Motorgliders (long)

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)

"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

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

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

In article m, Mark Zivley
writes:

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.

How about if both MG and "pure" sailplanes got scored this way. (Land-out or
motor start gets scored to last turnpoint.) Would that be fair?

Steve
With motor envy.

Steve wrote
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.

How about if both MG and "pure" sailplanes got scored this way. (Land-out or
motor start gets scored to last turnpoint.) Would that be fair?

Steve, the Motorglider isn't forced to get zero points or distance points to
an earlier turn point. Under my proposed change to the rules, all he is
required to do is to land. Just the same as the pure sailplane is forced to do
in the same situation.The MG is also free to claim a constructive land-out if
that is to his advantage.



JJ Sinclair

- 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)