18m Nationals weight restriction at Seminole

Andy -

One option you didn't list is a "dry contest". Just curious as to why that wasn't explored.

Thanks!

Lou

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:20:04 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
Andy -

One option you didn't list is a "dry contest". Just curious as to why that wasn't explored.

Thanks!

Lou

Thanks Lou,

I apologize, that did come up and was considered. It created the most disruption of all the options. The goal was to minimize the amount of change from a contest with no weight restriction.

Andy

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:20:04 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
One option you didn't list is a "dry contest".
Just curious as to why that wasn't explored.

That would be quite unfair to gliders with a low minimum wing-loading...

Of course with my machines I wouldn't know about low wing-loading ;-)

Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.

Rules Committee should reconsider this.

T8

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:42:37 PM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage
to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

Only if we have pretty strong weather. Let's hope, but...
I'm not going to complain too much about being limited to 9.5!

The one thing about all of this that sticks in my mind is Andy's
original post where he listed as one of the determinants, "sandy grass
runway".Â* Did everyone forget that?Â* Higher weight with a fixed tire
footprint means sinking deeper into the ground resulting in higher
rolling friction (drag).Â* And don't fortet the limited field length,
fixed tug power...Â* It makes perfect sense to me.

On 3/9/2018 3:42 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.

Rules Committee should reconsider this.

T8

--
Dan, 5J

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
The one thing about all of this that sticks in my mind is Andy's
original post where he listed as one of the determinants, "sandy grass
runway".Â* Did everyone forget that?Â* Higher weight with a fixed tire
footprint means sinking deeper into the ground resulting in higher
rolling friction (drag).Â* And don't fortet the limited field length,
fixed tug power...Â* It makes perfect sense to me.

On 3/9/2018 3:42 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.

Rules Committee should reconsider this.

T8

--
Dan, 5J

Dan, no one disputes that the take off weight needs to be limited for this location.
Establishing the maximum weight for a safe take off and then determining the weight for each type of a glider to establish a common wing loading for all participants would be the only fair way to resolve this problem. In such case no one would fly above the safe weight and everyone would be allowed to fly at the same maximum wing loading to ensure a fair contest.
In this case a small minority got screwed by the organizer and a few pilots who pushed for this arrangement. No wonder contest participation is dropping.

Andrzej,

That sounds quite fair to me but this is the first time I recall hearing
that proposal.

Dan

On 3/10/2018 10:06 AM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
The one thing about all of this that sticks in my mind is Andy's
original post where he listed as one of the determinants, "sandy grass
runway".Â* Did everyone forget that?Â* Higher weight with a fixed tire
footprint means sinking deeper into the ground resulting in higher
rolling friction (drag).Â* And don't fortet the limited field length,
fixed tug power...Â* It makes perfect sense to me.

On 3/9/2018 3:42 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.

Rules Committee should reconsider this.

T8
--
Dan, 5J
Dan, no one disputes that the take off weight needs to be limited for this location.
Establishing the maximum weight for a safe take off and then determining the weight for each type of a glider to establish a common wing loading for all participants would be the only fair way to resolve this problem. In such case no one would fly above the safe weight and everyone would be allowed to fly at the same maximum wing loading to ensure a fair contest.
In this case a small minority got screwed by the organizer and a few pilots who pushed for this arrangement. No wonder contest participation is dropping.

--
Dan, 5J

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Andrzej,

That sounds quite fair to me but this is the first time I recall hearing
that proposal.

Dan

On 3/10/2018 10:06 AM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
The one thing about all of this that sticks in my mind is Andy's
original post where he listed as one of the determinants, "sandy grass
runway".Â* Did everyone forget that?Â* Higher weight with a fixed tire
footprint means sinking deeper into the ground resulting in higher
rolling friction (drag).Â* And don't fortet the limited field length,
fixed tug power...Â* It makes perfect sense to me.

On 3/9/2018 3:42 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.

Rules Committee should reconsider this.

T8
--
Dan, 5J
Dan, no one disputes that the take off weight needs to be limited for this location.
Establishing the maximum weight for a safe take off and then determining the weight for each type of a glider to establish a common wing loading for all participants would be the only fair way to resolve this problem. In such case no one would fly above the safe weight and everyone would be allowed to fly at the same maximum wing loading to ensure a fair contest.
In this case a small minority got screwed by the organizer and a few pilots who pushed for this arrangement. No wonder contest participation is dropping.

--
Dan, 5J

That was the original proposal before some folks decided to change it.

Dan,

Here's the short summary from a tow pilot & dude with an old 15m ship and no skin in the game.

As tow pilots, we all get that gross weight on the back end of the rope is what matters, everything else is in the noise. No one suggests that the SLGP guys don't have a good handle on what they can tow, so we're good with an 1150 # max gross.

Let's consider two specific gliders only, the ASG-29 and ASH-31Mi.

Absent any restrictions, the numbers a
ASG-29, 1320 # gross, 11.7 psf.
ASH-31, 1389 # gross, 10.9 psf.

This wing loading difference will be important at Moriarity, but not at Seminole. Wing loading above 10# just won't get you any benefit at Seminole except on some crazy unicorn of a day.

Put in a flat restriction at 1150# gross. What happens is this:
ASG-29, 10.2 psf
ASH-31, 9.0 psf

At Seminole, the 29 pilot doesn't care. He wasn't going to fly heavier than 1150 *anyway*. The 31 pilot has a wing loading disadvantage on strong day.

That's what AK is ticked off about.

What's been suggested is to go with the 1150# max for the glider with the largest wing area (probably the ASH-31), then restrict all other types to the same (in this case 9 psf) maximum wing loading.

The other thing one could do is move anyone that wants to fly heavier than 1150 gross to the back of the grid. That's what I'd recommend.

Hey Andrzej... I think I'd like to go fly the 18s... since you won't be using your glider... :-).

best,
T8