If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted
On Dec 14, 7:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...e%20Meeting%20... John Godfrey (QT) Can someone please explain the intent of this: "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting of all gliders up to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current provision that allows no ballast. For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged. “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only ballast allowed." Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed? Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading? thanks Andy |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted
Can someone please explain the intent of this: "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting of all gliders up to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current provision that allows no ballast. For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged. “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only ballast allowed." Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed? Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading? thanks Andy This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the same thing. Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about. (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just kidding) The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no- ballast rules. Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water, that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules. Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2) conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance, safety, fairness, etc. etc. I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings.... John Cochrane |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted
On Dec 14, 9:03*am, John Cochrane
wrote: Can someone please explain the intent of this: "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting of all gliders up to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current provision that allows no ballast. For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged. “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only ballast allowed." Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed? Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading? thanks Andy This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the same thing. Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about. (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just kidding) The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no- ballast rules. Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water, that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules. Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2) conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance, safety, fairness, etc. etc. I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings.... John Cochrane So the committee feels that motorgliders have no advantage over conventional sailplanes when they have the same wing loading? Would you line a ten-minute argument or the whole half-hour? Mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted
So the committee feels that motorgliders have no advantage over conventional sailplanes when they have the same wing loading? Would you line a ten-minute argument or the whole half-hour? Mike Calm down now, that's not what we said. All we did is address a wingloading advantage on no-ballast days. This is only about how to apply no ballast rules. It's not a deep statement on the whole vexing motorglider question. John Cochrane |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted
On Dec 14, 9:03*am, John Cochrane
wrote: Can someone please explain the intent of this: "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting of all gliders up to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current provision that allows no ballast. For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged. “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only ballast allowed." Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed? Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading? thanks Andy This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the same thing. Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about. (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just kidding) The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no- ballast rules. Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water, that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules. Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2) conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance, safety, fairness, etc. etc. I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings.... John Cochrane- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Thanks for the quick reply John. The "ballast to the same weight" concept seems to be unfair to Std class gliders flying FAI class rules with a combined Std and 15M contest. While most modern Std gliders may have similar wing area, and most modern 15m gliders may have similar wing areas, there is a very distinct difference between Std and 15M wing areas. Would it not be reasonable to have every pilot declare their unballasted wing loading at contest entry. Each pilot could then calculate, before the contest started, what ballast was required to reach the loading of the highest wing loading entrant. It would only take me a minute or two to fire up the laptop and open the W/B spreadsheet to get that data. If that's too complicated then, in the case of a combined Std and 15M class, the Standard should be assigned a max takeoff weight that is adjusted by the ratio of typical Std and typical 15m wing areas. ASW-28 wing area 10.5, ASG-29-15 9.2 (area in square metres) so adjustment factor 1.14? Andy |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted
On Dec 14, 8:44*am, Andy wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:03*am, John Cochrane wrote: Can someone please explain the intent of this: "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting of all gliders up to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current provision that allows no ballast. For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged. “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only ballast allowed." Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed? Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading? thanks Andy This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the same thing. Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about. (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just kidding) The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no- ballast rules. Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water, that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules. Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2) conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance, safety, fairness, etc. etc. I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings.... John Cochrane- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Thanks for the quick reply John. *The "ballast to the same weight" concept seems to be unfair to Std class gliders flying FAI class rules with a combined Std and 15M contest. *While most modern Std gliders may have similar wing area, and most modern 15m gliders may have similar wing areas, there is a very distinct difference between Std and 15M wing areas. Would it not be reasonable to have every pilot declare their unballasted wing loading at contest entry. *Each pilot could then calculate, before the contest started, what ballast was required to reach the loading of the highest wing loading entrant. *It would only take me a minute or two to fire up the laptop and open the W/B spreadsheet to get that data. If that's too complicated then, in the case of a combined Std and 15M class, *the Standard should be assigned a max takeoff weight that is adjusted by the ratio of *typical Std and typical 15m wing areas. ASW-28 wing area 10.5, ASG-29-15 *9.2 (area in square metres) so adjustment factor 1.14? Andy Conversely if you are flying a 15m ship in an 18m contest you could be at an advantage. Should the 15m ships have an adjustment factor as well? 2C |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted
