Motorgliders (long)

Earlier Eric wrote.. A motorglider
will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.

Sounds like the "In-flight relight" at a different location, to me.
Best Regards,


JJ Sinclair

In article ,
says...
Earlier Eric wrote.. A motorglider
will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.

Sounds like the "In-flight relight" at a different location, to me.
Best Regards,

It's not a relight, because the task is over for that pilot, and he
can't attempt the task again. The airport bonus is awarded to
encourage safer flying, but did not always have that effect for a
motorglider pilot. The proposed rule attempts to extend that
encouragement to the motorglider pilot. No racing purpose is served by
having the glider land.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
.. .
.....................
I arrived at Coulee City airport about 1300' agl. Already on the
airport runway were a glider, and a second glider was getting ready to
land. I elected to start my engine, losing the airport bonus, rather
than land and add to the congestion at this small airfield. Because of
this, I lost second place by 25 points to the glider that was landing
(we were both scored as landing at Coulee City). .....................

A pilot flying a pure sailplane in the situation you describe would have to
come up with a plan. Maybe even having to land in a field next to the
airport if the situation got really bad. But, because you have an engine,
you seem to be asking for a special privilege. What you suggest might be
safer, but, is it fair to all of the pilots flying pure sailplanes that you
should be exempt from the same exposures as them just because you have an
engine?

Duane

I flew my motorglider at the same regional that JJ insisted that the
other open class MGs take aero tows. I made it clear to the organizers
that I would not attend the competition if I could not self launch. I
would have left if I were told that the rules had changed.

I here the arguments about perceived advantages and disadvantages and
think, "Get a life!". Hello, life is not fair! The guys that go out a
buy the latest technology have an UNFAIR advantage over everybody
else. If you think MGs have an unfair advantage, then go out and buy a
god damned motorglider and stop complaining!

The bottom line for contest organizers is allowing MGs into their
contests increase or decrease the number of competitors. I will
continue to enter only those contests that allow me to use my MG to
its fullest capability. If you don't like then don't come! This, of
course, means that nationals (other than the MG nationals) are out of
the question, and that's OK.

Tom Seim
DG-400
Richland, WA

In article UGuab.384426$cF.116390@rwcrnsc53,
says...

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
.. .
.....................
I arrived at Coulee City airport about 1300' agl. Already on the
airport runway were a glider, and a second glider was getting ready to
land. I elected to start my engine, losing the airport bonus, rather
than land and add to the congestion at this small airfield. Because of
this, I lost second place by 25 points to the glider that was landing
(we were both scored as landing at Coulee City). .....................

A pilot flying a pure sailplane in the situation you describe would have to
come up with a plan. Maybe even having to land in a field next to the
airport if the situation got really bad. But, because you have an engine,
you seem to be asking for a special privilege. What you suggest might be
safer, but, is it fair to all of the pilots flying pure sailplanes that you
should be exempt from the same exposures as them just because you have an
engine?

My action benefited the unpowered gliders by reducing congestion at
the airport.

Isn't that a good thing that should be encouraged?

If you were one of the gliders landing at the airport, would you
rather I landed or stayed out of the way?

And if I was able to stay out of the way, would you really begrudge
me the same 25 points you got for essentially the same goal: arriving
at an airport to make the end of the flight safer?

Would the rule proposed be agreeable to you if it also allowed a
glider to get the bonus if it landed near the airport to avoid a
safety problem like I described?

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

In article ,
says...

The bottom line for contest organizers is allowing MGs into their
contests increase or decrease the number of competitors.

For the Ephrata (Region 8), allowing motorgliders to self-launch has
additional value beyond just another glider in field. It means they
can do all the contest towing with "local" towplanes, instead of
having to contract with a towplane from somewhere else. This reduces
costs and makes planning easier.

I will
continue to enter only those contests that allow me to use my MG to
its fullest capability.

