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
  #41  
Old March 15th 17, 10:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:00:40 -0700, RR wrote:

Just to roll this back to the issue at hand, does this "advance of
technology" justify somehow creating/maintaining separate categories.

Of course it does!

Many commentards have pointed out the terrible drag penalties that result
from a folded FES propeller. Since everybody knows that the wisdom of the
crowds can't be wrong, obviously we need a separate FES record category
and we need it NOW!


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
  #42  
Old March 15th 17, 01:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 5:52:49 AM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:

commentards


The sun has well and truly set on the British empire. So sad, so sad....

:-)

-Evan
  #43  
Old March 15th 17, 02:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:27:55 PM UTC-4, RR wrote:
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


Doesn't an engine and the having the additional "arrow in your quiver" allow you a bit more ability to take risk?

Dennis DC
  #44  
Old March 15th 17, 04:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 6:29:43 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:27:55 PM UTC-4, RR wrote:
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


Doesn't an engine and the having the additional "arrow in your quiver" allow you a bit more ability to take risk?

Dennis DC


No it does not. Without the engine, I would continue looking for thermals down to 1000 ft. (in the West, some in the East would say 200 ft). With the engine, 2000 ft. You need to get it out, go through the start up routine, warm it a little (on cold/high days), then when it DOESN'T start, put it away again and line up for your landing.

Yes there are people who don't do this - the NTSA accident database is rife with them. Statistics argue that the engine makes the glider more dangerous, not safer. But more convenient - when it starts - and the safety is subject to the full control of the operator by showing some restraint.

A second drawback so far unmentioned is the pilot workload that the engine contributes to, at a very inconvenient time (you are are low). Should I start the engine? What if it doesn't start? Will the 50% degradation in performance once the engine is out preclude the landing area I chose? Do I remember the exact sequence? Should I have started it 5 minutes ago? That extra bit of distraction, just when you are near overload, is a significant factor in the prudent decision to give up earlier.

The reason the mindset is different with an engine is that it is sunk cost, so in the middle of the day I will go further, knowing that 9 out of 10 times the engine will start if it is needed, and the inconvenient retrieve is reduced to 10% of the consideration it might have been. The money has already been spent, whether I use it or not. In my engineless glider, in the middle of the day, I am thinking, "do I really want another 50 miles if it is going to cost me $300?" and often the answer was no. I hadn't yet spent the money, and there was the opportunity to save it. This has nothing at all to do with performance. My suggestion to those without an engine, who want the extra 50 miles on a day with landout risk, is to hand $300 to your ground crew, Uber driver, or whoever before you take off. Now go fly. They will come get you if you land out. You don't get the money back in any case. Now you can have the same mindset, along with the satisfaction of knowing you can do that at least 10 times a year and still be paying less than the cost of an engine.
  #45  
Old March 17th 17, 06:55 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

Motor gliders? Aren't those called "airplanes"?
I truly pity those who can't see the difference.
  #46  
Old March 17th 17, 11:31 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 6:29:43 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:27:55 PM UTC-4, RR wrote:
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


Doesn't an engine and the having the additional "arrow in your quiver" allow you a bit more ability to take risk?

Dennis DC


No it does not. Without the engine, I would continue looking for thermals down to 1000 ft. (in the West, some in the East would say 200 ft). With the engine, 2000 ft. You need to get it out, go through the start up routine, warm it a little (on cold/high days), then when it DOESN'T start, put it away again and line up for your landing.

Yes there are people who don't do this - the NTSA accident database is rife with them. Statistics argue that the engine makes the glider more dangerous, not safer. But more convenient - when it starts - and the safety is subject to the full control of the operator by showing some restraint.

A second drawback so far unmentioned is the pilot workload that the engine contributes to, at a very inconvenient time (you are are low). Should I start the engine? What if it doesn't start? Will the 50% degradation in performance once the engine is out preclude the landing area I chose? Do I remember the exact sequence? Should I have started it 5 minutes ago? That extra bit of distraction, just when you are near overload, is a significant factor in the prudent decision to give up earlier.

