thought I had adequate margin (2500 over to an airport) I headed out and got crushed with wave sink. My arrival was rapidly diminishing with no real option but the trees. I finaly crossed the last trees at 300ft with my gear still up. I had a share in a duo turbo at the time. There was no point in that glide where it would have been safe to extend the turbo for a start. Had it not worked I would have been in the trees. The only things where you can just "push the button" (your words) is a Turing motorglider or fes. They might not work so you can't rationaly rely on them, but at least you haven't made thngs worse by engaging "plumet mode (Dave's words)...