A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old March 14th 17, 07:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,039
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

I guess we need to know the reference point, Hank is that at 15 meters or 18 meters? 8.6-9.0 lbs would be the min wing loading on 18m ASG-29Es depending on pilot weight, and how the glider is equipped.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:42:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:42:20 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:

But even with current technology, an ASG-29es is only about 1 lb / sq ft heavier than a dry ASG-29 and the difference in climb (if you can see it at all) just isn't going to be a factor on a record day.

best,
Evan


Your information on the ASG-29Es is just plain and simply WRONG! The ASG-29Es's I am familiar with are flying with min wing loading around 8.8 pounds.


I'm flying my '29 dry at 8.0 lb/sq ft and I'm not skinny. I don't think Evan is all that far off with his 1 lb ballpark estimate.
My '24E is 1.1 lb/sq ft heavier than my 24 was.
2 data points
UH

Ads
  #32  
Old March 14th 17, 07:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]gsinet.net
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 18:09:05 UTC+2, jfitch wrote:
I don't know all of you personally, but the local pilots with the same views universally have never owned and flown a motorglider cross country. Nearly all motorglider pilots have owned and flown cross country engineless gliders. So 'fess up - all of you who think there is a performance advantage in having a motor, have you owned and extensively flown cross country in a motorglider? No? Perhaps you don't know what you are talking about.....


I've flown selflaunchers and sustainers. Having engine is every bit as game-changing as one can imagine. It is totally different sport, arguing about that pretty useless. Of course there is no category for pure glider records anymore as virtually no gliders are made without engine of some sort anymore (excluding 2-seat trainers), they are bound to extinct.


What is the barrier to maintaining two different sets of records again? One for motor and one without? Is there a shortage of server space to keep them -

Dennis
DC
  #33  
Old March 14th 17, 07:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,780
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 2:31:23 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
I guess we need to know the reference point, Hank is that at 15 meters or 18 meters? 8.6-9.0 lbs would be the min wing loading on 18m ASG-29Es depending on pilot weight, and how the glider is equipped.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:42:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:42:20 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:

But even with current technology, an ASG-29es is only about 1 lb / sq ft heavier than a dry ASG-29 and the difference in climb (if you can see it at all) just isn't going to be a factor on a record day.

best,
Evan

Your information on the ASG-29Es is just plain and simply WRONG! The ASG-29Es's I am familiar with are flying with min wing loading around 8.8 pounds.


I'm flying my '29 dry at 8.0 lb/sq ft and I'm not skinny. I don't think Evan is all that far off with his 1 lb ballpark estimate.
My '24E is 1.1 lb/sq ft heavier than my 24 was.
2 data points
UH


18 meters
UH
  #34  
Old March 14th 17, 10:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,035
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

"It's not how IGC does it, the US should do what the IGC does in all things".

Quotes are basically what this thread, as well as some campaigning from others regarding "contest rules", want/are suggesting.

In this case (records), sounds like it's a done deal, changing US contest rules to match IGC rules has thus far only generated lots of posts and gnashing of teeth.
  #35  
Old March 14th 17, 11:06 PM
RickH RickH is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Feb 2016
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by View Post
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 2:31:23 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
I guess we need to know the reference point, Hank is that at 15 meters or 18 meters? 8.6-9.0 lbs would be the min wing loading on 18m ASG-29Es depending on pilot weight, and how the glider is equipped.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:42:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:42:20 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:

But even with current technology, an ASG-29es is only about 1 lb / sq ft heavier than a dry ASG-29 and the difference in climb (if you can see it at all) just isn't going to be a factor on a record day.

best,
Evan

Your information on the ASG-29Es is just plain and simply WRONG! The ASG-29Es's I am familiar with are flying with min wing loading around 8.8 pounds.


I'm flying my '29 dry at 8.0 lb/sq ft and I'm not skinny. I don't think Evan is all that far off with his 1 lb ballpark estimate.
My '24E is 1.1 lb/sq ft heavier than my 24 was.
2 data points
UH


18 meters
UH
My ASG-29, no engine, in 18-m config was 7.64 lbs no ballast. Pilot and chute account for 199 lbs of the total weight.

Rick
NR
  #36  
Old March 15th 17, 02:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
RR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records


Just to roll this back to the issue at hand, does this "advance of technology" justify somehow creating/maintaining separate categories. I believe the feeling expressed by Evan is, that it is unfair to have this new technology compete with the old. There is no question that technology marches on, and the records advance as it does. Do we keep the old categories as it goes forward, no. We don't have "wooden glider 300k speed triangle". That time is past. That said, the records do show the equipment used (at least the glider used) and when you look back in time, you can be impressed with the performance in relation to the equipment. In the past we had open primaries, then enclosed wood and fabric, then metal, then first, then second, then ..., generation glass and carbon. At the moment, nearly all the new production gliders have some form of auxiliary. The records advance with the accepted technoligy. While there are many advantages to self-launch and self-retrieve, they do not add up to the performance gain of gen one glass vs a modern glider.

Evan pointed to a record that was saved by the use of the motor before the start. This is true, but the record was the result of the pilot's performance after the motor shut down. That was all pilot skill, and a record day was not wasted.

So Evan, the good news is that as long as you resist your temptation to trade in your testosterone reserves, and come over to the darkside, your 15m glider is not likely to be in contention with self-launch gliders, as most of those will start with larger spans, for a while...

