Bonus Jet glider demo weekend

On Apr 26, 8:57*am, ContestID67 wrote:
Is there any danger to the vertical stabilizer from the exhaust heat?
I asked this of the owner of the Silent jet and they said that the
skin temperatures were "within tolerances". *Hmmmm.



Why can't the engine be situated where it extends out the side of the
fuselage instead of the top? Angle it slightly so the thrust angles
away from the vertical stab. Is that too far outside the "box"?

On Apr 27, 7:19*am, airshowbob wrote:
Interesting that FAA registration shows fixed wing, recip engine and
racing (only). *The airworthiness certificate says Glider, exhibition
& racing. *The operating limitations specifically address the turbine
engine. *My guess is whoever typed it in just couldn't fathom the idea
of turbine engine and glider on the same form. *I'd say the FAA is
confused...imagine...Thanks for pointing it out, Andy. *I'll see about
getting the FAA records corrected.

As for logging PIC time, because my BonusJet has been approved for
training for hire under a Letter Of Deviation Authority or LODA
(91.319h, for those who like to look up interesting regs), I agreed to
an operating limitation requiring an LOA to be PIC. *So, technically,
you can't be PIC of this particular aircraft without the specific
rating. *Not so with my Salto or with my twin jet Silent (also didn't
require a multi-engine rating).

BTW, the jet Silent was de-engined and sold as a non-powered glider
last year.

BC

On Apr 26, 6:20*pm, Andy wrote:



On Apr 26, 4:28*pm, "Dr. John" wrote:

* *I guess most of us glider pilots have a *flying bug/genetic defect
that propels us to want to fly above the earth. *Most of us also have
had the desire to fly jet fighters at one point or another. *I guess
that is one reason I love sailplanes, *it feels kind of like a jet
fighter. * I'm sure Jonkers will have a perfect jet sustainer option
someday for those that want a sustainer. I think the 304-Shark is an
excellent jet sustainer if it is only a sustainer you are looking for
and you want it right now. *I sat in the jet 304 at the convention
last year and it was really really nice. I even got a tingle in my
leg! *I could taste the future possibility!
* * Many of us were not worthy enough for the military jet program due
to bad eyes or being too tall or both. Yes, I am tall and half blind
but I can fly quite well. *Bob Carlton has given us military castoffs
a small window of opportunity to fly our own jet and experience the
dream. *Bob Carltons turbine engine upgrade makes your sailplane dual
purpose, a self launch sailplane, but it also becomes a jet airplane
on those very blue, windless days where you just want to go fly
somewhere and have fun. * *From what I have heard, EASA has made
certification of jet sustainers much easier and cheaper than a self
launch jet sailplane. *Manufactures following EASA regs have little
incentive to build a jet self launch at this time, or so I have
heard. *That is where Bob Carltons turbine upgrade comes in!!! * * All
I have to do now is save the $3000 to get my turbine sailplane
endorsement from Bob Carltons certification program. Then, I would win
the lottery to by my own Bonus jet sailplane or a JS-1/Duo Discus
upgraded . *In the mean time, I should travel to New Mexico and get
checked out in Bobs Bonus Jet and get my jet sailplane endorsement and
check off one more item on my BUCKET LIST!
John Ackerson

John,

I logged my time in the Bonus Jet as glider pilot in command as I am
"grandfathered" to act as pilot in command of motor gliders. Since you
raised the issue of special training I checked how the Bonus Jet is
registered. There were two surprises:

1. The aircraft is registered as Type - Fixed Wing Single-Engine (Not
glider)
2. Type Engine is specified as Reciprocating.

Looks like I need to change my log entry since I'm also qualified to
fly fixed wing aircraft with one or more reciprocating engines.

Also noted the experimental category is racing, with no mention of
exhibition or development which also seems strange.

Anyone else confused??

Andy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not trying to be difficult, but I'd like to understand this better as
it may have a direct influence on whether turbo jet self launchers
will be viable in USA.

First of all, surely the LODA related to training for hire is required
because the aircraft is Experimental. Wouldn't it be required even if
there was no power plant?