The reason the mindset is different with an engine is that it is sunk cost, so in the middle of the day I will go further, knowing that 9 out of 10 times the engine will start if it is needed, and the inconvenient retrieve is reduced to 10% of the consideration it might have been. The money has already been spent, whether I use it or not. In my engineless glider, in the middle of the day, I am thinking, "do I really want another 50 miles if it is going to cost me $300?" and often the answer was no. I hadn't yet spent the money, and there was the opportunity to save it. This has nothing at all to do with performance. My suggestion to those without an engine, who want the extra 50 miles on a day with landout risk, is to hand $300 to your ground crew, Uber driver, or whoever before you take off. Now go fly. They will come get you if you land out. You don't get the money back in any case. Now you can have the same mindset, along with the satisfaction of knowing you can do that at least 10 times a year and still be paying less than the cost of an engine.


Back to records. The ability to be able to selectively end your soaring performance at will, in the air, is a significant benefit to the pilot. All this huffing and puffing about the prudent use of TODAY's technology is relevant to precisely nothing as far as the *rules* go. As the technology improves, I expect to see MG pilots do even dumber stuff, and mostly get away with it as they do now.

Now off to wax my xc skis.... (on ST Patty's day? argh).

Evan Ludeman / T8
  #47  
Old March 17th 17, 03:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BobW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 504
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

On 3/17/2017 4:31 AM, Tango Eight wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 6:29:43 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:27:55 PM UTC-4, RR wrote:
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

Doesn't an engine and the having the additional "arrow in your quiver"
allow you a bit more ability to take risk?

Dennis DC


No it does not. Without the engine, I would continue looking for thermals
down to 1000 ft. (in the West, some in the East would say 200 ft). With
the engine, 2000 ft. You need to get it out, go through the start up
routine, warm it a little (on cold/high days), then when it DOESN'T
start, put it away again and line up for your landing.

Yes there are people who don't do this - the NTSA accident database is
rife with them. Statistics argue that the engine makes the glider more
dangerous, not safer. But more convenient - when it starts - and the
safety is subject to the full control of the operator by showing some
restraint.

A second drawback so far unmentioned is the pilot workload that the
engine contributes to, at a very inconvenient time (you are are low).
Should I start the engine? What if it doesn't start? Will the 50%
degradation in performance once the engine is out preclude the landing
area I chose? Do I remember the exact sequence? Should I have started it
5 minutes ago? That extra bit of distraction, just when you are near
overload, is a significant factor in the prudent decision to give up
earlier.

The reason the mindset is different with an engine is that it is sunk
cost, so in the middle of the day I will go further, knowing that 9 out
of 10 times the engine will start if it is needed, and the inconvenient
retrieve is reduced to 10% of the consideration it might have been. The
money has already been spent, whether I use it or not. In my engineless
glider, in the middle of the day, I am thinking, "do I really want
another 50 miles if it is going to cost me $300?" and often the answer
was no. I hadn't yet spent the money, and there was the opportunity to
save it. This has nothing at all to do with performance. My suggestion to
those without an engine, who want the extra 50 miles on a day with
landout risk, is to hand $300 to your ground crew, Uber driver, or
whoever before you take off. Now go fly. They will come get you if you
land out. You don't get the money back in any case. Now you can have the
same mindset, along with the satisfaction of knowing you can do that at
least 10 times a year and still be paying less than the cost of an
engine.


Back to records. The ability to be able to selectively end your soaring
performance at will, in the air, is a significant benefit to the pilot.
All this huffing and puffing about the prudent use of TODAY's technology is
relevant to precisely nothing as far as the *rules* go. As the technology
improves, I expect to see MG pilots do even dumber stuff, and mostly get
away with it as they do now.

Now off to wax my xc skis.... (on ST Pa[dd]y's day? argh).


