In article ,
says...

Some very capable pilots are flying motorgliders and they enjoy a
distinct advantage. Allow me to give an example; At region 8 championships on
day 2, the sky had been completely overcast for hours. The 5 contestants in
open class were working warm areas of freshly plowed ground. We all made it to
the last turn point, some 30 miles from home. None of us had enough altitude to
attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable terrain.

I am one of those pilots. There are NUMEROUS safe landing fields
between Coulee City and Ephrata, and I was never out of reach of one
of these fields, nor was the other pilot. I just don't fly that way,
and I'm very disappointed JJ thinks I do. I've talked to him about
this, but obviously haven't changed his mind.

They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they both
started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to the
location where they started their engines.

I actually turned back to be over a good field at decent altitude to
restart my engine. Had I been flying without an engine, I would've
continued because...

-at 6.7 pounds/sq ft (no engine weight) versus 8.2 lbs/sq ft, I would
have climbed in the weak thermal I found there to gain the few hundred
feet I needed

-if I did have to land, it's safer to do it at 6.7 lbs/sq ft vs 8.2

-it's a heck of a lot easier to retrieve a glider with a 320 pound
fuselage instead of a 500 pound fuselage!

A few years back, I tried a similar
final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I ended
up a mile short with a broken ship.

I must point out that a motor is not a safety advantage. Motor glider
pilots also land out and break their gliders when they make bad
choices, often by picking a poor field, waiting until too low to
attempt a restart, then botching the landing when the motor doesn't
start. And the landing doesn't go any better with an 8 lb/ft2 wing
loading, than it would with the 6 lb/ft2 wing loading of a Nimbus 3.

The competitor in an unpowered glider has an advantage because he can
safely thermal lower than the motor glider pilot, because he doesn't
need an extra few hundred feet to safely attempt a restart, and he
lands slower.

I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage.

I contend a serious competitor will fly a glider with a wide range of
wing loadings, and that is very definitely NOT a motorglider.

I recommend we consider
returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider to have their engine
available for in-flight use, but they must land to get distance points. Any
in-flight use would result in zero points for the day. They would still have
the option of using a constructive landout, as is the case with non-motorized
ships. The constructive land out is claimed after a landing, but not at the
point of engine start. This rule would make motorgliders exactly EQUAL to
non-motored sailplanes,

Exactly EQUAL? What about the 180 pounds of ballast (engine, fuel,
batteries, etc) I can't drop? That's worth 1.5 pounds/sq ft of wing
loading. Let me rewrite Moffat's comment: "Contests are won on the
weak days, not by getting lucky over unlandable terrain".

Because of the weight difference and other factors, I don't see any
way to avoid one type of glider from having some advantage over the
other type. I suggest an approach that balances the advantages so that
pilots of both types will want to fly in a contest. The "zero points
for day" for an inflight restart will discourage motorglider pilots
from entering contests for two reasons:

-Self-launchers: the high weight makes field landings (higher touch
down speed) and retrieves very unattractive, so they would have to
stay within reach of an airport at all times; coupled with the high
minimum wing loading, some of us will decide doing well is simply not
possible.

-Sustainers: landing means they can't self-retrieve, so some will
decide the hassle of a ground retrieve or the expense of an aerotow
aren't worth it.

but still allow them the option of using their engines
if the situation warranted its use. Allowing the engine to be available would
also negate the argument that motorglider insurance may be invalidated if their
engines were disabled. After landing, the motorglider would have the option of
selflaunching and flying back to the contest airport.

Except the sustainers, of course.

Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider was scored at the last
achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning to this rule wouldn't be
fair because they could still make a final glide without sufficient altitude.
If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they still get scored at the
last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not to try the unsafe final
glide.

How about the very real possibility that the motor won't start, and
the altitude lost while the motor is extended? It's enough to keep me
from flying out of reach of a safe landing place! Once you've had an
engine refuse to start, it gives you a new perspective.

On a lesser important note, some creative rules interpretation is occuring at
the regional level. Some regions have optained a waver of the "All launches
will be by aerotow" rule. I would ask that no more waivers be granted because
selflaunching allowes the motorglider to drive around until they find a good
thermal, before shutting down their engines. The non-motored contestant must
release shortly after reaching release altitude.

This is an advantage, and I've requested that our next contest at
Ephrata disallow this. I think there should a rule that all gliders
get "dropped" in about the same place; frankly, this isn't happening
even with the towed gliders. This can be enforced by looking at the
flight traces.

The creative rules
interpretation has also led to something called an "In-flight relight", where a
low motorglider just flies within 1 mile of the airport and then starts up his
engine and performs his in-flight relight. This is also clearly unfair to the
non-motored sailplane who must land, possibly with water, shove his sailplane
back to the end of the runway, and wait for a tow plane to come out. I request
that more specific language be use to make these practices unavailable in the
future.

I totally agree, but I don't think it was a "creative rules
interpretation" but just ignorance that allowed it to happen at
Ephrata. I support requiring the motorglider to land and wait for the
already landed gliders to launch before he does.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)