FES - Take 2

On Friday, February 14, 2014 10:25:35 AM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
On 02/13/2014 8:04 PM, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:27:03 PM UTC-6, MNLou wrote:
Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider. For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable. Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope? Lou

As the others have said, "OF Course it does!". Especially since you made the assumption of 100% reliability and no drag penalty. It probably does even with some drag penalty, and the existing weight penalty. But, as Hank says, you really can't put a number on confidence, and we want all the participation we can get. So, get your FES and come play!

Steve

All of the above plus the big advantage that hasn't been mentioned yet;
the mass landout scenario. Guys without motors are stuck in a field and
get home late, pilots with motors get home have a nice dinner and are
well rested for flying the next day...

Luke
I agree with all you guys.
In 10 years we all will be considered as kamikazee(to our grandchildren).
Lets try to minimize it ,and let FEZ guys make a kit for FEZ.
We could start in less restrictive land first, in US (our gurus like Hank,know how to make it legally)
He and I would like to put battery in the wings(I just put my word in his mouth).
Rest is FES company to think about.
For slow thinkers: here in US we can have some smart guys(like UH) to try implement it in gliders in US has now,and later EASA will see our 1-3 record and will adopt.
Luca trust me.
keRW
FES in existing gliders

On Friday, February 14, 2014 11:12:50 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
I should stay out of this, but you know what they say,"too soon old, too late smart". Anyway, let's play one of One Tango's scenarios. Your at a nationals and flying a one turn MAT. About the time you log the mandatory turn-point, you see a Cu pop about 50 miles out in the boonies. You could probably milk enough altitude to give it a try, but if you try and don't connect...............you will be down in a rough area that doesn't even have roads.. Should you go for it? Nope, the risk/reward ratio is too lopsided toward the risk side.

OK, lets put ourselves in a motor glider. How does the risk/reward ratio look now? If I connect with that tempting Cu, you could win the day. If you miss the Cu, you will crank up your trusty put-put and get distance to where I started up and still be home for a cool shower and a hot meal...........I believe you will give it a go!

I didn't dream up this scenario , it is exactly what happened at a Sports Nationals at Parowan a few years back and yes, the motor glider did win the day!

The RC thinking on this is: We know is isn't fair, but we don't have enough gliders showing up at our contests to restrict the motor glider in any way.

Question: How many don't attend a contest because they know a certain good pilot (who flies a motor glider) will be there?

I there a way to allow motor gliders to fly with pure gliders and make things a little more equal? Yes, change the rules to state: If a motor glider starts his motor, he will be landed at his last recorded turn-point before the point where he cranked up.

OK, flash back to the decision point in our little scenario. If the motor glider
tries for the Cu, he could win the day, but if it doesn't work he will loose the 50 miles he flew trying to get to the Cu. I submit the risk/reward ratio is pretty much the same for both pilots and I'd bet the motor glider pilot would have not pressed his advantage that day.
Cheers,
JJ

There is only 3% chance that 50km away cu will give you **** when you get there.
keRW

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:11:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

Only because we are all looking for ways to make it safer,
now FES is on the table and we all think,it could be a bit safer.
keRW

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:11:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates.

System for coming safe home implemented ,is the only way to sustain our sport.

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:53:39 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:11:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
Another point of view would be that it is a pity that so many gliders sold of late are being equipped with expensive, stinky, loud, unreliable, high maintenance motors so as to get a wee advantage in competition (or whatever reason). Seems like JJ's rule to negate part of that competition advantage would actually be good for the sport. Since motorgliders crash a lot more often than pure gliders, it would also be good for our insurance rates..

Could we narrow the argument to sustainers vs pure gliders? There is a huge difference between "turbos" (which includes the FES) and motorgliders. With racing sailplanes costing as much as a house these days, and not being as landout-friendly and the older ships, it makes sense to have a "get-home" capability. And the weight penalty of a sustainer (especially the newer jets) is a lot less, so taking away the "I cant climb as well as a pure glider" argument.

While I fly a pure glider, the first thing I would get if I won the Lottery is a jet sustainer glider. But I have NO interest in a self-launching glider.

