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

Engine's got less than 200 hours on it.

Dan
5J

On 4/28/21 5:05 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
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.

The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.

As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, 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?
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 Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.

As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, 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?
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

Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob

The zoo has prominently displayed signs cautioning guests to refrain from feeding the animals, but y'all just can't resist feeding the cute fuzzy critter...

On 4/29/2021 11:11 AM, wrote:

Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important
differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight
management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about
closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great
example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk,
something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off
shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three
towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the
cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and
who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good
one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean
than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can
read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no
motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob

I have no idea of what you mean by "flight management". What, exactly, are you
managing?

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

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/29/2021 11:11 AM, wrote:

Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important
differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight
management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about
closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great
example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk,
something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off
shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three
towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the
cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and
who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good
one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean
than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can
read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no
motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
I have no idea of what you mean by "flight management". What, exactly, are you
managing?
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Ok Amos, I will wait for Andy, aka 2G to ask the same question and then I will reply.

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 3:08:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
The zoo has prominently displayed signs cautioning guests to refrain from feeding the animals, but y'all just can't resist feeding the cute fuzzy critter...
+1,000,000

Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.

You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.

As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, 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?
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
Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 6:27:23 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
Bob, you continue to completely ignore the details. "flight management as it relates to risk" - what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about? I can only guess. Off field landings have risk, and this risk might be mitigated if the motor starts (and is increased if it doesn't). In my area, off field landings have too much risk for me whether or not I have a motor, I fly so that they are not a consideration. Again this is a choice you have made, and now seem uncomfortable with.

You also know quite well than being offshore in a glider and high vs. low are not remotely the same. Your objections are all allusion with no specifics, but they are code for: "motorglider pilots fly over unlandable terrain and use the motor so save themselves". I'm trying to get you to experience that feeling. If you are quite comfortable with being 800 ft over the waves 5 miles out with no running motor, then you are a bad candidate for motorglider ownership, as it will likely end in a tree.
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 11:39:40 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
The problem, Bob, is that your opinion is uninformed by experience in a motorglider, as you have admitted. You say a motorglider can close his OLC triangle and fly home, that is absolutely true, it is also true that the pure glider can close *the same* triangle and land. What you in effect are saying is, "I am lazy enough not to want to do a retrieve, cheap enough not to pay for one (either a motor, towplane, or a ground crew), and want everyone else to be in the same boat or else I want some free OLC points to compensate". Since OLC score is meaningless, why don't you just add a few hundred points to each flight you make in your head and be happy? You can have a few hundred of mine.

As far as the safety aspects, did you do your homework assignment? I want to know your mindset when you are 5 miles from the beach out over the sea, 800 ft high, in your towplane with a stopped and cold engine. It'll start, right?
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-7, 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?
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
Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk, something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob

Now Jon, if I got myself offshore at 5 miles and 800 feet I think that I would have put myself in a situation that I should question my decision making for getting there in the first place, and actually I don't think I would find trees in that scenario, but probably a lurking shark. Jon, I am very comfortable with the decision to make calculated decisions as a purist rather than the oh well, I'll hit the start button. Many times I fly over unlandable terrain, I make good decisions that I would not otherwise have to make if I had the motor to get me out of the current situation, I call it better flight management, since you admittedly do not do that you possibly do not understand being in that situation.
I have certainly appreciated your continued input into this interesting debate, with all due respect you are a worthy opponent. Think about what you a a couple of others have advocated, having a motor is a disadvantage? Not understanding flight and risk management and ignoring the obvious advantages of the motor vs the purist.
As a token of my appreciation I am going to make it my duty to say thanks and in July I would like to send you a beautiful basket of my purist grown mangos. I will close this out by saying once again thanks for your contributions to this interesting discussion. Your friend, Old Bob

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 1:35:44 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 3:48:49 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/29/2021 11:11 AM, wrote:

Good afternoon my friend Jon, you continue to look at the important
differences between the MG and Purist, that being the importance of flight
management. Continue to overlook this aspect as you did in the remark about
closing the triangle and one goes home and the other may not is a great
example in the difference of the flight management as it relates to risk,
something that you and Eric and Tom continue to overlook.
Now about me being too cheap to pay for a tow, a ground crew and being off
shore and not having a motor, let me explain something. I did own three
towplanes, now down to one , so I do not have to worry about the tow or the
cost of one. If I wanted a motorglider I could go purchase one tomorrow, and
who knows, someday I might just get a self launch. Now here comes the good
one, I really have experienced a much more dynamic flight out over the ocean
than the 5 miles you used as an example, some 25-30 miles offshore and you can
read about it if you wish. Oh, I almost forgot, I was in my sailplane with no
motor. Have a great day Jon, your friend, Old Bob
I have no idea of what you mean by "flight management". What, exactly, are you
managing?
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
Ok Amos, I will wait for Andy, aka 2G to ask the same question and then I will reply.
Hey Bob,
I AM NOT Andy - you apparently can't respond to your OWN WORDS!
Tom