On 3/13/2017 12:40 PM, jfitch wrote:
Snip...

There may be some motorglider pilots that fly too low into unlandable
terrain. This is an advantage, but a self correcting problem. Other than
that, the motor saves the inconvenience and cost of a retrieve, nothing
more. The cost is questionable, as the price of the motor is far more than
either a lifetime of air retrieves or a paid help crew. The convenience is
undeniable. Should there be a separate record for people who have paid for
the convenience of a one man rigging outfit? Should there be a separate
record for the convenience of a glider with automatic connecting controls?
Should motorgliders get a speed bonus, due to the inconvenient extra
maintenance and expense required?

Hmmm...and trying to reiterate a point I sought to make in an earlier post...

Extracting a quote (since I raised cost as a very real distinguishing issue
between engineless and powered sailplanes to many 'Joe Average' glider types
[e.g. me] in an earlier post): "The cost is questionable, as the price of the
motor is far more than either a lifetime of air retrieves or a paid help
crew." Maybe I missed it when I used to work in various businesses requiring
engineering support (the 'excess salary' they threw my direction therefrom
supporting my glidering), but both the business and myself accounted
distinctly differently between large capital expenses (e.g. my glider) and
running costs. So what if in the long run the total cash outlay happens to
come out 'relatively even?' (I've never sought to check.) It's meaningless to
the guy paying the bill (whether from future company profits, or saved 'excess
salary'). What matters is, "Can I afford/risk it given today's cashflow?"

And to go from ignoring capital cost as a seriously distinguishing difference
between "pure" and "auxiliary-powered" sailplanes, to "reductio ad absurdum"
rhetorical questions, doesn't change the fact that equating pure/powered
categories by no longer distinguishing between the categories is - in a
record-keeping sense - to bureaucratically pretend apples and oranges are
equivalent. It simply ain't so...


I have no problem with a separate "pure" glider record in the US. Given
that worldwide 80% of new gliders have motors, this will become an
increasingly esoteric corner of soaring. We still keep 1-26 records right?
But along with that I demand categories separated by wing loading, which
has a far greater affect on speed and distance.

Have at it. Maybe IGC will listen, since they would appear ready to entertain
at least one other spurious category.

Respectfully,
Bob W.