• See, I Told You So!

    From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 13 15:07:44 2022
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this
    purist, even the manufacturer sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior machine will get you out of a bind at the
    snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have A Plan" as the author suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my skills have not
    deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dan Marotta@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sat Aug 13 16:53:40 2022
    Stemme claims 50:1 glide angle. Should I deploy the engine, my glide
    ratio, in still air, MAY drop to 49:1 or thereabouts. And the Rotax 914
    is as reliable as a Toyota. ...Except for that damned turbo waste gate,
    but I wouldn't need the turbo for a self retrieve.

    But then, again, Whereas I COULD land it in a field, I'd be stuck since
    I have no trailer.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/13/22 16:07, [email protected] wrote:
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this
    purist, even the manufacturer sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior machine will get you out of a bind at the
    snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have A Plan" as the author suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my skills have not
    deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Greenwell@21:1/5 to Dan Marotta on Sat Aug 13 16:18:22 2022
    Dan Marotta wrote on 8/13/2022 3:53 PM:
    Stemme claims 50:1 glide angle.� Should I deploy the engine, my glide ratio, in still air, MAY
    drop to 49:1 or thereabouts.� And the Rotax 914 is as reliable as a Toyota.� ...Except for that
    damned turbo waste gate, but I wouldn't need the turbo for a self retrieve.

    But then, again, Whereas I COULD land it in a field, I'd be stuck since I have no trailer.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/13/22 16:07, [email protected] wrote:
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an
    article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain
    the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this purist, even the manufacturer
    sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is
    that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior
    machine will get you out of a bind at the snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of
    the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have� A Plan" as the author
    suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my
    skills have not deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist

    You missed the point, Bob, which was to be ready to be a "pure" sailplane whenever you decide
    to start the engine. And only the clueless or thoughtless claim a "pure" sailplane doesn't need
    a "safety cushion". Fact is, glider pilots are taught from the beginning of their training to
    have cushions (generally altitude). You know that, and since you always make it back to
    Hibiscus (well, at least the last 5 years), you've demonstrated you use cushion(s).

    Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Eric Greenwell on Sun Aug 14 05:01:21 2022
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dan Marotta wrote on 8/13/2022 3:53 PM:
    Stemme claims 50:1 glide angle. Should I deploy the engine, my glide ratio, in still air, MAY
    drop to 49:1 or thereabouts. And the Rotax 914 is as reliable as a Toyota. ...Except for that
    damned turbo waste gate, but I wouldn't need the turbo for a self retrieve.

    But then, again, Whereas I COULD land it in a field, I'd be stuck since I have no trailer.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/13/22 16:07, [email protected] wrote:
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an
    article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain
    the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this purist, even the manufacturer
    sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is
    that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior
    machine will get you out of a bind at the snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of
    the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have A Plan" as the author
    suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my
    skills have not deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist
    You missed the point, Bob, which was to be ready to be a "pure" sailplane whenever you decide
    to start the engine. And only the clueless or thoughtless claim a "pure" sailplane doesn't need
    a "safety cushion". Fact is, glider pilots are taught from the beginning of their training to
    have cushions (generally altitude). You know that, and since you always make it back to
    Hibiscus (well, at least the last 5 years), you've demonstrated you use cushion(s).

    Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, once again you missed the facts, I have not always landed back at X52. Now about those unreliable motorgliders, I really enjoyed reading that article in Soaring. Detailing the unreliability of these gliders is interesting, especially the section , "
    Motor Glider Failures". I have witnessed two failures of motorgliders, both blew up their engines on takeoff, fortunately both had gained enough altitude to return to the strip. Old Bob, The Purist.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Nadler@21:1/5 to Eric Greenwell on Sun Aug 14 06:41:20 2022
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    ... Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    Eric, for the umpteenth time, it is not "just a few" motorgliders that have high sink rates with engine out and stopped. You are doing nobody any favors continuing to think and write that all gliders are like the ASH-26. Really now...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Greenwell@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Aug 14 08:30:13 2022
    [email protected] wrote on 8/14/2022 5:01 AM:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dan Marotta wrote on 8/13/2022 3:53 PM:
    Stemme claims 50:1 glide angle. Should I deploy the engine, my glide ratio, in still air, MAY
    drop to 49:1 or thereabouts. And the Rotax 914 is as reliable as a Toyota. ...Except for that
    damned turbo waste gate, but I wouldn't need the turbo for a self retrieve. >>>
    But then, again, Whereas I COULD land it in a field, I'd be stuck since I have no trailer.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/13/22 16:07, [email protected] wrote:
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an
    article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain
    the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this purist, even the manufacturer
    sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is
    that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior
    machine will get you out of a bind at the snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of
    the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have A Plan" as the author
    suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my
    skills have not deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist
    You missed the point, Bob, which was to be ready to be a "pure" sailplane whenever you decide
    to start the engine. And only the clueless or thoughtless claim a "pure" sailplane doesn't need
    a "safety cushion". Fact is, glider pilots are taught from the beginning of their training to
    have cushions (generally altitude). You know that, and since you always make it back to
    Hibiscus (well, at least the last 5 years), you've demonstrated you use cushion(s).

    Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, once again you missed the facts, I have not always landed back at X52. Now about those unreliable motorgliders, I really enjoyed reading that article in Soaring. Detailing the unreliability of these gliders is interesting, especially the section ,
    "Motor Glider Failures". I have witnessed two failures of motorgliders, both blew up their engines on takeoff, fortunately both had gained enough altitude to return to the strip. Old Bob, The Purist.

    Every glider pilot should be ready for a launch failure, whether it's a self-launched, towed,
    or ground-launched. I've witnessed failures of all of those methods. My personal experience is
    self-launching gives me many more opportunities to fly than the other two methods, and I've had
    no engine related launch failures out of 800+ launches.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Greenwell@21:1/5 to Dave Nadler on Sun Aug 14 08:17:02 2022
    Dave Nadler wrote on 8/14/2022 6:41 AM:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    ... Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    Eric, for the umpteenth time, it is not "just a few" motorgliders that have high sink rates with engine out and stopped. You are doing nobody any favors continuing to think and write that all gliders are like the ASH-26. Really now...

    I was responding to Bob's myopia, which causes him to see only problems, not offering a survey
    of all motorgliders, and I specifically said FES, jet gliders, and Stemmes do not suffer the
    significant loss of glide ratio that the mast style loses. There are a lot of these mastless
    gliders. And, there are 500+ mast style Schleichers that don't drop to 13:1. I don't know the
    percentage of 13:1 mast-up gliders, but I believe they are the minority.

    But, it's really not important, because it's not a surprise that some gliders are like that:
    the pilot should know what the glider can do before he even sits in the glider, and fly
    accordingly. Don't want 13:1? Don't buy one, as there are plenty of choices that are better
    than that.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Eric Greenwell on Sun Aug 14 13:10:10 2022
    On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:17:10 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dave Nadler wrote on 8/14/2022 6:41 AM:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    ... Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    Eric, for the umpteenth time, it is not "just a few" motorgliders that have high sink rates with engine out and stopped. You are doing nobody any favors continuing to think and write that all gliders are like the ASH-26. Really now...

    I was responding to Bob's myopia, which causes him to see only problems, not offering a survey
    of all motorgliders, and I specifically said FES, jet gliders, and Stemmes do not suffer the
    significant loss of glide ratio that the mast style loses. There are a lot of these mastless
    gliders. And, there are 500+ mast style Schleichers that don't drop to 13:1. I don't know the
    percentage of 13:1 mast-up gliders, but I believe they are the minority.

    But, it's really not important, because it's not a surprise that some gliders are like that:
    the pilot should know what the glider can do before he even sits in the glider, and fly
    accordingly. Don't want 13:1? Don't buy one, as there are plenty of choices that are better
    than that.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that it was one of the
    better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Greenwell@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Aug 14 13:41:00 2022
    [email protected] wrote on 8/14/2022 1:10 PM:
    On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:17:10 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dave Nadler wrote on 8/14/2022 6:41 AM:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote: >>>> ... Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    Eric, for the umpteenth time, it is not "just a few" motorgliders that have high sink rates with engine out and stopped. You are doing nobody any favors continuing to think and write that all gliders are like the ASH-26. Really now...

    I was responding to Bob's myopia, which causes him to see only problems, not offering a survey
    of all motorgliders, and I specifically said FES, jet gliders, and Stemmes do not suffer the
    significant loss of glide ratio that the mast style loses. There are a lot of these mastless
    gliders. And, there are 500+ mast style Schleichers that don't drop to 13:1. I don't know the
    percentage of 13:1 mast-up gliders, but I believe they are the minority.

