On 3/17/2017 4:31 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 6:29:43 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:27:55 PM UTC-4, RR wrote:
I understand the difference in the mental game, and the additional
pressure it places on you. It is one of the reasons that I bought
this new toy. I have some records I would like to go for this year.
To mount these attempt I would need to arrange for early morning
launches, have a crew on standby, etc. All posable, not all that
expencive, but asking a lot of other support people. With a motor
glider, I can provide all of that myself. In that these will be wave
flights, I may face the possibility of an airport landout, to warm
the motor back up, but I will be able to self retreve. But assuming
all goes well, I can do that without inconvenience to others.

So now we circle back to the advantage of "convenience". It does not
seem appropriate to have diferent category based on convenience.

I could have all the piece of mind, and comfort if I had a ground
crew following me on an attempt. And I might note for the price of a
new motor glider that crew could be paid and bring the drinks and
dancing girls in the back of the chase limo. We might look down on
such a well funded record attempt but should it require a new
category?


RR

Doesn't an engine and the having the additional "arrow in your quiver"
allow you a bit more ability to take risk?

Dennis DC

No it does not. Without the engine, I would continue looking for thermals
down to 1000 ft. (in the West, some in the East would say 200 ft). With
the engine, 2000 ft. You need to get it out, go through the start up
routine, warm it a little (on cold/high days), then when it DOESN'T
start, put it away again and line up for your landing.

Yes there are people who don't do this - the NTSA accident database is
rife with them. Statistics argue that the engine makes the glider more
dangerous, not safer. But more convenient - when it starts - and the
safety is subject to the full control of the operator by showing some
restraint.

A second drawback so far unmentioned is the pilot workload that the
engine contributes to, at a very inconvenient time (you are are low).
Should I start the engine? What if it doesn't start? Will the 50%
degradation in performance once the engine is out preclude the landing
area I chose? Do I remember the exact sequence? Should I have started it
5 minutes ago? That extra bit of distraction, just when you are near
overload, is a significant factor in the prudent decision to give up
earlier.

The reason the mindset is different with an engine is that it is sunk
cost, so in the middle of the day I will go further, knowing that 9 out
of 10 times the engine will start if it is needed, and the inconvenient
retrieve is reduced to 10% of the consideration it might have been. The
money has already been spent, whether I use it or not. In my engineless
glider, in the middle of the day, I am thinking, "do I really want
another 50 miles if it is going to cost me $300?" and often the answer
was no. I hadn't yet spent the money, and there was the opportunity to
save it. This has nothing at all to do with performance. My suggestion to
those without an engine, who want the extra 50 miles on a day with
landout risk, is to hand $300 to your ground crew, Uber driver, or
whoever before you take off. Now go fly. They will come get you if you
land out. You don't get the money back in any case. Now you can have the
same mindset, along with the satisfaction of knowing you can do that at
least 10 times a year and still be paying less than the cost of an
engine.

Back to records. The ability to be able to selectively end your soaring
performance at will, in the air, is a significant benefit to the pilot.
All this huffing and puffing about the prudent use of TODAY's technology is
relevant to precisely nothing as far as the *rules* go. As the technology
improves, I expect to see MG pilots do even dumber stuff, and mostly get
away with it as they do now.

Now off to wax my xc skis.... (on ST Pa[dd]y's day? argh).

Heh..."huffing and puffing" indeed. For those unable to distinguish some
fundamental differences between engineless sailplanes and
sailplanes-cum-engine (of any sort), and who are also comfortable being told
how they should spend their disposable cash (Tangentially: I can point to a
lot of governments around the world only-too-eager for help in that
bureaucratic area!), I humbly suggest purchasing donkeys rather than any form
of horse. You'll hardly notice the differences.

Respectfully,
Bob W.

P.S. Don't drink green snow!