All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records

On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 18:09:05 UTC+2, jfitch wrote:
I don't know all of you personally, but the local pilots with the same views universally have never owned and flown a motorglider cross country. Nearly all motorglider pilots have owned and flown cross country engineless gliders. So 'fess up - all of you who think there is a performance advantage in having a motor, have you owned and extensively flown cross country in a motorglider? No? Perhaps you don't know what you are talking about.....


I've flown selflaunchers and sustainers. Having engine is every bit as game-changing as one can imagine. It is totally different sport, arguing about that pretty useless. Of course there is no category for pure glider records anymore as virtually no gliders are made without engine of some sort anymore (excluding 2-seat trainers), they are bound to extinct.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 18:09:05 UTC+2, jfitch wrote:
I don't know all of you personally, but the local pilots with the same views universally have never owned and flown a motorglider cross country. Nearly all motorglider pilots have owned and flown cross country engineless gliders. So 'fess up - all of you who think there is a performance advantage in having a motor, have you owned and extensively flown cross country in a motorglider? No? Perhaps you don't know what you are talking about.....


I've flown selflaunchers and sustainers. Having engine is every bit as game-changing as one can imagine. It is totally different sport, arguing about that pretty useless. Of course there is no category for pure glider records anymore as virtually no gliders are made without engine of some sort anymore (excluding 2-seat trainers), they are bound to extinct.

What is the barrier to maintaining two different sets of records again? One for motor and one without? Is there a shortage of server space to keep them -

Dennis
DC

"It's not how IGC does it, the US should do what the IGC does in all things".

Quotes are basically what this thread, as well as some campaigning from others regarding "contest rules", want/are suggesting.

In this case (records), sounds like it's a done deal, changing US contest rules to match IGC rules has thus far only generated lots of posts and gnashing of teeth.

You are correct (at least from my viewpoint). Though since becoming a
"self launcher" my land out options have actually decreased (paved
runways only), I find myself pushing further knowing the Rotax 914 is
way more reliable that the chain saw engines on most sustainers. Still,
I never go beyond gliding distance from an actual airport. This is my
self-imposed limit.

On 3/14/2017 8:03 AM, Roy B. wrote:
Well it's snowing out and I am bored - so I'll join the fray. Except, Evan has already said what I would say (except the part about "flaccid, low testosterone ******s"). I would have said something more direct.

Let's not conflate the convenience of self launching with the mental confidence of having an engine behind you when you are low or far away and pushing for the last turnpoint with doubts about getting back. They are very different impacts on your gliding. If there was a way to self launch, lock the engine, and throw the key out the vent window, then we would all be doing what Evan does well (and I try to do).

True - the self launch and sustainer people acquire problems that the pure glider pilots don't have (cost, weight, and need to give up earlier) and I have pulled a few sustainer gliders out of farm fields in my time (3 no starts and one taped over fuel tank vent hole) but Pete is right - it's a mental sport and the presence of an engine of any type impacts your mindset. Especially if you fly like Evan and push to use 100% of the day.

But Evan, look on the bright side - The pure gliders are getting cheaper since the ******s don't want them.

ROY (fellow pterosaur)

--
Dan, 5J

RR, respectfully, I think you've got the original point wrong. It's not about resisting "advance of technology"at all. It's about the different mindset of having a motor and not having a motor when you are really pushing the day for a record. For example, during a good record week if you are trying a big triangle you are always wondering if you've picked the last turnpoint too far and you are not going to get back before the lift quits. You ask yourself on the second half of the second leg "Maybe I should bail here so I can be sure to get back?" With a motor in back it's no big deal - you go for that far turnpoint and if you're right you make it and if not you will crank out the motor, do a little sawtooth and get back in time for the beer. Without a motor, you may go for it 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. Every motor guy I've flown long distances against (and there are many) has said the same thing: "It's a different game". It's different because at the big decision point (do I go for it or not?) the motor gives security that the pure glider does not have. That's why the records should stay different - motor and no motor are different sports when you try flying 100 to 110% of the day.
ROY

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

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

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.

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

"Yes there are people who don't do this - the NTSA accident database is rife with them."

This is the issue with Motor Gliders right here. The fact that some people (not all) will assume the risk to catch that one last thermal to get to the finish point. The mentality that someone "could" fly over upland able terrain and risk having to start the motor, but making that thermal that a pure glider cannot reach. The psychology of having an alternate option 3 feet behind your head is a factor in the minds of some. Being able to assume that the motor is there and will start is a whole different game. The database shows the accident that happened, but how about the ones that were successful and didn't result in an accident.

The argument of extra weight makes me chuckle. More weight is good on strong days typically. When was the last time a record was broken on a weak day? I am sorry but the assumption that more weight is a bad thing when making a record attempt is poorly represented.


Motor Gliders are not Pure Gliders and they have no place on the same record sheet. This is a horrible move for the Sport of soaring and will further increase the required investment in order to be competitive and break records.