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

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.

I've owned a PIK20E for about 350 hrs of flying. The engine definitely changes the way you fly and think. The biggest advantage (when good landing fields are available) I would move on for better lift when moderately low, in the motor glider. In pure gliders, I will usually accept weak lift when below my working band of altitude, so possibly wasting lot's time when a good lift is ahead on course. Of course the MG climbs worse or not at all in weak lift, where as the Libelle I fly now will climb in very weak lift. I used the motor many time for avoiding landing out. Yes, you better give up at a higher altitude with a MG, the motor got me into a few dicey situations I now know were risky, and looking at the traces of MG flights on OLC of pilots some take serious risks getting low. You better expect the motor to fail at any time! The PIK was a complex airplane to fly lot's of ways to screw up (I think I found a lot of them), a lot more to worry about. I learned a huge amount about flying XC in the MG that I wouldn't in pure gliders.. Mainly stay on course when getting low, don't dart all around desperately looking for lift, move on from lift when it gets weak. I was able to launch earlier and fly later in the day, knowing if the lift isn't there the motor will probably prevent a landout. So, yes both have advantages and disadvantages. As far as being in the same category for record flights, no way the motor really changes the equation.

I sit on the B&R Committee and while I can tell you this wasn't my axe to grind my recollection is this was done to bring the SSA's records into compliance with the IGC recognized classes of gliders. We had been going it alone on this for many years. Having said that, I am sympathetic to the gliding purists and those (like myself) who cannot afford the latest and greatest self-launcher but might like to take a crack at a record or two. I wish we had put out a poll on this.

Interestingly enough I am told many have outright quit pursuing national record flights because of the bureaucracy and fees associated with FAI & NAA record certification.

I personally want to do what's best, or should I say whatever the most "customer centric" thing to do is, for SSA members and for promoting the sport. Your feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

Chris Schrader, Director, SSA Region 6

One problem I see here is that this policy is being applied to both US national and state records. US state records are more of a "for fun" thing to encourage pilots to increase their achievement level. Since they already have no direct analog in the international community, I'm not sure why it was deemed necessary to implement this policy with regard to state records. All it does is eliminate opportunities for aspiring pilots to be recognized at the state level.

I'm the Utah State record keeper. In 2016, I approved 10 records for non-motorgliders, and 3 for motorgliders. This ratio has been more or less 3 or 4 to one in favor of non-motorgliders for years. The assertion that non-motorglider records are no longer being actively pursued just isn't true at the state record level.

By the way, in 2016, the successful applicant in the motorglider class would have had no chance if forced to compete in the open class. Had it been implemented in 2016, this policy would have only had the effect of eliminating recognition for the motorglider pilot.

On Monday, 13 March 2017 07:49:05 UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
Winter isn't quite over yet, so...

The excerpt quoted below is from an email I received from my state record keeper (who owns two motor gliders). It is an extract from a communication to state record keepers from Bob Faris (who has been collecting records with his motor glider), US B&R Committee Chair.

Our IGC rep (who owns a motor glider -- anyone see a pattern here?) has so far ignored my email on the subject. Thanks a ton, Rick. For the moment, I'll presume that my information is legitimate, however distasteful it might be. 711, can you please go get your scorer a propeller beanie and humiliate him publicly?

Extract follows.

"The new record rules have been posted to the website. Even though the rules date is December 15, 2016, the effective date is March 5, 2017. Any record claimed for a flight prior to March 5 should be processed under the old rules. The record matrices have not been updated yet to reflect the rule changes and the link on those pages is to the old rules. I don't have an estimate of when the matrices will be able to be modified. There are two primary changes to the rules:


1. The term "Youth" has been changed to "Junior" to align with the Sporting Code.

2. The big change is the removal of the separate motorglider classes. These classes are no longer recognized by the Sporting Code. Claims made by a glider carrying a motor can now be made in any applicable class. Note that motorgliders must have a MoP recorder or seals that detect if the engine is used, unless the motor is disabled or removed. The FAI Form D is still required for those claims."

Extract ends.

Motor glider pilots have always had the option of flying for sailplane records. You simply had to disable the propulsion system to do it. Was this really so much to ask? After all, any motor glider pilot will tell you the motor is only about "convenience".

A pox upon the IGC. What a bunch of flaccid, low testosterone ******s. Screw Europe, we should go our own way.

Either that or donate heavily to my ASH-31 fund and I'll show you just how much difference it really makes. I'm prepared to be reasonable about this.

Evan Ludeman / T8

The FAI has succeeded in making a mockery of soaring records. This is just the latest in a series of arrogant and ignorant defacements of the achievements of many famous pilots.

Don’t believe me? Just go the FAI website and try to find out what the World Record is for a category. Chances are there is no record. The previous FAI record has been “retired by changes of the sporting code�.

http://www.fai.org/record-gliding

What a mess.

R5

Yep, looks like this change has no benefit to the greater sport of soaring.

This has been a fascinating discussion. From my perspective as a weekend warrior flying a 32-year-old DG-400 just for fun, I have a couple of thoughts.. The idea that the high price of self-launching, open class ships capable of setting new national records is damaging the growth of our sport is specious. With or without a powerplant, the cost of these ships is well out of reach for the vast majority. National records are set by the very best pilots flying the very best equipment. People contemplating learning to soar don't say "Damn, that $200,000 top-end sailplane is too pricey, so I won't be able to set a new National record, so I guess I won't bother learning how to fly in the first place."

My first ship was an SGS 1-35, and I started flying cross-country in it. I had so many land-outs and retrieves in one season that folks suggested that rather than buy my tireless retrieve crews dinner, I simply pay for the whole club's annual holiday dinner party! This gave rise to the dream of a glider with "self-retrieve" capability. With the "iron thermal" behind my seat, I very rarely have to inconvenience anyone now, although it does happen.

In my experience, not flying for records, but attempting Diamond and personal best flights, I have made a very conscious decision to go below my "hard floor" for an in-air restart while trying to scratch out from a low point -- and I've landed out instead of starting the motor. My point being that if I'm pushing hard to make or continue a flight, I'm going to forget about using the engine for anything but the launch.

For an in-air re-start with the "infernal combustion" engine self-launcher, I will be on downwind for a suitable field, with the wheel down and the landing checklist complete, before I raise the engine. I plan to land, and if the engine starts (it has yet to fail) I am able to fly home. The soaring performance ends at that landing spot, just as it used to in my 1-35. To set records, (or, with my more humble aspirations, notch a 500K flight,) I can't let the soaring performance end, therefore I will fight gravity until it's far too late to use the engine and I must capitulate and land. However, I'm no Mitch Polinsky. Experts like this don't use their engines for a different reason -- they just don't get low in the first place, which is clear in reading his accounts of his record flights.

There are probably a dozen reasons why I prefer to have an older, self-launcher rather than a comparably priced, higher performance, more modern, non-self-launching glider. That's a topic for another thread.

There are US records available for the new 13.5m class, but no 20m two-seater or 18m records. Is there no difference between a Duo and an EB28?
Meanwhile, 15m span has two sets of records. The only difference is flaps.
Crazy stuff.
Jim

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9:49:05 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
....
A pox upon the IGC. What a bunch of flaccid, low testosterone ******s. Screw Europe, we should go our own way.

Evan, you seem to be upset about a decision IGC made to discontinue motorglider records - 20 years ago.

There are good reasons to preserve motorglider records at the national level. Your beef is with SSA, not IGC.

-Pat

P.S. Have you heard that they also got rid of cameras and barographs?