Motorgliders (long)

Gosh, I think he's got it!

Ian

"Gary Evans" wrote in message
...
In the never-ending pursuit of fairness how about a
totally new approach to contests. Competition results
are determined by pilot skill, glider performance and
uncontrolled conditions (luck). Each factor has variables,
which can provide unfair advantages so they all need
to be standardized. The following format is therefore
proposed for consideration.

Contests would be conducted on simulators with a standard
aircraft computer model constructed from all existing
gliders so no one will have an advantage. For example
it may turn left like a 1-26, right like an LS-8, dive
like a Miller Tern, climb like a Czech made Discus
and land like a DG800 with the mast extended. The contestants
will be permitted to select an on-board engine but
it will only start ever 4th time and the mast will
extend at random during left turns.

Competitors will have 1 hour to practice, no more no
less and will have Novocain injected into their arms
so any genetic differences in eye/hand coordination
are nullified.

All competitors' eyesight will be fitted with corrective
lenses & blinders to standardize sight and peripheral
vision. Masks will be worn to ensure even air consumption
during the event, which will prevent nose size from
giving an unfair edge and of course ear plugs.

I realized that even this format may have some inequities
but it's a start!

- 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...

If your motor doesn't retract, of course your over a landable surface
anyhow so what is the big deal about the motor being out? I've
watched a DG800 land with his motor out and off. When questioned
afterward he said it still has decent L/D and lands quite well.

- 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.

The problem with your arguments are that they are all based on the
claim that of course ALL motor glider pilots always fly
conservatively. Realistically that is a load of crap. Motor glider
pilots have the flexibility of flying over unlandable, or less than
desirable terrain, getting the additional points that provides then
starting their motor and going home.

Here is a story as reported to me. That removed any doubt I may
have had regarding motor gliders having an advantage over non
motor gliders.

While attempting to qualify for the Hilton cup on the last day for
entries. A pilot flying a DG400 flew well past sunset (meaning it
was pitch black with no moon), and he was thermaling well below
glide for any known safe landing place. Afterward this pilot
openly admitted that he would not have flown into the dark,
if he had not had the motor to depend on. So did the fact he
was flying a motor glider give him an advantage? Of course it
did, and that advantage on that flight got him into the Hilton Cup.

So for those motor glider pilots who say they fly so conservatively
that the motor is always a penalty. Couldn't you also be honest
enough to openly admit that for the less conservative motor glider
pilots it provides a distinct competative advantage.

So if you want to fly head to head in competition with non
motorized gliders. You should either disable or remove the motor
and you will be more than welcome.

Soarin (non motorized)

There will always be pilots that do dumb things.
So, based on anecdotal here-say, you'd like to prevent
the rest of us from competing, or make it unpalatable ?
Really now...

PS: The L/D of my motor-glider with the motor out and
stopped is about 12; and it makes landing *interesting*.

"Soarin" wrote in message
...
- 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...

If your motor doesn't retract, of course your over a landable surface
anyhow so what is the big deal about the motor being out? I've
watched a DG800 land with his motor out and off. When questioned
afterward he said it still has decent L/D and lands quite well.

- 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.

The problem with your arguments are that they are all based on the
claim that of course ALL motor glider pilots always fly
conservatively. Realistically that is a load of crap. Motor glider
pilots have the flexibility of flying over unlandable, or less than
desirable terrain, getting the additional points that provides then
starting their motor and going home.

Here is a story as reported to me. That removed any doubt I may
have had regarding motor gliders having an advantage over non
motor gliders.

While attempting to qualify for the Hilton cup on the last day for
entries. A pilot flying a DG400 flew well past sunset (meaning it
was pitch black with no moon), and he was thermaling well below
glide for any known safe landing place. Afterward this pilot
openly admitted that he would not have flown into the dark,
if he had not had the motor to depend on. So did the fact he
was flying a motor glider give him an advantage? Of course it
did, and that advantage on that flight got him into the Hilton Cup.

So for those motor glider pilots who say they fly so conservatively
that the motor is always a penalty. Couldn't you also be honest
enough to openly admit that for the less conservative motor glider
pilots it provides a distinct competative advantage.

So if you want to fly head to head in competition with non
motorized gliders. You should either disable or remove the motor
and you will be more than welcome.

Soarin (non motorized)

There will always be pilots that do dumb things.
So, based on anecdotal here-say, you'd like to prevent
the rest of us from competing, or make it unpalatable ?
Really now...

The story was not here-say. It was an eyewitness report
from a pilot who was next to the runway when the motor
glider landed. He even said that although he was standing
less than 300 feet from the runway and there were runway
lights on he didn't know the glider was on the runway
until he heard the wheel chirp on the asphault.

Give them an inch and they will take a mile. You motor
guys weren't happy just being allowed to enter competitions
with non motorized gliders. Now you not only want to deny
there are any advantages to motor gliders. But you want to
claim you have disadvantages and want even more concessions.