    But, it's really not important, because it's not a surprise that some gliders are like that:
    the pilot should know what the glider can do before he even sits in the glider, and fly
    accordingly. Don't want 13:1? Don't buy one, as there are plenty of choices that are better
    than that.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that it was one of
    the better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    Until the August Soaring is available online, I can't quote any specifics from the article. In
    the meantime, ponder this: "unreliable" is a judgement, not a fact.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jon@21:1/5 to Eric Greenwell on Sun Aug 14 14:44:17 2022
    On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 1:41:06 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    [email protected] wrote on 8/14/2022 1:10 PM:
    On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:17:10 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dave Nadler wrote on 8/14/2022 6:41 AM:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote: >>>> ... Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    Eric, for the umpteenth time, it is not "just a few" motorgliders that have high sink rates with engine out and stopped. You are doing nobody any favors continuing to think and write that all gliders are like the ASH-26. Really now...

    I was responding to Bob's myopia, which causes him to see only problems, not offering a survey
    of all motorgliders, and I specifically said FES, jet gliders, and Stemmes do not suffer the
    significant loss of glide ratio that the mast style loses. There are a lot of these mastless
    gliders. And, there are 500+ mast style Schleichers that don't drop to 13:1. I don't know the
    percentage of 13:1 mast-up gliders, but I believe they are the minority. >>
    But, it's really not important, because it's not a surprise that some gliders are like that:
    the pilot should know what the glider can do before he even sits in the glider, and fly
    accordingly. Don't want 13:1? Don't buy one, as there are plenty of choices that are better
    than that.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that it was one of
    the better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    Until the August Soaring is available online, I can't quote any specifics from the article. In
    the meantime, ponder this: "unreliable" is a judgement, not a fact.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

    After reading the article, the author seems rather skeptical of motor gliders, to put it nicely. I also wonder if he's a powered pilot because many of the things he discusses are normal things powered pilots think about when taking off (such as engine
    failure on take off). But many of the things he discusses are things all glider pilots should be focused on, regardless if it's a pure or a motor glider. Everyone should know their own limitations, understand the glider and its capabilities and
    limitations, and any local/club rules you have to follow. Decision altitudes are common (at X feet no more searching for thermals, it's time to land).

    He doesn't share any actual statistics and acts as if you should consider yourself lucky if the motor works. His ideas on "have a plan" are basic to any flight, motor or not. I'm not convinced by his article that motor gliders are somehow more unsafe
    than pure gliders. It's just another method of getting into the air. A motor quitting at 100' on takeoff can happen just like a rope break can happen. We go over these situations, we practice them, and we prepare for them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From R@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 14 15:28:09 2022
    Jon, I believe your view is correct. Very well written.

    R

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Jon on Sun Aug 14 15:27:01 2022
    On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:44:19 PM UTC-4, Jon wrote:
    On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 1:41:06 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    [email protected] wrote on 8/14/2022 1:10 PM:
    On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:17:10 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dave Nadler wrote on 8/14/2022 6:41 AM:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    ... Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    Eric, for the umpteenth time, it is not "just a few" motorgliders that have high sink rates with engine out and stopped. You are doing nobody any favors continuing to think and write that all gliders are like the ASH-26. Really now...

    I was responding to Bob's myopia, which causes him to see only problems, not offering a survey
    of all motorgliders, and I specifically said FES, jet gliders, and Stemmes do not suffer the
    significant loss of glide ratio that the mast style loses. There are a lot of these mastless
    gliders. And, there are 500+ mast style Schleichers that don't drop to 13:1. I don't know the
    percentage of 13:1 mast-up gliders, but I believe they are the minority.

    But, it's really not important, because it's not a surprise that some gliders are like that:
    the pilot should know what the glider can do before he even sits in the glider, and fly
    accordingly. Don't want 13:1? Don't buy one, as there are plenty of choices that are better
    than that.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that it was one
    of the better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    Until the August Soaring is available online, I can't quote any specifics from the article. In
    the meantime, ponder this: "unreliable" is a judgement, not a fact.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    After reading the article, the author seems rather skeptical of motor gliders, to put it nicely. I also wonder if he's a powered pilot because many of the things he discusses are normal things powered pilots think about when taking off (such as engine
    failure on take off). But many of the things he discusses are things all glider pilots should be focused on, regardless if it's a pure or a motor glider. Everyone should know their own limitations, understand the glider and its capabilities and
    limitations, and any local/club rules you have to follow. Decision altitudes are common (at X feet no more searching for thermals, it's time to land).

    He doesn't share any actual statistics and acts as if you should consider yourself lucky if the motor works. His ideas on "have a plan" are basic to any flight, motor or not. I'm not convinced by his article that motor gliders are somehow more unsafe
    than pure gliders. It's just another method of getting into the air. A motor quitting at 100' on takeoff can happen just like a rope break can happen. We go over these situations, we practice them, and we prepare for them.

    I really don't think the article was about anything other than actual situations that occur and that the reliability or lack of is something to consider. My understanding of the article is that the author was expressing situations that everyone should be
    aware of, especially motorglider pilots, in other words, that windmill might not be as reliable as you think it is. That is not an endorsement nor an objection for the motorglider, rather stating the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob W.@21:1/5 to Jon on Sun Aug 14 17:23:45 2022
    On 8/14/22 15:44, Jon wrote:
    <Snip...>
    After reading the [August, 2022, "Soaring"] article, the author
    seems rather skeptical of motor gliders, to put it nicely. I also
    wonder if he's a powered pilot because many of the things he
    discusses are normal things powered pilots think about when taking
    off (such as engine failure on take off). But many of the things he
    discusses are things all glider pilots should be focused on,
    regardless if it's a pure or a motor glider. Everyone should know
    their own limitations, understand the glider and its capabilities and limitations, and any local/club rules you have to follow. Decision
    altitudes are common (at X feet no more searching for thermals, it's
    time to land).

    He doesn't share any actual statistics and acts as if you should
    consider yourself lucky if the motor works. His ideas on "have a
    plan" are basic to any flight, motor or not. I'm not convinced by his
    article that motor gliders are somehow more unsafe than pure gliders.
    It's just another method of getting into the air. A motor quitting at
    100' on takeoff can happen just like a rope break can happen. We go
    over these situations, we practice them, and we prepare for them.

    You touch upon in-flight aspects all pilots certainly *should* have in
    mind - and have a pre-prepared plan for - before/during flight, e.g.:
    dealing with an engine issue on takeoff (of any sort, in any type of
    aircraft); personal limitations; etc.

    And while all of us arguably would like more/better "hard statistics" quantifying actual frequencies of certain in-flight risks & problems,
    reality pretty much ensures that hope must remain "defined"
    inferentially more than statistically. (I'll let those who wish to argue
    this point, argue away! For me, the prime issue isn't (uncertain) frequency-of-occurrence statistics but "black-and=white"
    incident/accident *outcomes* if/when "something bad happens.")

    My personal perspective/take of soaring's and "single-engine GA's"
    overall accident histories-n-outcomes from ~1975 through the present is,
    in body-count terms, there's a hefty chasm between what pilots "should
    do" and what way too many of them actually *do* when faced with (say) engine-related-systems'-failure-to-operate-as-desired issues.

    Being strictly glider-only rated (lacking a motorglider endorsement),
    I've several "takeaways" from both an adult lifetime of paying serious attention to incident/accident-related "stuff" in soaring/GA, and, the
    recent "Soaring" mag article. YMWV, of course...

    1) "Pure sailplanes" are arguably the simplest/safest aircraft in which
    to be closely associated with some sort of engine (towplane/winch)
    problem. No configuration issues to speak of. Lightest wingloadings. Joe
    Pilot "routinely primed" for off-field landings and the "proper state of
    mind" they generally positively reward. (And yet, annually, launch/engine-related crunches occur...)

    2) Considering auxiliary-powered sailplanes, exposure-to,
    consideration-of, and the August "Soaring" article, all make abundantly
    clear (to me, anyway) - and with the *possible*/arguable exception of "FES-type" motorgliders - that engine-system-issues associated with
    grafting motors onto sailplanes considerably complicates EVERYthing:
    system mechanics; operating mechanics; decision-making.

    3) Wingloading aside, there's arguably little practical difference at
    launch time between fixed-gear, fixed-pitch, single-engine powerplanes,
    and auxiliary-powered sailplanes, insofar as Joe Pilot is concerned.
    Similar decisions and actions required throughout every launch ("just"
    the decision heights and touchdown speeds differ in the event of power-system-related issues).

    The actual operating aspects associated with
    auxiliary-powered-sailplanes as shared in several decades of "Soaring"
    mag, persopnal observation, and many a bull session, show pretty
    convincingly (to me) that they're a whole lot more demanding of Joe
    Pilot than pure sailplanes. Early-on there were a rash of crashes
    associated with (in my view) JGP "waiting too long and until too low and presuming engine-extension/start-up success" and coming up short of the
    "out" field or hitting the ground vertically (stall/spin). Eventually,
    most(?) auxiliary-powered-sailplane pilots came to understand the "Of
    *course* it'll start and Murphy isn't real, anyway!" attitude was
    seriously off-target/misguided/wrongheaded thinking. And yet, Joe Human
    Glider Pilot continues to crunch his aerial conveyances at an
    annually-steady (and depressing) rate. (cf: August's article.)

    Do I have a panacea solution? Who seriously thinks he or she does? But
    to minimize the potential issues and risks and actual complexities is
    not - IMHO - part of any realistic worldview. Training is
    necessary/good. So is skill. And good judgment. And (sometimes) good
    luck. And the absence of bad luck.

