Motorgliders and gliders in US contests

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 01:27:50 +0000, Dave Nadler "YO" wrote:

Are you aware that an air-restart of the motorglider was out of the
question because of the extreme cold ? It was only for launch
convenience. Should give you additional appreciation for what Ohlmann
has accomplished.

Best Regards, Dave

Yes I was aware of that. His achievements are impressive.

I gather some of his flights ended with a landing at an away airfield. The
motor allowed him to fly back to base the following day.

I know of a number of other pilots who have used motorgliders while
stretching the envelope of achievement in our sport. The late Klaus
Holighaus flew a series of large distance tasks (typically over 1200km) in
the middle 1990's from Gariep Dam in South Africa. Many of the
unsuccessful tasks covered the declared distance but they were completed
by climbing under motor power to final glide hight at sunset and then
gliding back to base after dark.

Which brings me back to my point. Competitive open class gliders need to
have motors, but gliders flying in the 'standard class' should not be
permitted to have them.


Ian

Tom,
The scoring program will *Flag* for possible penalty, any airborne use of the
engine. The scorer must evaluate each flagged item. At Ephrata 2003, the
program would flag:

1. Self-launch of motorgliders in sports class. Scorers action; OK, they are
self-launching, Not allowed by the rules, but OK, here.

2. Motor use in the local area. Scorers action; OK, if below 1000 feet and
within 1 mile of Ephrata, Not in the rules, but OK, here. (Airborne- Relight)

3. Motor use on course. Scorers action; call in the pilot and discuss. This may
terminate the flight, see if pilot declared a constructive landout in order to
get credit to the point of engine use.

You were called in for a possible type 3, use of the engine. Are you sure the
scorer checked all MG traces to see if they shut down in the release area and
not above 2000 feet? Oh, I forgot, 2300 feet, not in the rules, but OK here.
JJ Sinclair

In article ,
says...
Wrong. An unpowered ASH 26 (no E, no engine) pilot (6.7 wing loading
instead of 8.2) would either have been able to climb high enough in
the weak thermal I found; taken the 1700' agl over the airport (10 sm
out; 30:1) and pressed on over the even better fields south of Soap
Lake, maybe making it in;

If you don't like the performance of the ASH-26, then get another ship, but
don't use its capabilities to safely get you to a point where you use its
engine and then turn on it and blame it for not being able to dump the engine
and climb higher. You can't have it both ways, Eric.

I was attempting to explain how a pilot flying the same model glider
without the motor could've handled the same situation, and gotten a
better score. This was to answer your claim that the motor was what
would make it possible for me to maybe get home when a motorless
glider won't.

I don't blame the glider for anything. I'm just too lazy to take the
motor out, put in another set of bags, and find a crew that wants to
come get me if I land out.


Frankly, JJ, the biggest inequity in the contest was self-imposed: you
were flying a large, heavy ASH 25, which is difficult to retrieve, and
you were flying with a co-pilot that was handicapped. I admire you for
this, as you pretty much committed yourself to airport-only landings,
and gave up the flexibility that risking a field landing gives you

Wrong, We were flying the ASH-25 at about 8.25 pounds per square foot wing
loading. It climbs quite well, even in a 1 knot thermal. If you think I'm
limited to airfields only, you should ask Patricia about carrying it out of a
plowed field at the Avenal contest last year.

OK, I still admire you for having a handicapped pilot with you, but
not as much as before.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)