Second if the aircraft is really registered as a glider there is no
requirement under Part 61 for a type rating or any special training,
other than an endorsement to fly self lunch if not grandfathered. Why
does any LOA you have negotiated with FAA, as part of your training
deviation, impact other pilots who are not parties to that training
agreement? Is the LOA restriction on PIC a condition of the aircraft
airworthiness certification rather than a condition of training for
hire?

What special training is required and what rating or endorsement is
issued when that training is completed?

Still dreaming of that jet powered JS-1.

thanks

Andy

On 4/27/2011 9:36 AM, ContestID67 wrote:
On Apr 26, 10:42 am, Cliff Hilty
wrote:
At 14:23 26 April 2011, jcarlyle wrote:

On Apr 26, 9:57 am, ContestID67 wrote:
I just worry that given enough time the heat may affect the structure
of the tail (glass? carbon fiber?) with the potential of loosing the
tail. While I might be able to live with loosing a rudder, loosing
the elevator is a whole other matter.

If you were losing the tail, rudder or elavator, it'd be a problem.
Loosing it, though, it'll probably just rattle...

-John

I believe that Bob has that data on his website mentioned earlier but I
remember that it reached a max of 140 degrees in testing and his glider
was post cured to past 200 so should not be a factor, also it mainly seems
to hit the tail much lower than the horisontal stab and didn't effect the
controlability at all.

CH

I understand what you are saying about the post curing being higher
than the max temperature during flight. My contention is that a one
off 200 degree cure temperature is distinctly different than the long
term reoccurring 140 degree ambient temperatures on the vertical fin
from jet exhaust over the 30+ year lifespan of the glider. A very
simplistic example are the corregated fiberglass panels often used for
carport roofs. Right out of the factory they are very strong. But
put them in the sun for several years and they become quite brittle.
Ask me how I know. I know that UV is different than infrared heat but
the degredation concept is applicable. I just would really hate to
read in a few years about a glider's tail coming off during flight due
to the long term degredation of the glass/fiber from jet exhaust
heat.

About the controlability - my question was about adding a heat shield
on the vertical fine (with gap) might affect the rudder
effectiveness. Sure seems like simple safety fix for a potentially
deadly problem.

Maybe I am all wet on this. But hey, this is EXPERIMENTAL! Life on
the thin red line!

Your comparison of UV damage to low temperature damage is seriously
flawed, as the mechanisms are very different.

Where is your documentation that epoxy resin cured to 200 deg F exposed
to 145 deg F for 10 hours, intermittently, a year for 30 years will
degrade? Would you believe this exposure will make the resin STRONGER
over time, instead of weaker, which is my understanding?

Time for a chemist to speak up!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Most gliders are flown from active clubs and commercial operations where an
aero tow or ground launch is available. Self launching takes away from
supporting clubs and commercial operations and even so no one will ever make
up for the added cost of a self launch system itself or the simple cost of
maintaining and operating the self launch power plant regardless of it's
type.
I prefer like many to see clubs and commercial operators continue to
succeed, they are all part of our social network, they need us and we need
them to succeed as well..
Sustainers are most popular since they do allow pilots to go somewhere that
"might" and "might not" be working since they are pretty sure if it's not
working they can still get back home.....which is a drawback in itself, it
changes the way we approach soaring, just because you didn't start the
engine doesn't mean that you couldn't....But they can reduce the landouts
and for this they have gained popularity.
The Jet is still by far the best sustainer option, as in the 304S the Jet
engine actually has less drag than the down landing gear, the jet engine
doesn't require compression release, priming, choking, diving to start and
doesn't produce the huge amount of drag of any propeller driven system.
essentially, if you're still above the ground with the Jet you can continue
on your way and climb or cruise for nearly an hour ....nothing else has all
these added bonus points.
Also, as heating the tail seems to be on everyone's worry list the Jet
exhaust is actually very high speed air (lots of air) moving at high speed
while in cruise flight so temperatures are not much worse than the heat
coming off that infernal combustion engine...a Self Launch Jet however will
have plenty of heat early on, sitting on the pad, and running up to get the
initial thrust and movement needed for launch....
The 304S Jet was not an overnight add-on, this has gone through many years
of testing and developing to the point it's at today, you will see jet
sustainers from other manufacturers, guaranteed! but most of them are still
in the learning stages and many are just not attempting Jet tests today that
HpH did already years ago..
tim


"Andy" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 2:41 pm, "Tim Mara" wrote:
that's not at all true, the vast majority of powered gliders have
sustainers, many say they want a self launcher but not many can afford one
(there is a self launch 304 also) and few want to have to deal with the
added maintenance, extra weight and complications,Then too, waiting for a
JS1 probably isn't going to do them much good either if waiting for a self
launcher, everything I've seen says the JS1 is a sustainer Jet also, not
intended for self launch

I don't think that the fact that the majority of powered giders are
sustainers has any bearing on the fact that people who want self
launch will not be satisfied with a sustainer.

