Are you aware that an air-restart of the motorglider was out of the question
because of the extreme cold ? It was only for launch convenience. Should
give you additional appreciation for what Ohlmann has accomplished.

Best Regards, Dave


"Ian Forbes" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:13:30 +0000, JJ Sinclair wrote:

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

Of course motor gliders have many advantages (and some disadvantages) when
compared to pure gliders. A good illustration of this is Klaus Ohlmann's
3000km flight in the Andes. I suspect it would have taken him many more
seasons to reach this goal if all of his knowledge and experience had to
be gained flying a pure glider. This may explain why most new gliders
leaving the factory today, have a motor installed.

Perhaps the way to make to make the sport more 'fair' is to revise the
definitions of the various FAI classes. We already have Standard, 15m and
18m classes which are not separated by major technical features,
performance ability or price. Many gliders can compete competitively in
more than one class (given appropriate weather and/or a different set of
wing tips).


How about using the classes to separate the engine issues? For example:

Standard class, no engine permitted.

15m class. Sustainers permitted, but no self launchers.

18m. Self launchers permitted (encouraged?).

Open class, no limitations (well it is open class).

The guys with sustainers in their standard class ships could disable (or
remove) them, or fly 15m class. Same goes for 15m ships with self
launchers.

Open class pilots have always been faced with the prospect of somebody
with more money arriving at the flight line with a significantly better
performing glider. You may be safe for a couple of years if you fly an
Eta. (Sorry JJ, this won't help make your Nimbus III competitive - but I
am sure that you will continue to enjoy flying it safely!)

None of these changes would "obsolete" an existing competitive glider but
it would definitely help distinguish between the the classes in terms of
cost and performance.


Ian

PS: At the same time maybe vertical winglets and (dump-able) tail ballast
tanks should be banned from standard class. They add to the cost and
complexity with just a small increase in performance - which was never
really the intention of 'standard' class.