On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 12:19:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.

You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.

If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
"I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."

However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
I'm a new glider pilot, who has no significant experience with motorgliders (other than going for a flight in a Dimona TMG). One of the things my (recent) training emphasized with regard to flying a MG was that you should NEVER fly to an area that you would need the motor to get out of if there were no safe land-out options available. In other words, your mindset, when flying a motorglider, should be the SAME as when flying a "pure" glider, because you can not 100% depend on the reliability of the motor to start. I believe this is the point many are making here.

However, it would seem that in reality this is not always the case. This has been evidenced by a few recent high-profile crashes, including that of Sebastian Kawa. The reality is that having a motor seems to give some pilots (not all, admittedly), a sense of security that allows them to take additional risks, and thus get an advantage from it. Technology continues to improve, and reliability of these motors seems to be getting better, at least what I can tell from reading. And as such, "Old Bob" does make a valid point. The question I have is "how many MG pilots, in actual practice, fly their MG like a pure sailplane, not putting themselves in situations where they would need to depend on their motor?"

I actually fly more conservatively than I flew pure gliders. The main reason is that a MG is heavier and needs a better field. Also in weak conditions pure gliders have huge advantage. Saying that MG have advantage is a pile of BS. It is not a MG that gives people advantage is the mindset of being lucky, many pure glider pilot have the same mindset that is based on the way they think rather than reality. I am sure there is someone out there thinking that a picture of Jesus in the glider will bring that person home. Neither has bases in reality.