There are perhaps many factors that make sustainers more common that
self launch. One obvious one is cost. Another, perhaps less obvious
to US residents, is that in other parts of the world a glider rating
is sufficient to fly a glider with a sustainer but is not sufficient
to fly self launch. Pilots will not buy an aircraft they are not
qualified to fly.

I'm only one pilot, and only one potential customer, but if I buy a
motorized glider I want self launch not a sustainer. Self launch
gives me the ability to fly from many airport that have no tow plane
availability. A sustainer only eliminates the inconvenience of a
retrieve.

I still think my statement was true.

Andy

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6076 (20110427) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6076 (20110427) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

On 4/27/2011 11:54 AM, Tim Mara wrote:
Most gliders are flown from active clubs and commercial operations where an
aero tow or ground launch is available. Self launching takes away from
supporting clubs and commercial operations

Not necessarily so. I know a lot self-launchers (SLers) that continue to
fly at and support their club, including towing (then self-launching
when everyone is in the air), and serving as club officers. Some SLers
would not even be in the sport if they had to use a tow operation
because of the long drive to or limited hours of the operation.

And, of course, the SLers are supporting the glider dealers by buying an
expensive glider, and supporting people like you and Paul by buying a
lot of goodies - you rarely see a motorglider that isn't "fully loaded".

and even so no one will ever make
up for the added cost of a self launch system itself or the simple cost of
maintaining and operating the self launch power plant regardless of it's
type.

This both irrelevant and untrue.

It's irrelevant because it's a hobby, it's a sport, it's not a savings
plan. You could say nobody ever makes up the cost of a new 304S compared
to owning and flying a 1-26, so you're nutty to buy one! Whether it has
a motor or not, you can always find something cheaper to do.

It's untrue because it is possible to _operate_ a self-launcher more
cheaply than a similar glider taking tows. I've owned my ASH 26 E for 15
seasons, averaging 50 flights a year. At a current price of $40/tow,
that's $30,000! I've spent less than $10,000 operating and maintaining
it. What tips the scale the other way is the additional cost of the
motor and the insurance due to that extra hull value.

Someone that can fly from near their home instead trekking a couple
hundred miles to the gliderport, saving on driving time and gas, motels,
meals, plus retrieves, might actually make up even the added expense of
buying and owning the motor.

I prefer like many to see clubs and commercial operators continue to
succeed, they are all part of our social network, they need us and we need
them to succeed as well..

And that is why most SLers cluster around these places.

Sustainers are most popular since they do allow pilots to go somewhere that
"might" and "might not" be working since they are pretty sure if it's not
working they can still get back home.....which is a drawback in itself, it
changes the way we approach soaring,

It is ABSOLUTELY NOT A DRAWBACK! It's feature, and one that many people
find extremely valuable. Hell, yes, it changes the way you approach
soaring - that's the WHOLE point of it! You can also say a Nimbus 4
changes the way you approach soaring if you are a 1-26 pilot (and vice
versa). Do you want to argue that the Nimbus 4 and the 1-26 are "drawbacks"?

just because you didn't start the
engine doesn't mean that you couldn't....But they can reduce the landouts
and for this they have gained popularity.

It's more than that - it allows you to explore instead of flying so
cautiously you don't attempt anything new; it allows you to fly on days
the towed gliders sit on the ground because things are too uncertain; it
allows you learn what you and the weather can do faster and more easily.
It's not just about "avoiding landouts", just as a self-launcher isn't
just about "avoiding tows".

The Jet is still by far the best sustainer option, as in the 304S the Jet
engine actually has less drag than the down landing gear, the jet engine
doesn't require compression release, priming, choking, diving to start and
doesn't produce the huge amount of drag of any propeller driven system.
essentially, if you're still above the ground with the Jet you can continue
on your way and climb or cruise for nearly an hour ....nothing else has all
these added bonus points.