On Dec 14, 7:41*pm, Kevin Christner wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:44*am, Andy wrote: On Dec 14, 9:03*am, John Cochrane wrote: Can someone please explain the intent of this: "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting of all gliders up to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current provision that allows no ballast. For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged. “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only ballast allowed." Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed? Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading? thanks Andy This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the same thing. Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about. (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just kidding) The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no- ballast rules. Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water, that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules. Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2) conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance, safety, fairness, etc. etc. I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings.... John Cochrane- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Thanks for the quick reply John. *The "ballast to the same weight" concept seems to be unfair to Std class gliders flying FAI class rules with a combined Std and 15M contest. *While most modern Std gliders may have similar wing area, and most modern 15m gliders may have similar wing areas, there is a very distinct difference between Std and 15M wing areas. Would it not be reasonable to have every pilot declare their unballasted wing loading at contest entry. *Each pilot could then calculate, before the contest started, what ballast was required to reach the loading of the highest wing loading entrant. *It would only take me a minute or two to fire up the laptop and open the W/B spreadsheet to get that data. If that's too complicated then, in the case of a combined Std and 15M class, *the Standard should be assigned a max takeoff weight that is adjusted by the ratio of *typical Std and typical 15m wing areas. ASW-28 wing area 10.5, ASG-29-15 *9.2 (area in square metres) so adjustment factor 1.14? Andy Conversely if you are flying a 15m ship in an 18m contest you could be at an advantage. *Should the 15m ships have an adjustment factor as well? 2C- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Or go to to the contemplated combined handicap class and don't worry about it. UH |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted
On Dec 14, 8:44*am, Andy wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:03*am, John Cochrane wrote: Can someone please explain the intent of this: "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting of all gliders up to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current provision that allows no ballast. For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged. “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only ballast allowed." Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed? Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading? thanks Andy This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the same thing. Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about. (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just kidding) The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no- ballast rules. Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water, that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules. Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2) conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance, safety, fairness, etc. etc. I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings.... John Cochrane- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Thanks for the quick reply John. *The "ballast to the same weight" concept seems to be unfair to Std class gliders flying FAI class rules with a combined Std and 15M contest. *While most modern Std gliders may have similar wing area, and most modern 15m gliders may have similar wing areas, there is a very distinct difference between Std and 15M wing areas. Would it not be reasonable to have every pilot declare their unballasted wing loading at contest entry. *Each pilot could then calculate, before the contest started, what ballast was required to reach the loading of the highest wing loading entrant. *It would only take me a minute or two to fire up the laptop and open the W/B spreadsheet to get that data. If that's too complicated then, in the case of a combined Std and 15M class, *the Standard should be assigned a max takeoff weight that is adjusted by the ratio of *typical Std and typical 15m wing areas. ASW-28 wing area 10.5, ASG-29-15 *9.2 (area in square metres) so adjustment factor 1.14? Andy How about allowing more ballast for older generation glass ships up until their handicap under Sports Class rules is equalized? This would turn handicapping on it's head - use ballast to equalize performance rather than adjusting scores after the fact. Of course that would make for one heavy Libelle. I'm kidding. This does show the challenge the RC faces in responding to the calls for simple rules versus the calls for fairness. No water contests do confer some advantage on heavy motorgliders with heavy pilots. The RC proposal seems like a decent attempt at closing most of that gap. I'm not sure that equalizing wing loading is an improvement since gliders all have inherently different wing loading ranges by design. Plus older gliders with really large wing areas could get pretty heavy - which might undermine the original intent behind restricting takeoff weight at certain airfields. 9B |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted
I thought the "start anywhere" rule was going to revert back to the
original version by eliminating the "front half" of the cylinder provision that was added for 2010. What happened? Also, under advanced handicap class rules that allow water will the handicaps vary with the ballasted weight or just use the unballasted weights for setting handicaps? 9B |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Proposed US Competition Rules Changes for 2010 | [email protected] | Soaring | 1 | December 17th 09 05:20 PM |
SSA Competition Rules Meeting Minutes | [email protected] | Soaring | 3 | December 4th 09 08:04 PM |
US Competition Rules Poll and Committee Election | [email protected] | Soaring | 6 | October 13th 09 01:37 PM |
SSA Competition Rules Committee Nominations and Poll | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | June 3rd 09 02:16 PM |
2005 SSA Rules Committee Meeting Minutes Posted | Ken Kochanski (KK) | Soaring | 1 | December 20th 05 05:38 PM |