For me, it's the additional cost: I've already paid for my "towplane",
so I'm inclined to use it rather than pay for contest tows. Frankly,
taking tows at a contest is easier and advantageous, compared to self-
launching. The main reason for this is I and the glider are
immediately ready to soar after releasing, whereas with a self-launch,
I must stop the engine, partially retract the propeller, then spend 3
to 5 minutes thermalling this way while the engine bay cools before I
can fully retract it. The procedure is distracting and inefficient
compared to simply releasing from tow.

This isn't a complaint: it's an observation. Also, I follow the
towplane route, and do not wander around looking for a thermal.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
Well, now Tom. The rules state, and I quote, "All tows will be by aerotow"
Ephrata did NOT have a waiver to this rule. Now was I correct is insisting
that
the rules were followed, or not?

I've not flown a contest yet, so was gonna stay out of this. But I have to
ask how JJ can deduce that a MG doing a self-launch is *any* kind of a tow?
I wouldn't think it's a tow at all. If the rules are as you state, "All tows
will be by aerotow", how then is a self-launch in violation of those rules?

As someone else posted, we should be doing our best to embrace all types of
gliders. There will be nothing good gained in taking sides and throwing
rocks. As Eric says, MG's have significant disadvantages and some advantages
as compared with "pure" gliders. At contests, if that balance comes down in
favor of MG's, then reasonable rules - - again as Eric suggests, should be
implemented to allow us all to play together. Otherwise us MG owners might
pick up our toys and go home - - so there.

JJ, are we dealing with "motor envy" here?

--
bumper
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 8/29/2003

I didn't read every post before this one, but zero points for the day is
a bit harsh. What if you gave distance points only, but used the last
turnpoint successfully rounded as the landing point rather than the
location where the engine was started. You could also take it back one
previous turnpoint (if available) to put a little more emphasis on not
using the engine.

Dave Nadler "YO" wrote:
C'mon JJ - Flying both motorized and non-motorized, I can definitely state:

- The decision height with the motor is MUTCH higher, if you want to be
safe,

- The decision point is MUTCH more critical - try a failed motor-start,
followed by a non-retract, then landing with huge drag/sink of motor out...
Don't even think about trying an air-start low over the small field that
would
be fine with the (lighter, slower, low-drag) unpowered glider. Yea, it
usually
starts, but then this HAS happened to me (over an airport, TWICE).

- There have been multiple times I didn't finish because I had to decide to
air-start HIGH, and I would easily have finished in the unpowered glider
with lower and less critical decision heights.

I love the flexibiliity of the motor-glider, but it comes at a significant
penalty. Less so with a sustainer of course, which is a much better
compromise if you've got a tow to get started.

See ya, Dave


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...

There are several questions concerning motorgliders on this years SSA /

SRA

pilot poll. Some of the questions may have been spurred by my letter dated

7/11

03 which follows

Members of the rules committee,
A few years back, we allowed motorgliders to have their engines available

for

in-flight retrieves, in regional and national competition. I thought it

was a

mistake at the time, but nothing much happened. No motorglider won the
nationals. The top pilots didn't rush right out and buy a motorglider.

This is

changing, I have flown with several motorgliders in open class in the last

few

years. Some very capable pilots are flying motorgliders and they enjoy a
distinct advantage. Allow me to give an example; At region 8 championships

on

day 2, the sky had been completely overcast for hours. The 5 contestants

in

open class were working warm areas of freshly plowed ground. We all made

it to

the last turn point, some 30 miles from home. None of us had enough

altitude to

attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable

terrain.

They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they

both

started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to the
location where they started their engines. A few years back, I tried a

similar

final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I

ended

up a mile short with a broken ship.

I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage. I recommend we consider
returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider to have their engine
available for in-flight use, but they must land to get distance points.