Now you're making sense!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Apr 27, 8:39*am, airshowbob wrote:
It is true that in Europe (where the vast majority of gliders are
sold), there are more sustainers than self-launchers being sold. *Two
reasons - there are many winch launch operations where an inexpensive
winch launch, followed by a sustainer search for lift makes sense.

Makes just as much sense in the US.

On Apr 27, 3:37*pm, bildan wrote:
On Apr 27, 8:39*am, airshowbob wrote:

It is true that in Europe (where the vast majority of gliders are
sold), there are more sustainers than self-launchers being sold. *Two
reasons - there are many winch launch operations where an inexpensive
winch launch, followed by a sustainer search for lift makes sense.

Makes just as much sense in the US.

Show me a map of USA with all the winch launch sites I can launch the
sustainer I won't be buying. Then look at a similar map of Europe and
UK.

Then forget about restricting the map to winch sites and include
anywhere I can get a launch.

Then please explain how it makes as much sense in US.

Andy

Reply to Andy, Training, LODA, LOA and endorsements

Not trying to be difficult, but I'd like to understand this better as
it may have a direct influence on whether turbo jet self launchers
will be viable in USA.

First of all, surely the LODA related to training for hire is required
because the aircraft is Experimental.

You are correct. The LODA is required to allow training for hire in
an experimental aircraft. To paraphrase the guidelines, FAA
recognizes that there are certain unique aircraft for which training
should be allowed, but no certified equivalent is available. They
also recognize that training should be compensated. So they allow it
on a case-by-case basis. The document is called a Letter Of Deviation
Authority (LODA). I have this document for N3JJ.

Wouldn't it be required even if
there was no power plant?

Since certified non-powered equivalent sailplanes are available for
training, I doubt FAA would give a LODA for a non-powered sailplane
unless it had some other really unique characteristics.

Second if the aircraft is really registered as a glider there is no
requirement under Part 61 for a type rating or any special training,
other than an endorsement to fly self lunch if not grandfathered. *Why
does any LOA you have negotiated with FAA, as part of your training
deviation, impact other pilots who are not parties to that training
agreement? *Is the LOA restriction on PIC a condition of the aircraft
airworthiness certification rather than a condition of training for
hire?

You are correct, there are currently no regulatory requirements for
type rating for turbine gliders. Since the LODA training process is
unique to each aircraft, the issuance is a bit of a negotiation
process. FAA was concerned about 'buddy' training, whereby we do a
'wink & nod' training program for our friends (all too common in
certain circles of aviation). So, as part of the negotiation for the
LODA privilege, I accepted inclusion of an LOA requirement in the
BonusJet's operating limitations. Thus, it is binding on anyone who
flies the BonusJet. This also provides some CYA to FAA by showing
documented training (with an FAA-approved training syllabus) for both
student & instructor. We may re-negotiate this in the future.

What special training is required and what rating or endorsement is
issued when that training is completed?

Our training program has been reviewed and approved by FAA. Two of us
(me & Bill Hill) are approved to give the training. After completion
of the training program, and a brief checkride (currently provided by
one of the guys at our FSDO), you will be issued a new pilot
certificate with the BonusJet listed. This also counts as a BFR under
61.56d.

Still dreaming of that jet powered JS-1.

I might add that our training program has also been approved by our
insurance carrier, to include transition to other jet motorgliders.
So, if you get something else, our training should suffice to get
insurance coverage.



Basically, we are still in the early stages of an entirely new
aircraft type. While I'll be the first to fight FAA over-control, I
also understand that we are being closely scrutinized by everyone
(FAA, insurance, sailplane community). Greg Poe (airshow pilot who
flies an ethanol powered MX2) stated it best. "Everyone is watching
us. If I blow a tire, it will get blamed on ethanol". If any jet
sailplane has an accident, the rumor mill (and other manufacturers,
insurance companies and FAA) will immediately jump to the conclusion
that the jet engine caused it. Until jets become more 'normal', we
have to be extremely cautious. If this 'temporarily' includes some
extra dialogue with FAA, so be it.