    Attitude matters as well, in my view - a *lot!* Early-on in my cadging
    of power plane rides with friends and acquaintances, I concluded Yours
    Truly was considerably more relaxed when flying with glider-also pilots, *especially* those with off-field-landing attitudes & experience. Savvy
    readers can likely guess why.

    Bob W.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dan Marotta@21:1/5 to Bob W. on Mon Aug 15 13:44:51 2022
    Yesterday, at Moriarty, there was a ground loop incident which left a
    Bird Dog damaged in the dirt off the side of the main runway. This
    occurred just before I started my engine and I had a front row seat.

    I decided to use the north/south runway for takeoff, a benefit of a self launcher, and, as I was climbing out, heard an announcement that the
    east/west runway was closed until further notice.

    On return from my flight I had excess altitude and so offered any
    gliders in the vicinity to land ahead of me while I loitered down to
    land. Two gliders landed in front of me; a Carat (motor glider) and a
    Duo Discus.

    When the Duo called final, I extended my landing gear, flaps, and dive
    brakes to lose the last bit of altitude before entering the pattern. Unfortunately, the Duo landed in the first thousand feet or so of the
    runway and stopped in the middle.

    I was in a bind now with both runways closed and down to pattern
    altitude. I mentioned on the radio that I could easily land opposite
    direction on the main runway. The wrecked aircraft was at least 6,000'
    from the approach end of the east runway, which the winds favored anyway.

    The club's ground ops guy for the day came up on the radio and, in a
    very nasty voice said, "That runway is closed". I should simply have
    declared an emergency and landed on the suitable area. Instead, I said something along the lines of it would be nice if they'd get that glider blocking the runway clear. Next the ground guy said, "Start your engine
    and go around!" I wonder where he thinks he got such authority!

    I started my engine (really should have declared the emergency) and
    cleaned up the aircraft. With cold oil, I could not apply any more
    power that was required to fly level at best L/D. This is something
    that nobody has addressed in the use of motor glider engines.

    I've been told by the operators of 2 cycle engines that no warm up is
    required. Not so for the 4 cycle engine in the Stemme. It is for that
    reason that I plan to start my engine, if necessary, a minimum of 2,000'
    AGL. Pattern altitude is not a good idea as it could cause oil
    starvation due to its viscosity at low temperatures.

    They eventually pulled the glider clear and I landed safely. They
    cleared the wreck as I was taxiing in. I should have taken a couple
    more thermals and it would have been a day just like any other.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/14/22 17:23, Bob W. wrote:
    The actual operating aspects associated with
    auxiliary-powered-sailplanes as shared in several decades of "Soaring"
    mag, persopnal observation, and many a bull session, show pretty
    convincingly (to me) that they're a whole lot more demanding of Joe
    Pilot than pure sailplanes. Early-on there were a rash of crashes
    associated with (in my view) JGP "waiting too long and until too low and presuming engine-extension/start-up success" and coming up short of the
    "out" field or hitting the ground vertically (stall/spin). Eventually, most(?) auxiliary-powered-sailplane pilots came to understand the "Of *course* it'll start and Murphy isn't real, anyway!" attitude was
    seriously off-target/misguided/wrongheaded thinking. And yet, Joe Human Glider Pilot continues to crunch his aerial conveyances at an
    annually-steady (and depressing) rate. (cf: August's article.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Dan Marotta on Mon Aug 15 13:07:10 2022
    On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 3:44:56 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
    Yesterday, at Moriarty, there was a ground loop incident which left a
    Bird Dog damaged in the dirt off the side of the main runway. This
    occurred just before I started my engine and I had a front row seat.

    I decided to use the north/south runway for takeoff, a benefit of a self launcher, and, as I was climbing out, heard an announcement that the east/west runway was closed until further notice.

    On return from my flight I had excess altitude and so offered any
    gliders in the vicinity to land ahead of me while I loitered down to
    land. Two gliders landed in front of me; a Carat (motor glider) and a
    Duo Discus.

    When the Duo called final, I extended my landing gear, flaps, and dive
    brakes to lose the last bit of altitude before entering the pattern. Unfortunately, the Duo landed in the first thousand feet or so of the
    runway and stopped in the middle.

    I was in a bind now with both runways closed and down to pattern
    altitude. I mentioned on the radio that I could easily land opposite direction on the main runway. The wrecked aircraft was at least 6,000'
    from the approach end of the east runway, which the winds favored anyway.

    The club's ground ops guy for the day came up on the radio and, in a
    very nasty voice said, "That runway is closed". I should simply have
    declared an emergency and landed on the suitable area. Instead, I said something along the lines of it would be nice if they'd get that glider blocking the runway clear. Next the ground guy said, "Start your engine
    and go around!" I wonder where he thinks he got such authority!

    I started my engine (really should have declared the emergency) and
    cleaned up the aircraft. With cold oil, I could not apply any more
    power that was required to fly level at best L/D. This is something
    that nobody has addressed in the use of motor glider engines.

    I've been told by the operators of 2 cycle engines that no warm up is required. Not so for the 4 cycle engine in the Stemme. It is for that
    reason that I plan to start my engine, if necessary, a minimum of 2,000'
    AGL. Pattern altitude is not a good idea as it could cause oil
    starvation due to its viscosity at low temperatures.

    They eventually pulled the glider clear and I landed safely. They
    cleared the wreck as I was taxiing in. I should have taken a couple
    more thermals and it would have been a day just like any other.

    Dan
    5J
    On 8/14/22 17:23, Bob W. wrote:
    The actual operating aspects associated with
    auxiliary-powered-sailplanes as shared in several decades of "Soaring"
    mag, persopnal observation, and many a bull session, show pretty convincingly (to me) that they're a whole lot more demanding of Joe
    Pilot than pure sailplanes. Early-on there were a rash of crashes associated with (in my view) JGP "waiting too long and until too low and presuming engine-extension/start-up success" and coming up short of the "out" field or hitting the ground vertically (stall/spin). Eventually, most(?) auxiliary-powered-sailplane pilots came to understand the "Of *course* it'll start and Murphy isn't real, anyway!" attitude was
    seriously off-target/misguided/wrongheaded thinking. And yet, Joe Human Glider Pilot continues to crunch his aerial conveyances at an annually-steady (and depressing) rate. (cf: August's article.)
    Simple answer Dan, either start the motor or bust your ass, what did you do? Old Bob, The purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Nadler@21:1/5 to Jon on Mon Aug 15 14:22:33 2022
    On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:44:19 PM UTC-4, Jon wrote:
    ... the author seems rather skeptical of motor gliders, to put it nicely.

    That's why I recently bought my 4th?

    I also wonder if he's a powered pilot because many of the things he discusses are normal things powered pilots think about when taking off (such as engine failure on take off).

    The article is written for glider pilots, in the magazine "Soaring".

    He doesn't share any actual statistics...

    Well, except in the final sidebar. And as we all know, accurate statistics are hard to come by.

    ...acts as if you should consider yourself lucky if the motor works.

    Right!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From R@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 15 14:25:46 2022
    Dan….you got bullied out of your job as PIC.

    H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dan Marotta@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Aug 15 15:37:42 2022
    I started the engine, but I should have just landed on the closed runway.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/15/22 14:07, [email protected] wrote:
    On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 3:44:56 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
    Yesterday, at Moriarty, there was a ground loop incident which left a
    Bird Dog damaged in the dirt off the side of the main runway. This
    occurred just before I started my engine and I had a front row seat.

    I decided to use the north/south runway for takeoff, a benefit of a self
    launcher, and, as I was climbing out, heard an announcement that the
    east/west runway was closed until further notice.

    On return from my flight I had excess altitude and so offered any
    gliders in the vicinity to land ahead of me while I loitered down to
    land. Two gliders landed in front of me; a Carat (motor glider) and a
    Duo Discus.

    When the Duo called final, I extended my landing gear, flaps, and dive
    brakes to lose the last bit of altitude before entering the pattern.
    Unfortunately, the Duo landed in the first thousand feet or so of the
    runway and stopped in the middle.

    I was in a bind now with both runways closed and down to pattern
    altitude. I mentioned on the radio that I could easily land opposite
    direction on the main runway. The wrecked aircraft was at least 6,000'
    from the approach end of the east runway, which the winds favored anyway.

    The club's ground ops guy for the day came up on the radio and, in a
    very nasty voice said, "That runway is closed". I should simply have
    declared an emergency and landed on the suitable area. Instead, I said
    something along the lines of it would be nice if they'd get that glider
    blocking the runway clear. Next the ground guy said, "Start your engine
    and go around!" I wonder where he thinks he got such authority!

    I started my engine (really should have declared the emergency) and
    cleaned up the aircraft. With cold oil, I could not apply any more
    power that was required to fly level at best L/D. This is something
    that nobody has addressed in the use of motor glider engines.

    I've been told by the operators of 2 cycle engines that no warm up is
    required. Not so for the 4 cycle engine in the Stemme. It is for that
    reason that I plan to start my engine, if necessary, a minimum of 2,000'
    AGL. Pattern altitude is not a good idea as it could cause oil
    starvation due to its viscosity at low temperatures.