Heh..."huffing and puffing" indeed. For those unable to distinguish some
fundamental differences between engineless sailplanes and
sailplanes-cum-engine (of any sort), and who are also comfortable being told
how they should spend their disposable cash (Tangentially: I can point to a
lot of governments around the world only-too-eager for help in that
bureaucratic area!), I humbly suggest purchasing donkeys rather than any form
of horse. You'll hardly notice the differences.

Respectfully,
Bob W.

P.S. Don't drink green snow!
  #48  
Old March 17th 17, 04:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 3:32:02 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 6:29:43 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:27:55 PM UTC-4, RR wrote:
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

Doesn't an engine and the having the additional "arrow in your quiver" allow you a bit more ability to take risk?

Dennis DC


No it does not. Without the engine, I would continue looking for thermals down to 1000 ft. (in the West, some in the East would say 200 ft). With the engine, 2000 ft. You need to get it out, go through the start up routine, warm it a little (on cold/high days), then when it DOESN'T start, put it away again and line up for your landing.

Yes there are people who don't do this - the NTSA accident database is rife with them. Statistics argue that the engine makes the glider more dangerous, not safer. But more convenient - when it starts - and the safety is subject to the full control of the operator by showing some restraint.

A second drawback so far unmentioned is the pilot workload that the engine contributes to, at a very inconvenient time (you are are low). Should I start the engine? What if it doesn't start? Will the 50% degradation in performance once the engine is out preclude the landing area I chose? Do I remember the exact sequence? Should I have started it 5 minutes ago? That extra bit of distraction, just when you are near overload, is a significant factor in the prudent decision to give up earlier.

The reason the mindset is different with an engine is that it is sunk cost, so in the middle of the day I will go further, knowing that 9 out of 10 times the engine will start if it is needed, and the inconvenient retrieve is reduced to 10% of the consideration it might have been. The money has already been spent, whether I use it or not. In my engineless glider, in the middle of the day, I am thinking, "do I really want another 50 miles if it is going to cost me $300?" and often the answer was no. I hadn't yet spent the money, and there was the opportunity to save it. This has nothing at all to do with performance. My suggestion to those without an engine, who want the extra 50 miles on a day with landout risk, is to hand $300 to your ground crew, Uber driver, or whoever before you take off. Now go fly. They will come get you if you land out. You don't get the money back in any case.. Now you can have the same mindset, along with the satisfaction of knowing you can do that at least 10 times a year and still be paying less than the cost of an engine.


Back to records. The ability to be able to selectively end your soaring performance at will, in the air, is a significant benefit to the pilot. All this huffing and puffing about the prudent use of TODAY's technology is relevant to precisely nothing as far as the *rules* go. As the technology improves, I expect to see MG pilots do even dumber stuff, and mostly get away with it as they do now.

Now off to wax my xc skis.... (on ST Patty's day? argh).

Evan Ludeman / T8


snipThe ability to be able to selectively end your soaring performance at will, in the air, is a significant benefit to the pilot./snip

What - exactly - is preventing you from doing this in your engineless glider? (Nothing at all?)

Have you even taken a motorglider cross country? (No?)

The soaring day ends when you are over a landing site and too low to continue. Engine or no. Once again, the endless whinging seems to be from people with no experience in motorgliders, who perceive the grass must be greener over there. Buy one and fly it for awhile, then report back. You will find that the "benefit to the pilot" is convenience, not performance. Penalizing convenience in the record rules is a steep and slippery slope with almost no bottom.
  #49  
Old March 17th 17, 05:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 478
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

Performance is increased by convenience. Let's flip this round why are motor-packers against separate records?
  #50  
Old March 17th 17, 05:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

Me too! My Stemme is way more complicated than any C-172 and I only
need a glider rating to fly it! Call it what you will, it is not an
airplane, though being an airplane pilot, too, made the transition super
simple.

On 3/16/2017 11:55 PM, wrote:
Motor gliders? Aren't those called "airplanes"?
I truly pity those who can't see the difference.


--
Dan, 5J
 




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 05:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.