On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:20:04 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

Kirk, I fly SZD55 and my lows are usually 3 times lower than motor-glides,or sustainer gliders.I think you are wrong.
One day we will all have a way to come home safe and fast,maybe FES is the answer.
keRW

All that says is that you are either a more aggressive pilot, or pilots who buy sustainer gliders have a higher "knock it off" threshold due to their greater investment, or that perhaps they bought sustainers so that they don't have to have white-nuckle saves.

We are talking about racing pilots on racing tasks in essentially identically performing gliders.

So please explain why you think I'm wrong.

Cheers,

Kirk
Ls6-b 66 (w/o sustainer)