On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 3:03:39 PM UTC-7, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
"Yes there are people who don't do this - the NTSA accident database is rife with them."

This is the issue with Motor Gliders right here. The fact that some people (not all) will assume the risk to catch that one last thermal to get to the finish point. The mentality that someone "could" fly over upland able terrain and risk having to start the motor, but making that thermal that a pure glider cannot reach. The psychology of having an alternate option 3 feet behind your head is a factor in the minds of some. Being able to assume that the motor is there and will start is a whole different game. The database shows the accident that happened, but how about the ones that were successful and didn't result in an accident.

The argument of extra weight makes me chuckle. More weight is good on strong days typically. When was the last time a record was broken on a weak day? I am sorry but the assumption that more weight is a bad thing when making a record attempt is poorly represented.


Motor Gliders are not Pure Gliders and they have no place on the same record sheet. This is a horrible move for the Sport of soaring and will further increase the required investment in order to be competitive and break records.

snip The fact that some people (not all) will assume the risk to catch that one last thermal to get to the finish point. /snip

While true, it is objectively provable (and therefore also disprovable) that this is relevant in record attempts. Since every recent record attempt has associated with it a publicly accessible secure log, these logs can be checked to see how many currently held records were the result of a motorglider that flew dangerously low over unlandable terrain in order to complete the record. Also compare that to those records held by pure gliders doing the same thing. If there is a significant difference in percentage, then you have a good argument.

Those making the extraordinary claim that motorgliders are doing this often and unfairly claiming records need to provide some evidence that the problem actually exists. Otherwise we may cast it into the same rubbish heap as claims of wiretaps of Trump Tower. I doubt you will find many instances of this actually occurring, if you do I will be the first to change my position. Prove it.

It is quite easy to peruse the (motorglider) record flights of Mitch Polinsky or Jim Payne for example, who own all (but 1) of the national distance records where one is most likely find this sort of behavior. They are all posted on OLC for anyone to view. There are no low saves or anything even approaching a low save. Nor are there in any other motorglider national distance record. The motor played no part in the performance of these records. Yet they are harmed in their ability to claim international records due the the baroque US regulations, different from the rest of the world.

As an aside, you have misrepresented the weight argument. Motorgliders cannot dump all the ballast (motor) at the end of a dying day to their disadvantage - exactly the situation in which they are claimed to have an advantage by executing a low save. But as you say, most records are broken on strong days - when neither minimum wing loading, nor low saves are an issue.

The cost argument is specious - a paid retrieve crew is cheaper than an engine.