BC

On Apr 28, 6:23*am, airshowbob wrote:
Reply to Andy, Training, LODA, LOA and endorsements

Not trying to be difficult, but I'd like to understand this better as
it may have a direct influence on whether turbo jet self launchers
will be viable in USA.

First of all, surely the LODA related to training for hire is required
because the aircraft is Experimental.

You are correct. *The LODA is required to allow training for hire in
an experimental aircraft. *To paraphrase the guidelines, FAA
recognizes that there are certain unique aircraft for which training
should be allowed, but no certified equivalent is available. *They
also recognize that training should be compensated. *So they allow it
on a case-by-case basis. *The document is called a Letter Of Deviation
Authority (LODA). *I have this document for N3JJ.

Wouldn't it be required even if
there was no power plant?

Since certified non-powered equivalent sailplanes are available for
training, I doubt FAA would give a LODA for a non-powered sailplane
unless it had some other really unique characteristics.

Second if the aircraft is really registered as a glider there is no
requirement under Part 61 for a type rating or any special training,
other than an endorsement to fly self lunch if not grandfathered. *Why
does any LOA you have negotiated with FAA, as part of your training
deviation, impact other pilots who are not parties to that training
agreement? *Is the LOA restriction on PIC a condition of the aircraft
airworthiness certification rather than a condition of training for
hire?

You are correct, there are currently no regulatory requirements for
type rating for turbine gliders. *Since the LODA training process is
unique to each aircraft, the issuance is a bit of a negotiation
process. *FAA was concerned about 'buddy' training, whereby we do a
'wink & nod' training program for our friends (all too common in
certain circles of aviation). *So, as part of the negotiation for the
LODA privilege, I accepted inclusion of an LOA requirement in the
BonusJet's operating limitations. *Thus, it is binding on anyone who
flies the BonusJet. *This also provides some CYA to FAA by showing
documented training (with an FAA-approved training syllabus) for both
student & instructor. *We may re-negotiate this in the future.

What special training is required and what rating or endorsement is
issued when that training is completed?

Our training program has been reviewed and approved by FAA. *Two of us
(me & Bill Hill) are approved to give the training. *After completion
of the training program, and a brief checkride (currently provided by
one of the guys at our FSDO), you will be issued a new pilot
certificate with the BonusJet listed. *This also counts as a BFR under
61.56d.

Still dreaming of that jet powered JS-1.

I might add that our training program has also been approved by our
insurance carrier, to include transition to other jet motorgliders.
So, if you get something else, our training should suffice to get
insurance coverage.

Basically, we are still in the early stages of an entirely new
aircraft type. *While I'll be the first to fight FAA over-control, I
also understand that we are being closely scrutinized by everyone
(FAA, insurance, sailplane community). *Greg Poe (airshow pilot who
flies an ethanol powered MX2) stated it best. *"Everyone is watching
us. *If I blow a tire, it will get blamed on ethanol". *If any jet
sailplane has an accident, the rumor mill (and other manufacturers,
insurance companies and FAA) will immediately jump to the conclusion
that the jet engine caused it. *Until jets become more 'normal', we
have to be extremely cautious. *If this 'temporarily' includes some
extra dialogue with FAA, so be it.

BC

Thanks Bob for taking the time for the detailed reply. What bothers
me most about this is that the airworthiness certificate for an new
experimental jet powered glider will be issued by the pilot's local
FSDO. There have been examples of significantly different operating
limitations being required depending on the local FSDO policies.

I hope that your trail blazing will eventually result in a documented
FAA national policy on how such aircraft wil be certificated and what
pilot qualifications are required.

It all rather silly since operating the jet is far simpler than
operating most existing pylon self launchers.

Since I'm not rated in the Bonus Jet and a rating is required to act
as pilot in command I agree that I cannot log PIC time even if you
were acting a pilot in command. Bummer.

