Andy,I hate to single you out, but that statement really
bothers me.What if Klaus, instead of flying a motorglider, had
hired a dozen crews complete with trailers and helicopters
to handle the retreives along his route. Would you
also consider it less of an acheivement than if he
only had one crew at the home airport?What the motorglider does is give the (relatively)
ordinary pilot the opportunity to explore areas and
work conditions that are a bit more difficult logistically.
Last November, I flew a 100km world record speed flight.
I couldn't have done it without the motor as there
wasn't a towplane available at the airport. Also,
had a towplane been available, I may not have taken
the tow to 13000 MSL (nearly 8K AGL) due to perceived
cost and not wanting to inconvenience the next person
in line waiting for a tow.Anyone who thinks the engine provides an 'out' from
wrecking the glider has not flown one of these sailplanes
seriously. What the motor provides me is the same
confidence and frame of mind as a crew driving a very
fast car and always within easy contact to come and
get me out of that field I'm about to start the engine
over. So far, my engine has always started, but I
never trust it to.In the USA, national recods do separate motorgliders
from the rest. Aside from the logistics of the very
early launch and connecting with the wave, I don't
think Kempton Izuno ever thought about the engine on
his 1000 mile flight in the Sierra earlier this year.
I pretty much don't on over 90% of my flights. But
when I do, it's always AFTER I've picked a likely landing
area.At 15:12 28 June 2004, Andrew Henderson wrote:That's speculation, and the record whilst a magnificentflight is not the same as one without an engine.
Tom Serkowski
ASH-26E

To email me, place '@' after Tom, and append '.com'