    They eventually pulled the glider clear and I landed safely. They
    cleared the wreck as I was taxiing in. I should have taken a couple
    more thermals and it would have been a day just like any other.

    Dan
    5J
    On 8/14/22 17:23, Bob W. wrote:
    The actual operating aspects associated with
    auxiliary-powered-sailplanes as shared in several decades of "Soaring"
    mag, persopnal observation, and many a bull session, show pretty
    convincingly (to me) that they're a whole lot more demanding of Joe
    Pilot than pure sailplanes. Early-on there were a rash of crashes
    associated with (in my view) JGP "waiting too long and until too low and >>> presuming engine-extension/start-up success" and coming up short of the
    "out" field or hitting the ground vertically (stall/spin). Eventually,
    most(?) auxiliary-powered-sailplane pilots came to understand the "Of
    *course* it'll start and Murphy isn't real, anyway!" attitude was
    seriously off-target/misguided/wrongheaded thinking. And yet, Joe Human
    Glider Pilot continues to crunch his aerial conveyances at an
    annually-steady (and depressing) rate. (cf: August's article.)
    Simple answer Dan, either start the motor or bust your ass, what did you do? Old Bob, The purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dan Marotta@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 15 15:38:37 2022
    You're right and that bothers me. It won't happen again.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/15/22 15:25, R wrote:
    Dan….you got bullied out of your job as PIC.

    H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Gregorie@21:1/5 to Dan Marotta on Mon Aug 15 22:40:37 2022
    On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 15:38:37 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

    You're right and that bothers me. It won't happen again.

    Seems to me that the Duo driver was, shall we say, rather less than a team player.

    He must have heard your call and so knew you would be landing after him.
    From a quick look at Moriarty with Google Earth its obvious that there was
    next to no possibility of him rolling clear of the N-S runway, but he
    could have either stopped very short or landed fast, cleaned up after
    touchdown and rolled as far as possible. He should certainly have told you
    what he was going to do: as No 2 in the landing sequence he should have
    had the time to decide what he was going to do and to let you know what it
    was.

    The LAST thing he should have done was to stop where he did in the middle
    of the runway without a word. After you'd made a point of letting him in
    first that was just plain rude.


    --

    Martin | martin at
    Gregorie | gregorie dot org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Frank Whiteley@21:1/5 to Eric Greenwell on Mon Aug 15 18:07:02 2022
    On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 2:41:06 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    [email protected] wrote on 8/14/2022 1:10 PM:
    On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:17:10 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dave Nadler wrote on 8/14/2022 6:41 AM:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote: >>>> ... Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    Eric, for the umpteenth time, it is not "just a few" motorgliders that have high sink rates with engine out and stopped. You are doing nobody any favors continuing to think and write that all gliders are like the ASH-26. Really now...

    I was responding to Bob's myopia, which causes him to see only problems, not offering a survey
    of all motorgliders, and I specifically said FES, jet gliders, and Stemmes do not suffer the
    significant loss of glide ratio that the mast style loses. There are a lot of these mastless
    gliders. And, there are 500+ mast style Schleichers that don't drop to 13:1. I don't know the
    percentage of 13:1 mast-up gliders, but I believe they are the minority. >>
    But, it's really not important, because it's not a surprise that some gliders are like that:
    the pilot should know what the glider can do before he even sits in the glider, and fly
    accordingly. Don't want 13:1? Don't buy one, as there are plenty of choices that are better
    than that.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that it was one of
    the better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    Until the August Soaring is available online, I can't quote any specifics from the article. In
    the meantime, ponder this: "unreliable" is a judgement, not a fact.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, August 2022 is now online. Delayed through no fault of the SSA but the PDF was late this month. Delivery of the print edition has been a bit uneven also since maybe June. My July copy arrived 7/25, but my August arrived 8/7, yet I spoke with
    someone today still looking for his August copy. The office says there've been no production nor printing delays any month. The USPS advised businesses last fall that first class business mail would slow going forward, but nothing was said about other
    categories.

    Frank Whiteley

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 2G@21:1/5 to Bob W. on Mon Aug 15 22:33:18 2022
    On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 4:23:52 PM UTC-7, Bob W. wrote:
    On 8/14/22 15:44, Jon wrote:
    <Snip...>
    After reading the [August, 2022, "Soaring"] article, the author
    seems rather skeptical of motor gliders, to put it nicely. I also
    wonder if he's a powered pilot because many of the things he
    discusses are normal things powered pilots think about when taking
    off (such as engine failure on take off). But many of the things he discusses are things all glider pilots should be focused on,
    regardless if it's a pure or a motor glider. Everyone should know
    their own limitations, understand the glider and its capabilities and limitations, and any local/club rules you have to follow. Decision altitudes are common (at X feet no more searching for thermals, it's
    time to land).

    He doesn't share any actual statistics and acts as if you should
    consider yourself lucky if the motor works. His ideas on "have a
    plan" are basic to any flight, motor or not. I'm not convinced by his article that motor gliders are somehow more unsafe than pure gliders.
    It's just another method of getting into the air. A motor quitting at
    100' on takeoff can happen just like a rope break can happen. We go
    over these situations, we practice them, and we prepare for them.
    You touch upon in-flight aspects all pilots certainly *should* have in
    mind - and have a pre-prepared plan for - before/during flight, e.g.: dealing with an engine issue on takeoff (of any sort, in any type of aircraft); personal limitations; etc.

    And while all of us arguably would like more/better "hard statistics" quantifying actual frequencies of certain in-flight risks & problems, reality pretty much ensures that hope must remain "defined"
    inferentially more than statistically. (I'll let those who wish to argue this point, argue away! For me, the prime issue isn't (uncertain) frequency-of-occurrence statistics but "black-and=white"
    incident/accident *outcomes* if/when "something bad happens.")

    My personal perspective/take of soaring's and "single-engine GA's"
    overall accident histories-n-outcomes from ~1975 through the present is,
    in body-count terms, there's a hefty chasm between what pilots "should
    do" and what way too many of them actually *do* when faced with (say) engine-related-systems'-failure-to-operate-as-desired issues.

    Being strictly glider-only rated (lacking a motorglider endorsement),
    I've several "takeaways" from both an adult lifetime of paying serious attention to incident/accident-related "stuff" in soaring/GA, and, the recent "Soaring" mag article. YMWV, of course...

    1) "Pure sailplanes" are arguably the simplest/safest aircraft in which
    to be closely associated with some sort of engine (towplane/winch)
    problem. No configuration issues to speak of. Lightest wingloadings. Joe Pilot "routinely primed" for off-field landings and the "proper state of mind" they generally positively reward. (And yet, annually, launch/engine-related crunches occur...)

    2) Considering auxiliary-powered sailplanes, exposure-to,
    consideration-of, and the August "Soaring" article, all make abundantly clear (to me, anyway) - and with the *possible*/arguable exception of "FES-type" motorgliders - that engine-system-issues associated with
    grafting motors onto sailplanes considerably complicates EVERYthing:
    system mechanics; operating mechanics; decision-making.

    3) Wingloading aside, there's arguably little practical difference at
    launch time between fixed-gear, fixed-pitch, single-engine powerplanes,
    and auxiliary-powered sailplanes, insofar as Joe Pilot is concerned.
    Similar decisions and actions required throughout every launch ("just"
    the decision heights and touchdown speeds differ in the event of power-system-related issues).

    The actual operating aspects associated with
    auxiliary-powered-sailplanes as shared in several decades of "Soaring"
    mag, persopnal observation, and many a bull session, show pretty convincingly (to me) that they're a whole lot more demanding of Joe
    Pilot than pure sailplanes. Early-on there were a rash of crashes
    associated with (in my view) JGP "waiting too long and until too low and presuming engine-extension/start-up success" and coming up short of the "out" field or hitting the ground vertically (stall/spin). Eventually, most(?) auxiliary-powered-sailplane pilots came to understand the "Of *course* it'll start and Murphy isn't real, anyway!" attitude was
    seriously off-target/misguided/wrongheaded thinking. And yet, Joe Human Glider Pilot continues to crunch his aerial conveyances at an annually-steady (and depressing) rate. (cf: August's article.)

    Do I have a panacea solution? Who seriously thinks he or she does? But
    to minimize the potential issues and risks and actual complexities is
    not - IMHO - part of any realistic worldview. Training is
    necessary/good. So is skill. And good judgment. And (sometimes) good
    luck. And the absence of bad luck.

    Attitude matters as well, in my view - a *lot!* Early-on in my cadging
    of power plane rides with friends and acquaintances, I concluded Yours
    Truly was considerably more relaxed when flying with glider-also pilots, *especially* those with off-field-landing attitudes & experience. Savvy readers can likely guess why.

    Bob W.