Eric wants to be able to get airport bonus points for not
landing at an airport worth bonus points. He says it's
safer for a motor glider to start his motor and fly away
rather than land for airport bonus points. He claims
that at Coulee he gave up the airport bonus points by
starting his motor in order to make it safer for other
gliders. I guess we should assume that the fact that
the runway is only an 18 foot wide gravel runway, had
no bearing on his decision.
http://www.airnav.com/airport/WA15

If you want to compete with non motored gliders in
competition, at a minimum you should.

Launch by aerotow
relight by aerotow
be scored to the last turn completed if motor is used
land at the airport to get that airports bonus points

Soarin (motorless)

Eric,
You are side-stepping the issue;
With conditions deteriorating, two experienced pilots declined to attempt the
glide, while two motorgliders felt comfortable attempting it. I say again, The
REAL inequity was that you were able to sample air for another 20 miles, had
you found a thermal that was strong enough to climb in, you would have
finished. That finish would have been a DIRECT result of you having an engine
for back-up.
This inequity will always be present as long as there is NO PENALTY to be paid
for attempting a marginal glide.
JJ Sinclair

In article ,
says...
There will always be pilots that do dumb things.
So, based on anecdotal here-say, you'd like to prevent
the rest of us from competing, or make it unpalatable ?
Really now...

The story was not here-say. It was an eyewitness report
from a pilot who was next to the runway when the motor
glider landed. He even said that although he was standing
less than 300 feet from the runway and there were runway
lights on he didn't know the glider was on the runway
until he heard the wheel chirp on the asphault.

I contacted Hannes Linke, one of the primary people running the Hilton
Cup and who has been with it from the start, about this story. He says
he is not aware of it. Perhaps you could give us some details, like a
year and a name? It's hard to understand how a glider pilot flies in
pitch black conditions, even in a DG 400.

Even if the story is true, back then the Hilton Cup was run very
differently than our contests are now, which use GPS loggers.
Obviously, getting points for flying after sunset isn't possible in a
contest.

It is still possible for motorglider pilot to fly low over unlandable
terrain, planning to use the engine to save him if he doesn't find
lift. Possible isn't the same as probable, and I don't see any
evidence that this kind of behavior is a problem in our contests. I
think this is because most motorglider pilots are conservative, and
the situation where this kind of risk would be worth taking doesn't
occur very often.

I'm reminded of a conversation years ago, even before there were
motorgliders in contests, when I tried to persuade a pilot to enter a
contest. Basically, he claimed you had to take crazy risks to win a
contest, like landing out in bad fields or flying low over unlandable
terrain to get the good lift, and he wasn't going to fly like that, so
he had no chance of winning a contest, so why enter?

Well, most of us are still willing enter contests, even though we know
it is possible that some pilot might gain an advantage by taking undue
risk. I hope we'll be willing to enter contests with motorgliders,
until there is evidence that "low flight over ugly terrain" is
changing the contest results.


Give them an inch and they will take a mile. You motor
guys weren't happy just being allowed to enter competitions
with non motorized gliders. Now you not only want to deny
there are any advantages to motor gliders.

I don't think any of us have claimed there are no advantages to flying
a motorglider in contests. We have stated our belief that, overall, a
serious competitor will almost always be better off in a motorless
glider. A pilot less serious about winning, who flies so he can always
land at an airport, may or may not have an advantage over a
motorglider pilot that is willing to start his engine over a field
(depends on the contest area and the weather). A motorglider pilot
that flies to be at an airport when he gets low, whether he actually
lands at the airport or starts the engine over the airport, will be at
a distinct disadvantage to the other pilots.

But you want to
claim you have disadvantages and want even more concessions.

Eric wants to be able to get airport bonus points for not
landing at an airport worth bonus points. He says it's
safer for a motor glider to start his motor and fly away
rather than land for airport bonus points. He claims
that at Coulee he gave up the airport bonus points by
starting his motor in order to make it safer for other
gliders. I guess we should assume that the fact that
the runway is only an 18 foot wide gravel runway, had
no bearing on his decision.
http://www.airnav.com/airport/WA15

Whether I am a self-serving, cynical, son-of-a-bitch or not, the
current airport bonus does not encourage the safest action from a
pilot flying a motor glider. Since the only purpose of the bonus is
encourage a safer termination of the flight, I believe my proposal is
worthy of consideration. Please consider that the bonus for "landing
at an airport" is not intended to encourage LANDING, since a motorless
glider is going to land regardless, but to encourage AT THE AIRPORT.

