Purists are from Pluto, Motorgliderists are from Mars - #2

"I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."

However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
"I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."

However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
"I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."

However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob

Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob

I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.

You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.

If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
"I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."

However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.

You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.

If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
"I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."

However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists.." This thread should die.
Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob


I'm a new glider pilot, who has no significant experience with motorgliders (other than going for a flight in a Dimona TMG). One of the things my (recent) training emphasized with regard to flying a MG was that you should NEVER fly to an area that you would need the motor to get out of if there were no safe land-out options available. In other words, your mindset, when flying a motorglider, should be the SAME as when flying a "pure" glider, because you can not 100% depend on the reliability of the motor to start. I believe this is the point many are making here.

However, it would seem that in reality this is not always the case. This has been evidenced by a few recent high-profile crashes, including that of Sebastian Kawa. The reality is that having a motor seems to give some pilots (not all, admittedly), a sense of security that allows them to take additional risks, and thus get an advantage from it. Technology continues to improve, and reliability of these motors seems to be getting better, at least what I can tell from reading. And as such, "Old Bob" does make a valid point. The question I have is "how many MG pilots, in actual practice, fly their MG like a pure sailplane, not putting themselves in situations where they would need to depend on their motor?"

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:58:06 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.

You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.

If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
"I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."

However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists.." This thread should die.
Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
Good morning Fitch, no, the comment was not a revelation, it was a much appreciated comment from a motorglider pilot. It further confirms that there is an advantage from the motorglider vs the purist, maybe you should not abrogate the fact that there is an advantage. Your friend, Old Bob

I would say that there is some advantage to a MG over a pure glider, all other things being equal.

I liken the issue to a nail driving competition. Lets drive a nails into a 4x4, one lick with a hammer and see whos nail goes the deepest. Some contestants get to hold their nails with needle nose pliers, others hold the nails with their fingers.

I would say that there is some advantage to the pilot of a MG over the pilot of a pure glider, all other things being equal.

I liken the issue to a nail driving competition. Lets drive nails into a 4x4, one lick with a hammer and see whos nail goes the deepest. Some contestants get to hold their nails with needle nose pliers, others hold the nails with their fingers.

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 12:19:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
I'm sorry, was that a revelation for you? That is what you do with a motorglider. The purist has exactly the same (or better) flight opportunity on a crummy day, except at the termination of the flight they may have to land and get an air or ground retrieve, an inconvenience. The motor in a glider is and always has been a convenience item. In fact, the purist has a *better* opportunity on a crummy day, because he can dump ballast and keep soaring in conditions that the motorglider cannot. On one flight I got home by this very fact, when I would otherwise have had to start the motor, effectively landed out - the motor had been removed for modification and the glider was 150 lbs lighter allowing the extra climb needed for final glide.

You continue to conflate 'convenience' with 'safety'. Look the terms up if you are confused by them.

If you tell me that some pilot started the motor low over unlandable terrain, then that pilot is a fool living on borrowed time, and would be regardless of the type of glider he was flying.
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:55:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
"I'd rather have a motor and not need it than need a motor it and not have it."

However, I can't afford a motorglider and the associated insurance costs and maintenance expenses. But I don't approve of the "class warfare" tactics promoted by "Old Bob." Got a lot of MG friends, as well as "purists." This thread should die.
Mark, how can there be class warfare, we all can afford do do what we want. Old Bob
Finally found a honest motorglider comment on OLC. Yes, just yesterday I was resting from a visit from the doctor and reading the OLC results from Perry, S.C. One motorglider pilot stated that he was not doing well and the conditions were not good so he started his motor and went back home. The purist did not have that opportunity especially on a crummy day. Old Bob
I'm a new glider pilot, who has no significant experience with motorgliders (other than going for a flight in a Dimona TMG). One of the things my (recent) training emphasized with regard to flying a MG was that you should NEVER fly to an area that you would need the motor to get out of if there were no safe land-out options available. In other words, your mindset, when flying a motorglider, should be the SAME as when flying a "pure" glider, because you can not 100% depend on the reliability of the motor to start. I believe this is the point many are making here.

However, it would seem that in reality this is not always the case. This has been evidenced by a few recent high-profile crashes, including that of Sebastian Kawa. The reality is that having a motor seems to give some pilots (not all, admittedly), a sense of security that allows them to take additional risks, and thus get an advantage from it. Technology continues to improve, and reliability of these motors seems to be getting better, at least what I can tell from reading. And as such, "Old Bob" does make a valid point. The question I have is "how many MG pilots, in actual practice, fly their MG like a pure sailplane, not putting themselves in situations where they would need to depend on their motor?"

I actually fly more conservatively than I flew pure gliders. The main reason is that a MG is heavier and needs a better field. Also in weak conditions pure gliders have huge advantage. Saying that MG have advantage is a pile of BS. It is not a MG that gives people advantage is the mindset of being lucky, many pure glider pilot have the same mindset that is based on the way they think rather than reality. I am sure there is someone out there thinking that a picture of Jesus in the glider will bring that person home. Neither has bases in reality.

"The question I have is "how many MG pilots, in actual practice, fly their MG like a pure sailplane, not putting themselves in situations where they would need to depend on their motor?"

It depends what you mean. I don't put myself in a situation where I don't believe there is a safe landing option - in 14 seasons of flying a motorglider the engine failed to start on just one occasion, as normal I had raised the prop on a high downwind to land in a field and I proceeded to land safely in the field. On the other hand when not in a competition I would sometimes set a shorter task or give up sooner and glide home if I didn't have the engine. In a competition, I wouldn't give up sooner without an engine, and with it I suffer from the higher decision height to give up and the higher minimum wing loading. Those are the disadvantages, the advantage is that you get home rapidly after abandoning a task, and don't experience the fatigue of a difficult or late retrieve.