    What could possibly go wrong listening to someone expound on a subject that they are not trained in? That would be like me telling airline pilots when to arm the spoilers for automatic extension. No, motorgliders DO NOT have the wing loading of single-
    engine power planes - go look it up. The truth is far more pure gliders have spun in thermalling too low or attempting to reach a field than motorgliders whose engine has failed to start (it happened to a friend of mine). In fact, the engines are highly
    reliable, but, like any machine, they are not perfect. Launch failures are on a par with towplanes - namely very rare but, of course, you need a plan for each phase of the launch. That's just common sense. I remember towing out of a Canadian airport
    where the options were nonexistent for the first part of the tow - very uncomfortable.

    Motorgliders are necessarily more complex than simple gliders - they have an engine for God's sake! That is why you have to get motorglider transition training to fly them. They are certainly not "starter" aircraft.

    Tom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Greenwell@21:1/5 to Frank Whiteley on Tue Aug 16 05:52:47 2022
    Frank Whiteley wrote on 8/15/2022 6:07 PM:
    ...
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that it was one of
    the better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    Until the August Soaring is available online, I can't quote any specifics from the article. In
    the meantime, ponder this: "unreliable" is a judgement, not a fact.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, August 2022 is now online. Delayed through no fault of the SSA but the PDF was late this month. Delivery of the print edition has been a bit uneven also since maybe June. My July copy arrived 7/25, but my August arrived 8/7, yet I spoke
    with someone today still looking for his August copy. The office says there've been no production nor printing delays any month. The USPS advised businesses last fall that first class business mail would slow going forward, but nothing was said about
    other categories.

    Frank Whiteley

    Just got it! The delay was frustrating, as so many were referencing Dave's article, and I
    couldn't read it. It's puzzling the PDF isn't available weeks before the printed copy, as it
    requires nothing physical for it to be generated.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Greenwell@21:1/5 to Dan Marotta on Tue Aug 16 06:02:12 2022
    Dan Marotta wrote on 8/15/2022 12:44 PM:
    I started my engine (really should have declared the emergency) and cleaned up the aircraft.
    With cold oil, I could not apply any more power that was required to fly level at best L/D.
    This is something that nobody has addressed in the use of motor glider engines.

    I've been told by the operators of 2 cycle engines that no warm up is required.� Not so for the
    4 cycle engine in the Stemme.� It is for that reason that I plan to start my engine, if
    necessary, a minimum of 2,000' AGL.� Pattern altitude is not a good idea as it could cause oil
    starvation due to its viscosity at low temperatures.

    The Wankel used by Schleicher can be operated at full power when cold, if safety requires it,
    though warm up is the norm. The manual's limitation on starting is -4 deg F, due to oil viscosity.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dan Marotta@21:1/5 to Martin Gregorie on Tue Aug 16 07:45:35 2022
    Thanks Martin,

    He was very apologetic and I think he might have been a student. I
    would hold his instructor responsible for not imparting the
    understanding that such situations can and do occur. I have no quarrel
    with him.

    That said, I could have landed beyond him and made a U-turn on the
    runway. But I should have simply landed opposite direction on the main east/west runway and stopped short of the huge taxiway where the gliders normally operate. That's where I would expect the wrecking truck to
    exit when his work was done. I considered the west parallel taxiway off
    limits due to the recovery activity for the Bird Dog and for the
    activity caused by using the north/south runway.

    I've landed on the east/west taxiway in the past when the runway was
    blocked by a glider but the other day was not the time to do that.
    There's a rather self-important guy there who uses that taxiway as his
    own personal runway for the convenience of saving a couple dozen steps
    in putting his glider away but he wasn't flying that day.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/15/22 16:40, Martin Gregorie wrote:
    On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 15:38:37 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

    You're right and that bothers me. It won't happen again.

    Seems to me that the Duo driver was, shall we say, rather less than a team player.

    He must have heard your call and so knew you would be landing after him.
    From a quick look at Moriarty with Google Earth its obvious that there was next to no possibility of him rolling clear of the N-S runway, but he
    could have either stopped very short or landed fast, cleaned up after touchdown and rolled as far as possible. He should certainly have told you what he was going to do: as No 2 in the landing sequence he should have
    had the time to decide what he was going to do and to let you know what it was.

    The LAST thing he should have done was to stop where he did in the middle
    of the runway without a word. After you'd made a point of letting him in first that was just plain rude.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Frank Whiteley@21:1/5 to Eric Greenwell on Tue Aug 16 08:51:38 2022
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:52:52 AM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Frank Whiteley wrote on 8/15/2022 6:07 PM:
    ...
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that it was one
    of the better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    Until the August Soaring is available online, I can't quote any specifics from the article. In
    the meantime, ponder this: "unreliable" is a judgement, not a fact.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, August 2022 is now online. Delayed through no fault of the SSA but the PDF was late this month. Delivery of the print edition has been a bit uneven also since maybe June. My July copy arrived 7/25, but my August arrived 8/7, yet I spoke with
    someone today still looking for his August copy. The office says there've been no production nor printing delays any month. The USPS advised businesses last fall that first class business mail would slow going forward, but nothing was said about other
    categories.

    Frank Whiteley

    Just got it! The delay was frustrating, as so many were referencing Dave's article, and I
    couldn't read it. It's puzzling the PDF isn't available weeks before the printed copy, as it
    requires nothing physical for it to be generated.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric,

    The PDF was not received until late last week and is modified before publication including indexing to make it word searchable and to add links and to improve some of the graphic elements. It is not fully up to our standards as received. The process is
    not as trivial as you think. I don't know what the delay was in getting it to the SSA.

    Frank

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john firth@21:1/5 to Frank Whiteley on Tue Aug 16 10:19:30 2022
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:51:40 AM UTC-4, Frank Whiteley wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:52:52 AM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Frank Whiteley wrote on 8/15/2022 6:07 PM:
    ...
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that it was
    one of the better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    Until the August Soaring is available online, I can't quote any specifics from the article. In
    the meantime, ponder this: "unreliable" is a judgement, not a fact.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, August 2022 is now online. Delayed through no fault of the SSA but the PDF was late this month. Delivery of the print edition has been a bit uneven also since maybe June. My July copy arrived 7/25, but my August arrived 8/7, yet I spoke with
    someone today still looking for his August copy. The office says there've been no production nor printing delays any month. The USPS advised businesses last fall that first class business mail would slow going forward, but nothing was said about other
    categories.

    Frank Whiteley

    Just got it! The delay was frustrating, as so many were referencing Dave's article, and I
    couldn't read it. It's puzzling the PDF isn't available weeks before the printed copy, as it
    requires nothing physical for it to be generated.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric,

    The PDF was not received until late last week and is modified before publication including indexing to make it word searchable and to add links and to improve some of the graphic elements. It is not fully up to our standards as received. The process is
    not as trivial as you think. I don't know what the delay was in getting it to the SSA.

    Frank


    At the conclusion of an extended attempt by Transport Canada to fine me ( since dropped)
    for "attempting to land on a runway occupied by a vehicle" I received a final admonition.


    "As such you are counselled that CAR 602.19(10) fully applies to gliders such that any glider shall not conduct or attempt to conduct a take-off or landing until there is no risk of collision with any structure, person, vehicle, aircraft or vessel in the
    take-off or landing path."

    Apparently a glider is required to find lift and stay up until the obstruction is removed, or perhaps
    go and find a field; do not risk breaking the law !

    John F

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andy Blackburn@21:1/5 to john firth on Tue Aug 16 12:17:39 2022
    Declare an emergency. That seems to be the get out of jail card on a number of regs.

    Gotta love bureaucracy - no consideration for what otherwise would happen.

    Andy

    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 10:19:32 AM UTC-7, john firth wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:51:40 AM UTC-4, Frank Whiteley wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:52:52 AM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Frank Whiteley wrote on 8/15/2022 6:07 PM:
    ...
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that it was
    one of the better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    Until the August Soaring is available online, I can't quote any specifics from the article. In
    the meantime, ponder this: "unreliable" is a judgement, not a fact. >> --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, August 2022 is now online. Delayed through no fault of the SSA but the PDF was late this month. Delivery of the print edition has been a bit uneven also since maybe June. My July copy arrived 7/25, but my August arrived 8/7, yet I spoke
    with someone today still looking for his August copy. The office says there've been no production nor printing delays any month. The USPS advised businesses last fall that first class business mail would slow going forward, but nothing was said about
    other categories.

    Frank Whiteley

    Just got it! The delay was frustrating, as so many were referencing Dave's article, and I
    couldn't read it. It's puzzling the PDF isn't available weeks before the printed copy, as it
    requires nothing physical for it to be generated.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric,

    The PDF was not received until late last week and is modified before publication including indexing to make it word searchable and to add links and to improve some of the graphic elements. It is not fully up to our standards as received. The process
    is not as trivial as you think. I don't know what the delay was in getting it to the SSA.

    Frank
    At the conclusion of an extended attempt by Transport Canada to fine me ( since dropped)
    for "attempting to land on a runway occupied by a vehicle" I received a final admonition.


    "As such you are counselled that CAR 602.19(10) fully applies to gliders such that any glider shall not conduct or attempt to conduct a take-off or landing until there is no risk of collision with any structure, person, vehicle, aircraft or vessel in
    the take-off or landing path."