Andy

I think it is time for a Jet Sailplane Racing League. Here me out
and I promise this is not heresy and might even be a boom to the
sailplane community. The Rocket Racing League was planning a racing
league similar to the Red Bull races using a fiberglass Canard Long-EZ
type airframe at a Million Dollars a ship. Severe financial
difficulty due to lack of funding and only a few sponsors seems to be
dooming the venture. The Red Bull races have appeared to do better
financially actually having races flying the aerobatic style Edge 540
airframes and racing around a 3 mile Pylon courses. It still has
still not risen to a national level of awareness but proves air racing
has potential! Unfortunately I just read that the 2011 Red Bull races
have been canceled after only 6 years of racing.
Soaring has a big problem. We are shrinking in popularity and not
competing very well for new participants. Less pilot numbers means
less development, less soaring sites, less glider development, and
less tow availability. Shrinking numbers does nothing good for the
long term health of our sport. The challenge for us is that we are
not very spectator friendly like most other sports. Even golf is
blows us by, a very silly sport I might add. Hit a little ball in a
little hole. WOW! I attended my first sailplane race last year in
Logan, Utah and had a great time. Even with the Google earth/Spot
Tracking projected on a large screen in the hanger, spectators miss
most of the action and thrill of the race. It was fun for me but my
wife has no interest at all. Even my wife as uninterested as possible
in watching sports can watch a little football or car racing and feel
a little entertained, but glider racing, NADA!
Just imagine 12 Turbine powered sailplanes racing around a small 3
mile air circuit, slow and low enough for spectators to watch and
enjoy and loud enough to scream FUN! I can't imagine how difficult it
is to move all the airplanes for the Red Bull races but the sailplanes
naturally travel quite easily as they are designed to. The perfect
airframe platform is highly debatable but I propose the DuckHawk by
Windward Performance. Yes, I know it has not flown yet but its all
carbon airframe makes it the only one we could paint different colors
with sponsor logos and designs. Yes, I want the blue Viagra ship!
The DuckHawk has a high 200 kts VNE and a +11.0 / -9.0 g’s structural
design which bods well for a racing ship. We then mount one of Bob
Carltons TBS-100 turbines on the top for a pure racing machine. The
Duckhawk also has a large water ballast capacity which would lend
itself well to holding enough Jet A fuel for the race. The race could
even have pit stops for more fuel just like NASCAR. Airframe mounted
cameras would broadcast live video back for an in flight feel just
like NASCAR. The ground crew on a pit stop would race to fill up the
Jet A, top off the wingtip smoke and and quickly wipe the bugs off the
windscreen. Yes I know bug wipers are not as glamorous as tire
changers, but work with me here, it has possibility
Imagine little boys watching sailplane looking jets race around a
closed circuit, smoke streams off the wingtips, feeling the roar of
the turbines as they passed by going 150 kts. The sailplane jets
would be highly maneuverable with only a 15 Meter wings being able to
weave in and out of pylons. I know that 150 kts is really not that
fast in airplane speeds but when you consider how small a 15 meter
sailplane is in the air, it will look like 300 kts. Yes, I know these
racing ships would really not be sailplanes for all tense and
purpose. Our fans would fall in love with the shape and the idea of
racing airplanes with skinny wings and then realize they too have the
opportunity to learn to fly and even race traditional sailplanes at a
price that is somewhat affordable.
The jet sailplanes would cost less than $250K a ship which is only
a quarter of what the Rocket Racing League was proposing with their
million dollar jet airplanes. They would be highly portable from race
site to race site. I'm sure that the TBS-100 would only use a
fraction of the fuel that the Long-EZ racers were going to use.
Engine changes could take only minutes. The glide ratio of a DuckHawk
at 50 to 1 would greatly enhance safety with an in flight engine
failure over a tradition aerobatic airplane and its 6 to 1 glide
ratio.
I know to many glider pilots this sounds like sailplane apostasy.
Yes, I am proposing a *******ization of our sport, but for good
cause. Yes, it is not soaring in a thermal or a wave, but it could
be a shinning beacon of light showing new young minds the excitement
and fun of flying a sailplane in a 10 knot thermal surrounded by half
a dozen other gliders all ready to do battle. Air racing in this
country was once a national sport. Back in the golden age of the
airplane, air races were all the national rage. Many little boys
dreamed of someday becoming pilots. I can assure you now, the youth
of today are not dreaming of becoming pilots. Flying has lost its
magic some how.
I know this is probably a wild fantasy, a little heresy, and some
craziness, but it is sure fun to procrastinate piles of work around me
to dream about flying. Thanks for reading my day dream of the day.
John Ackerson