Kirk
LS6 66

Kirk, I fly SZD55 and my lows are usually 3 times lower than motor-glides,or sustainer gliders.I think you are wrong.
One day we will all have a way to come home safe and fast,maybe FES is the answer.
keRW

On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:00:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:40:22 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
The proposed rule change allows a MG to claim an airport bonus without actually overflying the bonus airport. The new rule only requires he show that he had sufficient altitude to glide to the approved airport, at the time of engine start. The airport bonus is given as an incentive to land at a safe airport and not attempt a shaky glide towards the next turn point. Question; What if the engine doesn't start? Not an uncommon occurrence out west where high altitude cold-soaks the engine. If the engine didn't start as the MG overflew the bonus airport, it would be a non event. If the engine fails to start half way down final glide...................? Doesn't the proposed rule change negate the reason for giving an airport bonus in the first place? :) JJ

Nope- The airport bonus is a scoring incentive to encourage pilots to land safely at an airport instead of gliding on to land in a field to get more distance points.
UH

Hank,you're wrong.g
With current rules it is better to risk to damage glider and land out just 2 miles off field than coming home from same position with only 200 ft extra on final.
You get more points this way(look at last day of club class nat in Mifflin,I made my point to prove it)
keRW

On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:32:22 AM UTC-4, RW wrote:
On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:00:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:40:22 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
The proposed rule change allows a MG to claim an airport bonus without actually overflying the bonus airport. The new rule only requires he show that he had sufficient altitude to glide to the approved airport, at the time of engine start. The airport bonus is given as an incentive to land at a safe airport and not attempt a shaky glide towards the next turn point. Question; What if the engine doesn't start? Not an uncommon occurrence out west where high altitude cold-soaks the engine. If the engine didn't start as the MG overflew the bonus airport, it would be a non event. If the engine fails to start half way down final glide...................? Doesn't the proposed rule change negate the reason for giving an airport bonus in the first place? :) JJ

Nope- The airport bonus is a scoring incentive to encourage pilots to land safely at an airport instead of gliding on to land in a field to get more distance points.
UH

Hank,you're wrong.g
With current rules it is better to risk to damage glider and land out just 2 miles off field than coming home from same position with only 200 ft extra on final.
You get more points this way(look at last day of club class nat in Mifflin,I made my point to prove it)
keRW

Argh. I'm not ready for Winter.

T8

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:27:03 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider.

For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable.

Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope?

Lou

As a competition sustainer pilot, would I go for that Cu 50mi away over unlandable terrain? Nope. Never! And Darwin's theory of Natural Selection will eventually catch up to those who would.

If I had a self launcher, I could live somewhere other than near a
glider port.

Dan Marotta

On 10/27/2014 10:05 PM, RW wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:52:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:27:03 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
Although I enjoyed the discussion in my previous thread on drag and handicaps, I was trying to create a discussion about the benefit of having a reliable propulsion system versus a pure glider. For this discussion, please assume that someone created an FES system that had no drag and no additional weight. Thus, an FES equipped ship and an non-FES equipped ship had identical polars. Also assume that the FES system was 100% reliable. Do you think the FES ship would have a competitive advantage over a pure glider because of the ability to stretch the "safe flight" envelope? Lou
Of course it does for the simple reason that there are always opportunities to improve the score by adding risk to the flight. For the purpose of my comment let's assume that we are talking about risk of not completing the task and not of extending the risk to potential accident. Many times we might consider risking the flight, but don't because of the added issue of landing out and needing a retrieve, on top of getting a poor score. For crewless pilots this can be an even bigger consideration.
If I have a way to retrieve myself, and I think it will probably will work, of course I might cross that dead area. Without the retreive capability, it is a much harder decision.
Throw in high risk weather, or bad terrain, and the potential advantage is obviously increased.
Is there a way to quantify it? Not that we've found yet.
Why let them play in our races? Easy, we're too small a sport to send people home.
The guys with engines will also argue that they have to quit higher in order to safely use the engine. Obviously not so with FES.
And we even like some of them. LOL

UH
Yes, and few years later pure glider pilots will be considered kamikaze.
We have to change this before our grandchildren can ask us about it !

Hahaaaa!
I'm not ready for winter either.
Jim


On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:15:42 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
If I had a self launcher, I could live
somewhere other than near a glider port.

Dan Marotta