    Apparently a glider is required to find lift and stay up until the obstruction is removed, or perhaps
    go and find a field; do not risk breaking the law !

    John F

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Eric Greenwell on Tue Aug 16 13:20:21 2022
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dan Marotta wrote on 8/13/2022 3:53 PM:
    Stemme claims 50:1 glide angle. Should I deploy the engine, my glide ratio, in still air, MAY
    drop to 49:1 or thereabouts. And the Rotax 914 is as reliable as a Toyota. ...Except for that
    damned turbo waste gate, but I wouldn't need the turbo for a self retrieve.

    But then, again, Whereas I COULD land it in a field, I'd be stuck since I have no trailer.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/13/22 16:07, [email protected] wrote:
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an
    article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain
    the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this purist, even the manufacturer
    sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is
    that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior
    machine will get you out of a bind at the snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of
    the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have A Plan" as the author
    suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my
    skills have not deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist
    You missed the point, Bob, which was to be ready to be a "pure" sailplane whenever you decide
    to start the engine. And only the clueless or thoughtless claim a "pure" sailplane doesn't need
    a "safety cushion". Fact is, glider pilots are taught from the beginning of their training to
    have cushions (generally altitude). You know that, and since you always make it back to
    Hibiscus (well, at least the last 5 years), you've demonstrated you use cushion(s).

    Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, let me take this opportunity to explain a few things about the difference between a purist and the motorglider mentality. Actually this is what the author was trying to convey IMHO, and a few of the MG guys cannot seem to get their arms around the
    conclusion of the article. Purist do not have a safety cushion as you described, we have a DT, AKA decision termination of a flight. There is a big difference between a safety cushion and the termination conclusion. The safety cushion is the motor, and
    therefore overrides the termination conclusion, we see that often in motorglider flights where the pilot relies on the start of the engine when the termination factor has already been disregarded. A good example of this that I witnessed was at the
    Seniors contest a few years back when a guy should have terminated at a nearby airport only to rely on the motor as a safety cushion and the motor, as it does more than you admit, did not start and the pilot landed his motorglider in a field surrounded
    by cows and had to leave it there until the next day to get it out and back to the hovel of Seminole. As the author so eloquently stated that even the manufacturer suggested treating the motorglider as a pure glider and employed decision termination at
    the airport that he had just left only to rely on that non reliable windmill. Please re-read the article and you will probably come across with a different understanding as what the author was trying to convey, I think he was right on target! Old Bob,
    The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 2G@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Aug 16 17:35:58 2022
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dan Marotta wrote on 8/13/2022 3:53 PM:
    Stemme claims 50:1 glide angle. Should I deploy the engine, my glide ratio, in still air, MAY
    drop to 49:1 or thereabouts. And the Rotax 914 is as reliable as a Toyota. ...Except for that
    damned turbo waste gate, but I wouldn't need the turbo for a self retrieve.

    But then, again, Whereas I COULD land it in a field, I'd be stuck since I have no trailer.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/13/22 16:07, [email protected] wrote:
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an
    article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain
    the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this purist, even the manufacturer
    sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is
    that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior
    machine will get you out of a bind at the snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of
    the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have A Plan" as the author
    suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my
    skills have not deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist
    You missed the point, Bob, which was to be ready to be a "pure" sailplane whenever you decide
    to start the engine. And only the clueless or thoughtless claim a "pure" sailplane doesn't need
    a "safety cushion". Fact is, glider pilots are taught from the beginning of their training to
    have cushions (generally altitude). You know that, and since you always make it back to
    Hibiscus (well, at least the last 5 years), you've demonstrated you use cushion(s).

    Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, let me take this opportunity to explain a few things about the difference between a purist and the motorglider mentality. Actually this is what the author was trying to convey IMHO, and a few of the MG guys cannot seem to get their arms around
    the conclusion of the article. Purist do not have a safety cushion as you described, we have a DT, AKA decision termination of a flight. There is a big difference between a safety cushion and the termination conclusion. The safety cushion is the motor,
    and therefore overrides the termination conclusion, we see that often in motorglider flights where the pilot relies on the start of the engine when the termination factor has already been disregarded. A good example of this that I witnessed was at the
    Seniors contest a few years back when a guy should have terminated at a nearby airport only to rely on the motor as a safety cushion and the motor, as it does more than you admit, did not start and the pilot landed his motorglider in a field surrounded
    by cows and had to leave it there until the next day to get it out and back to the hovel of Seminole. As the author so eloquently stated that even the manufacturer suggested treating the motorglider as a pure glider and employed decision termination at
    the airport that he had just left only to rely on that non reliable windmill. Please re-read the article and you will probably come across with a different understanding as what the author was trying to convey, I think he was right on target! Old Bob,
    The Purist

    Hey Bobby, you need to go back and read the article AGAIN. Dave NEVER regarded the motor as a "safety margin." If you think that you are sadly mistaken. This is a direct quote from the article:

    "We are required by the certification criteria to plan for the possibility of the motor failing at any time and fly such that no matter how and when and where it fails, we can make a safe landing, because fail it will."

    Us motorglider pilots have been telling you this time and TIME AGAIN, but you keep ignoring it out of, I assume, extreme ignorance.

    More ignorance: the 13:1 figure applies to the DG400 and DG800A (not later models). I have measured the glide angle of the ASH26E at 20:1; this is a HUGE difference.

    The example you gave is exactly the opposite of your "analysis." The pilot did not depend upon the engine to start, but had a safe landing option as Plan A. Granted, it would have been more convenient to land at an airport, but his choice was not unsafe.
    There is a BIG difference between safety and convenience. The same applies to a pure glider.

    Dave over-emphasizes unreliability, practically stating that if the engine starts it is a surprise. I have thousands of hours of flight experience in motorgliders varying from the DG400 to the ASH31Mi. There is no doubt that engine reliability has
    improved markedly over the years. The 31Mi definitely has the reliability of your typical car.

    Dave's bias is revealed in the statement:

    "Some older gliders have a dozen controls scattered about the cockpit and a fiddly start sequence, so demand lots of heads-down time."

    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls. Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    That is five, NOT a dozen, and they are all conveniently located in one area of the cockpit (the starter pushbutton is even a part of the throttle control). When you shut down the engine there is a prop brake for aligning the prop prior to retraction,
    but this is part of the shut down/engine stowage procedure.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 17 04:40:16 2022
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dan Marotta wrote on 8/13/2022 3:53 PM:
    Stemme claims 50:1 glide angle. Should I deploy the engine, my glide ratio, in still air, MAY
    drop to 49:1 or thereabouts. And the Rotax 914 is as reliable as a Toyota. ...Except for that
    damned turbo waste gate, but I wouldn't need the turbo for a self retrieve.

    But then, again, Whereas I COULD land it in a field, I'd be stuck since I have no trailer.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/13/22 16:07, [email protected] wrote:
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an
    article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain
    the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this purist, even the manufacturer
    sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is
    that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior
    machine will get you out of a bind at the snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of
    the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have A Plan" as the author
    suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my
    skills have not deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist
    You missed the point, Bob, which was to be ready to be a "pure" sailplane whenever you decide
    to start the engine. And only the clueless or thoughtless claim a "pure" sailplane doesn't need
    a "safety cushion". Fact is, glider pilots are taught from the beginning of their training to
    have cushions (generally altitude). You know that, and since you always make it back to
    Hibiscus (well, at least the last 5 years), you've demonstrated you use cushion(s).

    Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, let me take this opportunity to explain a few things about the difference between a purist and the motorglider mentality. Actually this is what the author was trying to convey IMHO, and a few of the MG guys cannot seem to get their arms around
    the conclusion of the article. Purist do not have a safety cushion as you described, we have a DT, AKA decision termination of a flight. There is a big difference between a safety cushion and the termination conclusion. The safety cushion is the motor,
    and therefore overrides the termination conclusion, we see that often in motorglider flights where the pilot relies on the start of the engine when the termination factor has already been disregarded. A good example of this that I witnessed was at the
    Seniors contest a few years back when a guy should have terminated at a nearby airport only to rely on the motor as a safety cushion and the motor, as it does more than you admit, did not start and the pilot landed his motorglider in a field surrounded
    by cows and had to leave it there until the next day to get it out and back to the hovel of Seminole. As the author so eloquently stated that even the manufacturer suggested treating the motorglider as a pure glider and employed decision termination at
    the airport that he had just left only to rely on that non reliable windmill. Please re-read the article and you will probably come across with a different understanding as what the author was trying to convey, I think he was right on target! Old Bob,
    The Purist
    Hey Bobby, you need to go back and read the article AGAIN. Dave NEVER regarded the motor as a "safety margin." If you think that you are sadly mistaken. This is a direct quote from the article:

    "We are required by the certification criteria to plan for the possibility of the motor failing at any time and fly such that no matter how and when and where it fails, we can make a safe landing, because fail it will."

    Us motorglider pilots have been telling you this time and TIME AGAIN, but you keep ignoring it out of, I assume, extreme ignorance.

    More ignorance: the 13:1 figure applies to the DG400 and DG800A (not later models). I have measured the glide angle of the ASH26E at 20:1; this is a HUGE difference.