Any

in-flight use would result in zero points for the day. They would still

have

the option of using a constructive landout, as is the case with

non-motorized

ships. The constructive land out is claimed after a landing, but not at

the

point of engine start. This rule would make motorgliders exactly EQUAL to
non-motored sailplanes, but still allow them the option of using their

engines

if the situation warranted its use. Allowing the engine to be available

would

also negate the argument that motorglider insurance may be invalidated if

their

engines were disabled. After landing, the motorglider would have the

option of

selflaunching and flying back to the contest airport.

Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider was scored at the

last

achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning to this rule wouldn't

be

fair because they could still make a final glide without sufficient

altitude.

If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they still get scored at

the

last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not to try the unsafe

final

glide.

On a lesser important note, some creative rules interpretation is occuring

at

the regional level. Some regions have optained a waver of the "All

launches

will be by aerotow" rule. I would ask that no more waivers be granted

because

selflaunching allowes the motorglider to drive around until they find a

good

thermal, before shutting down their engines.The non-motored contestant

must

release shortly after reaching release altitude. The creative rules
interpretation has also led to something called an "In-flight relight",

where a

low motorglider just flies within 1 mile of the airport and then starts up

his

engine and performs his in-flight relight. This is also clearly unfair to

the

non-motored sailplane who must land, possibly with water, shove his

sailplane

back to the end of the runway, and wait for a tow plane to come out. I

request

that more specific language be use to make these practices unavailable in

the

future.

Thank you for your consideration of the indicated rules changes. I request
these issues be placed on the fall pilots poll.
JJ Sinclair
PS. Please don't interpret my position as bad-mouthing motorgliders, we

need

them to fill out our fledgling 18 meter class and to bolster our dwindling

open

class. Zero points for engine use, may seem harsh, but after your careful
consideration, I believe you will come to the conclusion it is the only

way to

level the playing field again.

JJ Sinclair

Dave wrote


You could also take it back one
previous turnpoint (if available) to put a little more emphasis on not
using the engine.

That could work, Dave. I just think a significant penalty needs to apply in
order to make the motorglider think like the rest of us. Some of then already
do, a DG-800 driver in our Minden regionals voluntarily landed at Tpoaz
International, rather than cranking up the put-put. He is thinking and flying
like he doesn't have an engine. I admire him for the way he flies.
JJ Sinclair

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
.................
My action benefited the unpowered gliders by reducing congestion at
the airport.

And if I was able to stay out of the way, would you really begrudge
me the same 25 points you got for essentially the same goal: arriving
at an airport to make the end of the flight safer?

Would the rule proposed be agreeable to you if it also allowed a
glider to get the bonus if it landed near the airport to avoid a
safety problem like I described?
Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

I know what you are saying. Been there, done that. At a Hobbs Nat when a
squall line developed suddenly, about 26 sailplanes landed at a small single
strip airport in about 20 minutes. We somehow worked it out. At a
Moriairty Nats I was the last to arrive at a small airport that we found had
been turned into a dump. The first 6 sailplanes were still in the little
spaces that were landable (the surrounding area was unlandable). I landed
in a short piece of ground near the end of the old runway and came to a stop
a foot or so from a discarded refrigerator and a couple of microwave ovens.
In both cases it sure would have been nice to have been able to extend an
engine and have other choices. But, I did not have that choice.

For the flight that you stated, what you did might have been safer, but what
would you have done if you had not had an engine? If you fly in a pure
sailplane contest, should you not be exposed to the same mental strain and
decision making of the other contestants? There are many special
disadvantages as to starting the engine as you state, but that is mostly
because you elected to fly "out of class". Also, the motorgliders with an
engine in the nose do not have many of those problems. Yes, I know that not
many exist .... now. If the pure sailplane pilot has to make an off
field landing it sometimes works out that the pilot returns very late and
hungry. The motorglider pilot flys home, has a nice dinner, and gets to bed
early. Is that fair? If you use the engine to modify your decision making
are you competing the same as the other pilots?

I am not really against what you propose, but the total concept should be
thought through. I am really just asking a question about total fairness.

Duane