RR

  #37  
Old March 15th 17, 02:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Roy B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

RR, respectfully, I think you've got the original point wrong. It's not about resisting "advance of technology"at all. It's about the different mindset of having a motor and not having a motor when you are really pushing the day for a record. For example, during a good record week if you are trying a big triangle you are always wondering if you've picked the last turnpoint too far and you are not going to get back before the lift quits. You ask yourself on the second half of the second leg "Maybe I should bail here so I can be sure to get back?" With a motor in back it's no big deal - you go for that far turnpoint and if you're right you make it and if not you will crank out the motor, do a little sawtooth and get back in time for the beer. Without a motor, you may go for it but if you're wrong you wind up in the dirt with a midnight retrieve and the next day you're cleaning mud and cow pies out of the gear, wishing you had slept more hours than you drove while the motor guy is well rested and flying for a record again that next day. Every motor guy I've flown long distances against (and there are many) has said the same thing: "It's a different game". It's different because at the big decision point (do I go for it or not?) the motor gives security that the pure glider does not have. That's why the records should stay different - motor and no motor are different sports when you try flying 100 to 110% of the day.
ROY
  #38  
Old March 15th 17, 03:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
RR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

I understand the difference in the mental game, and the additional pressure it places on you. It is one of the reasons that I bought this new toy. I have some records I would like to go for this year. To mount these attempt I would need to arrange for early morning launches, have a crew on standby, etc. All posable, not all that expencive, but asking a lot of other support people. With a motor glider, I can provide all of that myself. In that these will be wave flights, I may face the possibility of an airport landout, to warm the motor back up, but I will be able to self retreve. But assuming all goes well, I can do that without inconvenience to others.

So now we circle back to the advantage of "convenience". It does not seem appropriate to have diferent category based on convenience.

I could have all the piece of mind, and comfort if I had a ground crew following me on an attempt. And I might note for the price of a new motor glider that crew could be paid and bring the drinks and dancing girls in the back of the chase limo. We might look down on such a well funded record attempt but should it require a new category?


RR
  #39  
Old March 15th 17, 04:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:48:35 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
...but if you're wrong you wind up in the dirt with a midnight retrieve and the next
day you're cleaning mud and cow pies out of the gear, wishing you had slept more hours than you drove while the motor guy is well
rested and flying for a record again that next day.


And what if you happened to own two gliders, a towplane, a helicopter and the staff to maintain and operate all said equipment.

Land out in the boonies, and within minutes the helicopter shows up to take you back to the airport (since the crew has anticipated a possible landout, so headed out some time ago) while leaving someone behind to wait for the ground crew to show up. Next day, you fly the same ship if the crew get it back in time, or fly the spare.

No engine, no problem. Just a few more $$ spent.

I flew a ASH-26E for 15 years and loved it. It gave me the confidence to stretch the day knowing that if I did "land out", the engine *might* start and get me home without a late retrieve. My wife worked long hard hours, so constantly asking her to risk a long retrieval and late night was not nice.. We could afford the self launcher, so I had it.

I mostly took aero tows, and occasionally avoided a relight by using the engine. I can literally count the number of engine "saves" on one hand in the 1500+ hours I flew. Some day, I'll have to go through my logbook to confirm.

My wife is now retired, and I will be as well in a few years. So last year I traded the '26E for a ASW-27b which is much less expensive to own and a lot easier to handle on the ground. I will now continue to fly exactly the same way as I have for the last 15 years knowing that I won't be burdening my wife with a long, late retrieve. We'll just treat it as an adventure and take our time getting home. No worries about needing to be rested for work.

Yes, the motor is a convenience, but so is time and money.

At a contest, I would typically commit myself for a landing, since the engine start really needs to happen early on the downwind leg to a *large* safe landing place. Leaving the engine retracted allowed me to for a potentially smaller field and maybe a low save from base leg.

An interesting anecdote is starting the engine and immediately hitting a nice thermal. Been there, done that several times - the engine ran for less than a minute before I stowed it.

So yes, the engine changes my mindset, but not about the soaring performance. Just the convenience it affords if I don't have the money or time to stay "pure". Am I repeating myself? :-)

Just my $0.02

5Z
  #40  
Old March 15th 17, 05:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 917
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 6:02:15 AM UTC+3, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:48:35 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
...but if you're wrong you wind up in the dirt with a midnight retrieve and the next
day you're cleaning mud and cow pies out of the gear, wishing you had slept more hours than you drove while the motor guy is well
rested and flying for a record again that next day.


And what if you happened to own two gliders, a towplane, a helicopter and the staff to maintain and operate all said equipment.

Land out in the boonies, and within minutes the helicopter shows up to take you back to the airport (since the crew has anticipated a possible landout, so headed out some time ago) while leaving someone behind to wait for the ground crew to show up. Next day, you fly the same ship if the crew get it back in time, or fly the spare.


If it's big enough to land in, it's big enough for a decent chopper to give you a relight. Those things accelerate faster than any towplane, and the chopper doesn't even need solid ground under it.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
distance records Ron Gleason Soaring 4 July 6th 12 04:27 AM
Distance records ..... Ron Gleason Soaring 0 July 4th 12 03:02 AM
New Records in Arizona Mike the Strike Soaring 2 June 15th 07 07:50 PM
STC records at FAA [email protected] Owning 6 April 2nd 05 04:01 PM
Updates to my records. Fred Blair Soaring 5 November 7th 04 06:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.