    The example you gave is exactly the opposite of your "analysis." The pilot did not depend upon the engine to start, but had a safe landing option as Plan A. Granted, it would have been more convenient to land at an airport, but his choice was not
    unsafe. There is a BIG difference between safety and convenience. The same applies to a pure glider.

    Dave over-emphasizes unreliability, practically stating that if the engine starts it is a surprise. I have thousands of hours of flight experience in motorgliders varying from the DG400 to the ASH31Mi. There is no doubt that engine reliability has
    improved markedly over the years. The 31Mi definitely has the reliability of your typical car.

    Dave's bias is revealed in the statement:

    "Some older gliders have a dozen controls scattered about the cockpit and a fiddly start sequence, so demand lots of heads-down time."

    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls. Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    That is five, NOT a dozen, and they are all conveniently located in one area of the cockpit (the starter pushbutton is even a part of the throttle control). When you shut down the engine there is a prop brake for aligning the prop prior to retraction,
    but this is part of the shut down/engine stowage procedure.

    Hey Dickhead, I said "Safety Cushion", not margin, what took you so long to respond?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hank Nixon@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 17 05:35:49 2022
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dan Marotta wrote on 8/13/2022 3:53 PM:
    Stemme claims 50:1 glide angle. Should I deploy the engine, my glide ratio, in still air, MAY
    drop to 49:1 or thereabouts. And the Rotax 914 is as reliable as a Toyota. ...Except for that
    damned turbo waste gate, but I wouldn't need the turbo for a self retrieve.

    But then, again, Whereas I COULD land it in a field, I'd be stuck since I have no trailer.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/13/22 16:07, [email protected] wrote:
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an
    article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain
    the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this purist, even the manufacturer
    sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is
    that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior
    machine will get you out of a bind at the snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of
    the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have A Plan" as the author
    suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my
    skills have not deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist
    You missed the point, Bob, which was to be ready to be a "pure" sailplane whenever you decide
    to start the engine. And only the clueless or thoughtless claim a "pure" sailplane doesn't need
    a "safety cushion". Fact is, glider pilots are taught from the beginning of their training to
    have cushions (generally altitude). You know that, and since you always make it back to
    Hibiscus (well, at least the last 5 years), you've demonstrated you use cushion(s).

    Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, let me take this opportunity to explain a few things about the difference between a purist and the motorglider mentality. Actually this is what the author was trying to convey IMHO, and a few of the MG guys cannot seem to get their arms around
    the conclusion of the article. Purist do not have a safety cushion as you described, we have a DT, AKA decision termination of a flight. There is a big difference between a safety cushion and the termination conclusion. The safety cushion is the motor,
    and therefore overrides the termination conclusion, we see that often in motorglider flights where the pilot relies on the start of the engine when the termination factor has already been disregarded. A good example of this that I witnessed was at the
    Seniors contest a few years back when a guy should have terminated at a nearby airport only to rely on the motor as a safety cushion and the motor, as it does more than you admit, did not start and the pilot landed his motorglider in a field surrounded
    by cows and had to leave it there until the next day to get it out and back to the hovel of Seminole. As the author so eloquently stated that even the manufacturer suggested treating the motorglider as a pure glider and employed decision termination at
    the airport that he had just left only to rely on that non reliable windmill. Please re-read the article and you will probably come across with a different understanding as what the author was trying to convey, I think he was right on target! Old Bob,
    The Purist
    Hey Bobby, you need to go back and read the article AGAIN. Dave NEVER regarded the motor as a "safety margin." If you think that you are sadly mistaken. This is a direct quote from the article:

    "We are required by the certification criteria to plan for the possibility of the motor failing at any time and fly such that no matter how and when and where it fails, we can make a safe landing, because fail it will."

    Us motorglider pilots have been telling you this time and TIME AGAIN, but you keep ignoring it out of, I assume, extreme ignorance.

    More ignorance: the 13:1 figure applies to the DG400 and DG800A (not later models). I have measured the glide angle of the ASH26E at 20:1; this is a HUGE difference.

    The example you gave is exactly the opposite of your "analysis." The pilot did not depend upon the engine to start, but had a safe landing option as Plan A. Granted, it would have been more convenient to land at an airport, but his choice was not
    unsafe. There is a BIG difference between safety and convenience. The same applies to a pure glider.

    Dave over-emphasizes unreliability, practically stating that if the engine starts it is a surprise. I have thousands of hours of flight experience in motorgliders varying from the DG400 to the ASH31Mi. There is no doubt that engine reliability has
    improved markedly over the years. The 31Mi definitely has the reliability of your typical car.

    Dave's bias is revealed in the statement:

    "Some older gliders have a dozen controls scattered about the cockpit and a fiddly start sequence, so demand lots of heads-down time."

    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls. Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    That is five, NOT a dozen, and they are all conveniently located in one area of the cockpit (the starter pushbutton is even a part of the throttle control). When you shut down the engine there is a prop brake for aligning the prop prior to retraction,
    but this is part of the shut down/engine stowage procedure.

    Add in on many if not most:
    Master switch for engine system
    Associated breaker or fuse
    Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Greenwell@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed Aug 17 10:46:21 2022
    On 8/16/2022 1:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
    ...
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, let me take this opportunity to explain a few things about the difference between a purist and the motorglider mentality.

    There is no "motorglider mentality", anymore than there is a "towed glider mentality",
    instead, there is a large variation in how pilots flying motorgliders use their motor and
    how much they depend on it to start. Some are just as cautious with their soaring as you
    are, and rarely, if ever, need to self-retrieve; others fly more aggressively (or explore
    more), and use the motor frequently to self-retrieve.

    A good example of this that I witnessed was at the Seniors contest a few years back when a guy should have terminated at a nearby airport only to rely on the motor as a safety cushion and the motor, as it does more than you admit, did not start and
    the pilot landed his motorglider in a field surrounded by cows and had to leave it there until the next day to get it out and back to the hovel of Seminole.


    Did you talk to that pilot about the decisions he made? I haven't, but I can offer a good
    explanation for it without inventing a "safety cushion" concept. It's common in contests
    for competitive glider pilots to pass up the opportunity to land at an airport if they
    they think there is some chance they can improve their score for the day by pushing on,
    and I think that is most likely what the pilot did. The fact that he had a safe field to
    land suggests he wasn't relying on the engine for a "safety cushion".

    This competitive trait is understood by the Rules Committee, and they try to entice pilots
    to do the safer thing - land at an airport instead of a field - by offering an "airport
    bonus" of 25 points for landing at an airport (or starting their motor within 1 mile of an
    airport).

    As the author so eloquently stated that even the manufacturer suggested treating the motorglider as a pure glider and employed decision termination at the airport that he had just left only to rely on that non reliable windmill.

    It's not "even the manufacturer", but ESPECIALLY the manufacturer that tells you the motor
    may not work every time! Schleicher points this out in the manual for my glider, saying
    that the motor may not provide the hoped-for climb, and not only due to mechanical
    problems, but also pilot error.

    Please re-read the article and you will probably come across with a different understanding as what the author was trying to convey, I think he was right on target! Old Bob, The Purist

    Dave and I are on the same page, Bob. I already knew the stuff he discusses (I've been
    flying motorgliders for 27 years), and can tell you it's an excellent article. You should
    read my "Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" (see link below) to see that I say
    similar things, though not as thoroughly as Dave did. It will also give you a clue to my
    "motorglider mentality" that you so routinely misunderstand.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - USA
    - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Eric Greenwell on Wed Aug 17 13:06:34 2022
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 1:46:25 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    On 8/16/2022 1:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
    ...
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, let me take this opportunity to explain a few things about the difference between a purist and the motorglider mentality.
    There is no "motorglider mentality", anymore than there is a "towed glider mentality",
    instead, there is a large variation in how pilots flying motorgliders use their motor and
    how much they depend on it to start. Some are just as cautious with their soaring as you
    are, and rarely, if ever, need to self-retrieve; others fly more aggressively (or explore
    more), and use the motor frequently to self-retrieve.
    A good example of this that I witnessed was at the Seniors contest a few years back when a guy should have terminated at a nearby airport only to rely on the motor as a safety cushion and the motor, as it does more than you admit, did not start and
    the pilot landed his motorglider in a field surrounded by cows and had to leave it there until the next day to get it out and back to the hovel of Seminole.
    Did you talk to that pilot about the decisions he made? I haven't, but I can offer a good
    explanation for it without inventing a "safety cushion" concept. It's common in contests
    for competitive glider pilots to pass up the opportunity to land at an airport if they
    they think there is some chance they can improve their score for the day by pushing on,
    and I think that is most likely what the pilot did. The fact that he had a safe field to
    land suggests he wasn't relying on the engine for a "safety cushion".

