All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:11:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Performance is increased by convenience. Let's flip this round why are motor-packers against separate records?

I've already said I'm all for it - as long as all other conveniences similarly have their own category.

Do you own a trailer for your glider? That is a great (and expensive) convenience when flying cross country with the possibility of a landout. It makes your mindset entirely different and changes the way you fly. We need a separate record category for those with trailers.

Do carry hull insurance? That is expensive, but brings piece of mind in case of a landout, and changes your mindset, allowing you to take more risk and go further. Separate record category for insurance.

Do you have a radio? Not required by law or rules, expensive, but a great convenience in communicating with ground crew for a potential retrieve. You would definitely fly differently without it, different mindset. Separate category.

Do you have a GPS system? A great convenience, knowing exactly where I am, where the landing sites are, if I can make them or not. Definitely changes mindset and risk. Some people cannot afford them, not fair. Separate category.

Do you have a relief tube? While not expensive, it is a great convenience, changing both mindset and pilot performance. Another category.

I could go on, but you get the idea: when you begin to penalize convenience, you step off a cliff, and the bottom is a long way down.

The performance gain from extra wingspan is convenient. Is it justifiable to keep records by wingspan? Let's go full on and have one open open class for records. $ame as a motor. No money excuses. Buy the widest, newest glider if you want a record.
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 1:23:47 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:11:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Performance is increased by convenience. Let's flip this round why are motor-packers against separate records?

I've already said I'm all for it - as long as all other conveniences similarly have their own category.

Do you own a trailer for your glider? That is a great (and expensive) convenience when flying cross country with the possibility of a landout. It makes your mindset entirely different and changes the way you fly. We need a separate record category for those with trailers.

Do carry hull insurance? That is expensive, but brings piece of mind in case of a landout, and changes your mindset, allowing you to take more risk and go further. Separate record category for insurance.

Do you have a radio? Not required by law or rules, expensive, but a great convenience in communicating with ground crew for a potential retrieve. You would definitely fly differently without it, different mindset. Separate category.

Do you have a GPS system? A great convenience, knowing exactly where I am, where the landing sites are, if I can make them or not. Definitely changes mindset and risk. Some people cannot afford them, not fair. Separate category.

Do you have a relief tube? While not expensive, it is a great convenience, changing both mindset and pilot performance. Another category.

I could go on, but you get the idea: when you begin to penalize convenience, you step off a cliff, and the bottom is a long way down.

Easy solution - use handicaps. (ducking and running)

-John, Q3

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 11:12:25 AM UTC-7, John Carlyle wrote:
Easy solution - use handicaps. (ducking and running)

-John, Q3

John, since the argument against auxiliary engines is at its base one against cost (or perhaps aesthetics), what you propose is not unreasonable, except that no handicapping system exists that everyone agrees is fair in all conditions.

I propose that records should be categorized by glider value. This would be enforced the way the drag racers do, by a "claiming" rule. You claim your glider is worth $20,000, and fly a record in the $20,000 category. You are obliged to sell that glider for $20,000 to anyone who wants it. This is not only an effective measure against cheating (by flying an EB29 in the $20K class), but also tends to drive the costs even lower as there is incentive to set records in the $20K class with a glider only worth $15K - so no one will claim it.

Now be both have to run for cover....

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:50:49 PM UTC+3, wrote:
The performance gain from extra wingspan is convenient. Is it justifiable to keep records by wingspan? Let's go full on and have one open open class for records. $ame as a motor. No money excuses. Buy the widest, newest glider if you want a record.

I'll just note that there appear to be world records with a higher "performance" by 15m gliders than by Open Class gliders. Span isn't always an advantage.

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 11:13:47 AM UTC-7, Bruce Hoult wrote:

I'll just note that there appear to be world records with a higher "performance" by 15m gliders than by Open Class gliders. Span isn't always an advantage.

Sacrilege, you should be drawn and quartered, never to have such blasphemy shared in public again!!
Former N4 driver,
Jon

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 2:13:47 PM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:50:49 PM UTC+3, wrote:
The performance gain from extra wingspan is convenient. Is it justifiable to keep records by wingspan? Let's go full on and have one open open class for records. $ame as a motor. No money excuses. Buy the widest, newest glider if you want a record.

I'll just note that there appear to be world records with a higher "performance" by 15m gliders than by Open Class gliders. Span isn't always an advantage.

Short ones are faster. Right on. All the more reason to stop using span as a record category. Advantage of a single open open class, beyond saving server space, is we'd know what the fastest glider really is.

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 10:50:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
The performance gain from extra wingspan is convenient. Is it justifiable to keep records by wingspan? Let's go full on and have one open open class for records. $ame as a motor. No money excuses. Buy the widest, newest glider if you want a record.
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 1:23:47 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:11:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Performance is increased by convenience. Let's flip this round why are motor-packers against separate records?

I've already said I'm all for it - as long as all other conveniences similarly have their own category.

Do you own a trailer for your glider? That is a great (and expensive) convenience when flying cross country with the possibility of a landout. It makes your mindset entirely different and changes the way you fly. We need a separate record category for those with trailers.

Do carry hull insurance? That is expensive, but brings piece of mind in case of a landout, and changes your mindset, allowing you to take more risk and go further. Separate record category for insurance.

Do you have a radio? Not required by law or rules, expensive, but a great convenience in communicating with ground crew for a potential retrieve. You would definitely fly differently without it, different mindset. Separate category.

Do you have a GPS system? A great convenience, knowing exactly where I am, where the landing sites are, if I can make them or not. Definitely changes mindset and risk. Some people cannot afford them, not fair. Separate category.

Do you have a relief tube? While not expensive, it is a great convenience, changing both mindset and pilot performance. Another category.

I could go on, but you get the idea: when you begin to penalize convenience, you step off a cliff, and the bottom is a long way down.

The performance increase from extra wingspan is objective performance during the flight. Not mindset, not attitude. Yes it is also convenient. The extra performance is used throughout the flight, not just afterward for the retrieve.

I assume you do not want a penalty for your trailer because you already own one, but want to penalize an auxiliary engine because you don't own one. Neither are used to increase objective performance during the flight, both are used after the flight is over for the convenience of the retrieve. Plenty of people have (and continue) to fly cross country without a trailer. They must change their mindset and stay within gliding distance to an airport allowing an air retrieve. Yes, that affects the distance and speed and record achieved. The availability of the trailer makes it possible to consider continuing to off airport landing sites, extending distance and speed. Exactly like an auxiliary engine - the two are quite analogous. I can see no theory by which you can rationally penalize one and not the other. If you have such a theory, please advance it for our consideration.