The Coulee strip is narrow, but 25 meter span Nimbus 3's can take off
from this runway, and so can my 18 meter span ASH 26 E. We do need a
wing runner to do it, and there were plenty of them that day. If there
were no other gliders there (and consequently no wing runners), I
might have decided not to land, and give up the 25 points. So, we have
a situation where the availability of 25 point bonus and wing runners
(a consequence of the other gliders landing there) is encouraging me
to do the less safe thing.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

In article ,
says...
Eric,
You are side-stepping the issue;
With conditions deteriorating, two experienced pilots declined to attempt the
glide, while two motorgliders felt comfortable attempting it. I say again, The
REAL inequity was that you were able to sample air for another 20 miles, had
you found a thermal that was strong enough to climb in, you would have
finished. That finish would have been a DIRECT result of you having an engine
for back-up.
This inequity will always be present as long as there is NO PENALTY to be paid
for attempting a marginal glide.
JJ Sinclair

Since our discussion is turning more to the minutiae of a particular
contest leg, and probably isn't of much concern to the rest of the
newsgroup, how about we hash this out in private? We could present a
mutual posting at the end, separate postings if we are still so
polarized, or none at all, but at least we'd spare the newsgroup!
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

Eric,
My postings are in support of my proposal that started this thread and
hopefully will lead to rule changes that I believe are required to level the
playing field again.
JJ Sinclair

Thanks Eric, for saying what I was thinking, but just didn't have the
time to prepare a thoughtful post myself.

As a relatvely active 15m competitor for over 20 years and now an
owner of a self-launcher fo the last 2 years, I agree with most of
what Eric and Dave Nadler have said so far.

In the last 2 years, I have discovered that the motor has given me the
abilty to push the envelope of my weekend flying. I have also learned
that when I'm pushing the limits of a day while trying to not use the
engine it is more difficult than in an unpowered sailplane. I have to
stop soaring several minutes sooner than I would if not planning to
make an engine start. I can't dump my ballast (engine), so have to
make that low save while flying at a much higher wing loading than I
would if I'd removed the engine for the contest.

In my many years of soaring, I've watched other pilots of
non-motorized sailplanes head off over unlandable terrain, while I
deviated or worked that weak thernal for a few hundred more feet, or
landed. It's been done without a motor, and it's just as dangerous,
if not more so with a motor.

In most contests, all IGC logs are available for review. Stupid
decision while down low in any type of sailplane can now be replayed
and analyzed. Until we find several cases of unsafe flying that can't
be defended by the pilot, why not just give it a rest?

As for the motor allowing me to get home every day and be rested, a
good crew whith a motorhome will also provide that. Should we force
all retrieves to be by car to prevent this advantage some of us may
have?

Tom Serkowski
ASH-26E

In article ,
says...
Eric,
You are side-stepping the issue;
With conditions deteriorating, two experienced pilots declined to attempt the
glide, while two motorgliders felt comfortable attempting it.

I think you are unintentionally combining two days. Looking at the
2003 Open Class flight files, I see:

July 1, assigned task, last turnpoint: Dry Falls (near Coulee City
airport)

One Open class glider landed at Coulee City; I started my motor over
Coulee City without attempting a glide home. The Nimbus 4M did attempt
a glide home, starting the engine about 7 nm from Ephrata. JJ makes it
home to win the day in a motorless glider.

July 2, modified assigned task, no last turnpoint specified:

I attempted a final glide from Dry Falls turnpoint (near Coulee City),
starting with 5700' msl, a 28:1, 4+ MC setting glide to Ephrata. By
the time I decided to abandon the glide, it was still 28:1.

The only other Open class glider to use Dry Falls as the last
turnpoint that day was a Nimbus 3, which finished (speed finish) the
task, doing the Dry Falls/Ephrata leg with a 90+ knot average speed.

This doesn't seem like a compelling example of motorglider
superiority.

I say again, The
REAL inequity was that you were able to sample air for another 20 miles, had
you found a thermal that was strong enough to climb in, you would have
finished. That finish would have been a DIRECT result of you having an engine
for back-up.

Do you mean that without a motor, I would have been unable to sample
that air? The glider goes just as far without the motor in it. As long
as I was willing to risk a landout, I could have sampled the same air.

Perhaps you mean I would not have dared risk a landout in a motorless
ASH 26 E, and therefore, it was only because I had a motor that I
pressed on?

You've told me you're willing to land out in your ASH 25; I'm telling
you I'm willing to land out in a motorless ASH 26.

This inequity will always be present as long as there is NO PENALTY to be paid
for attempting a marginal glide.

The "penalty" for being able to attempt this "no penalty" marginal
glide is I carry 180 pounds of ballast that can't be dropped.

Maybe I can sum up our differing concepts for contests:

JJ believes motorgliders must have all advantages removed (except
self-retrieving after landing at an airport) to achieve a fair
contest. Any disadvantages caused by the motor are irrelevant and
should not be considered.

Eric believes we can allow motorgliders an advantage in some
situations, achieving fairness overall when their disadvantages are
considered.

We each hope that the pilots voting in the poll agree with us!
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)