    This competitive trait is understood by the Rules Committee, and they try to entice pilots
    to do the safer thing - land at an airport instead of a field - by offering an "airport
    bonus" of 25 points for landing at an airport (or starting their motor within 1 mile of an
    airport).
    As the author so eloquently stated that even the manufacturer suggested treating the motorglider as a pure glider and employed decision termination at the airport that he had just left only to rely on that non reliable windmill.
    It's not "even the manufacturer", but ESPECIALLY the manufacturer that tells you the motor
    may not work every time! Schleicher points this out in the manual for my glider, saying
    that the motor may not provide the hoped-for climb, and not only due to mechanical
    problems, but also pilot error.
    Please re-read the article and you will probably come across with a different understanding as what the author was trying to convey, I think he was right on target! Old Bob, The Purist
    Dave and I are on the same page, Bob. I already knew the stuff he discusses (I've been
    flying motorgliders for 27 years), and can tell you it's an excellent article. You should
    read my "Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" (see link below) to see that I say
    similar things, though not as thoroughly as Dave did. It will also give you a clue to my
    "motorglider mentality" that you so routinely misunderstand.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - USA
    - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

    Eric, please accept my apology for comparing motorglider with mentality, from this point going forward I will refer to the term motorglider paradigm, it just sounds a bit more sophisticated. Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Hank Nixon on Wed Aug 17 13:08:01 2022
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dan Marotta wrote on 8/13/2022 3:53 PM:
    Stemme claims 50:1 glide angle. Should I deploy the engine, my glide ratio, in still air, MAY
    drop to 49:1 or thereabouts. And the Rotax 914 is as reliable as a Toyota. ...Except for that
    damned turbo waste gate, but I wouldn't need the turbo for a self retrieve.

    But then, again, Whereas I COULD land it in a field, I'd be stuck since I have no trailer.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/13/22 16:07, [email protected] wrote:
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an
    article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain
    the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this purist, even the manufacturer
    sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is
    that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior
    machine will get you out of a bind at the snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of
    the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have A Plan" as the author
    suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my
    skills have not deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist
    You missed the point, Bob, which was to be ready to be a "pure" sailplane whenever you decide
    to start the engine. And only the clueless or thoughtless claim a "pure" sailplane doesn't need
    a "safety cushion". Fact is, glider pilots are taught from the beginning of their training to
    have cushions (generally altitude). You know that, and since you always make it back to
    Hibiscus (well, at least the last 5 years), you've demonstrated you use cushion(s).

    Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, let me take this opportunity to explain a few things about the difference between a purist and the motorglider mentality. Actually this is what the author was trying to convey IMHO, and a few of the MG guys cannot seem to get their arms
    around the conclusion of the article. Purist do not have a safety cushion as you described, we have a DT, AKA decision termination of a flight. There is a big difference between a safety cushion and the termination conclusion. The safety cushion is the
    motor, and therefore overrides the termination conclusion, we see that often in motorglider flights where the pilot relies on the start of the engine when the termination factor has already been disregarded. A good example of this that I witnessed was at
    the Seniors contest a few years back when a guy should have terminated at a nearby airport only to rely on the motor as a safety cushion and the motor, as it does more than you admit, did not start and the pilot landed his motorglider in a field
    surrounded by cows and had to leave it there until the next day to get it out and back to the hovel of Seminole. As the author so eloquently stated that even the manufacturer suggested treating the motorglider as a pure glider and employed decision
    termination at the airport that he had just left only to rely on that non reliable windmill. Please re-read the article and you will probably come across with a different understanding as what the author was trying to convey, I think he was right on
    target! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, you need to go back and read the article AGAIN. Dave NEVER regarded the motor as a "safety margin." If you think that you are sadly mistaken. This is a direct quote from the article:

    "We are required by the certification criteria to plan for the possibility of the motor failing at any time and fly such that no matter how and when and where it fails, we can make a safe landing, because fail it will."

    Us motorglider pilots have been telling you this time and TIME AGAIN, but you keep ignoring it out of, I assume, extreme ignorance.

    More ignorance: the 13:1 figure applies to the DG400 and DG800A (not later models). I have measured the glide angle of the ASH26E at 20:1; this is a HUGE difference.

    The example you gave is exactly the opposite of your "analysis." The pilot did not depend upon the engine to start, but had a safe landing option as Plan A. Granted, it would have been more convenient to land at an airport, but his choice was not
    unsafe. There is a BIG difference between safety and convenience. The same applies to a pure glider.

    Dave over-emphasizes unreliability, practically stating that if the engine starts it is a surprise. I have thousands of hours of flight experience in motorgliders varying from the DG400 to the ASH31Mi. There is no doubt that engine reliability has
    improved markedly over the years. The 31Mi definitely has the reliability of your typical car.

    Dave's bias is revealed in the statement:

    "Some older gliders have a dozen controls scattered about the cockpit and a fiddly start sequence, so demand lots of heads-down time."

    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls. Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    That is five, NOT a dozen, and they are all conveniently located in one area of the cockpit (the starter pushbutton is even a part of the throttle control). When you shut down the engine there is a prop brake for aligning the prop prior to retraction,
    but this is part of the shut down/engine stowage procedure.
    Add in on many if not most:
    Master switch for engine system
    Associated breaker or fuse
    Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH

    UH, you forgot fire extinguisher, that might just round out the 12 elements of motorgliding. Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bruce Patton@21:1/5 to Hank Nixon on Wed Aug 17 16:25:16 2022
    Ok, here is my checklist for Air Start Engine. HP304 MS

    Aiespeed. 51-54 K
    Fire Valve. CHK OPEN
    Battery. #2
    Pitot. FORWARD
    Motor Switch. ON
    Prop Stop. CHK FORWARD
    Motor Extend. UP
    Ignition SW. On
    Primer. 3 PUMPS COLD
    Throttle. 1/4 OPEN
    Start. START
    RPM. 6300 MAX
    CLIMB. 55 K

    The CHECK steps are points that should be properly positioned if previous checklists were properly followed. The motor charges battery #2 when running. If you don’t switch the pitot the airspeed gets a bit wonky.

    So ten steps to assure, as much as it is possible, that it will start. About 20 - 30 seconds.

    Bruce Patton
    96S








    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 5:35:51 AM UTC-7, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dan Marotta wrote on 8/13/2022 3:53 PM:
    Stemme claims 50:1 glide angle. Should I deploy the engine, my glide ratio, in still air, MAY
    drop to 49:1 or thereabouts. And the Rotax 914 is as reliable as a Toyota. ...Except for that
    damned turbo waste gate, but I wouldn't need the turbo for a self retrieve.

    But then, again, Whereas I COULD land it in a field, I'd be stuck since I have no trailer.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/13/22 16:07, [email protected] wrote:
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an
    article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain
    the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this purist, even the manufacturer
    sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is
    that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior
    machine will get you out of a bind at the snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of
    the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have A Plan" as the author
    suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my
    skills have not deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist
    You missed the point, Bob, which was to be ready to be a "pure" sailplane whenever you decide
    to start the engine. And only the clueless or thoughtless claim a "pure" sailplane doesn't need
    a "safety cushion". Fact is, glider pilots are taught from the beginning of their training to
    have cushions (generally altitude). You know that, and since you always make it back to
    Hibiscus (well, at least the last 5 years), you've demonstrated you use cushion(s).

    Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, let me take this opportunity to explain a few things about the difference between a purist and the motorglider mentality. Actually this is what the author was trying to convey IMHO, and a few of the MG guys cannot seem to get their arms
    around the conclusion of the article. Purist do not have a safety cushion as you described, we have a DT, AKA decision termination of a flight. There is a big difference between a safety cushion and the termination conclusion. The safety cushion is the
    motor, and therefore overrides the termination conclusion, we see that often in motorglider flights where the pilot relies on the start of the engine when the termination factor has already been disregarded. A good example of this that I witnessed was at
    the Seniors contest a few years back when a guy should have terminated at a nearby airport only to rely on the motor as a safety cushion and the motor, as it does more than you admit, did not start and the pilot landed his motorglider in a field
    surrounded by cows and had to leave it there until the next day to get it out and back to the hovel of Seminole. As the author so eloquently stated that even the manufacturer suggested treating the motorglider as a pure glider and employed decision
    termination at the airport that he had just left only to rely on that non reliable windmill. Please re-read the article and you will probably come across with a different understanding as what the author was trying to convey, I think he was right on
    target! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, you need to go back and read the article AGAIN. Dave NEVER regarded the motor as a "safety margin." If you think that you are sadly mistaken. This is a direct quote from the article:

    "We are required by the certification criteria to plan for the possibility of the motor failing at any time and fly such that no matter how and when and where it fails, we can make a safe landing, because fail it will."

    Us motorglider pilots have been telling you this time and TIME AGAIN, but you keep ignoring it out of, I assume, extreme ignorance.

    More ignorance: the 13:1 figure applies to the DG400 and DG800A (not later models). I have measured the glide angle of the ASH26E at 20:1; this is a HUGE difference.

    The example you gave is exactly the opposite of your "analysis." The pilot did not depend upon the engine to start, but had a safe landing option as Plan A. Granted, it would have been more convenient to land at an airport, but his choice was not
    unsafe. There is a BIG difference between safety and convenience. The same applies to a pure glider.

    Dave over-emphasizes unreliability, practically stating that if the engine starts it is a surprise. I have thousands of hours of flight experience in motorgliders varying from the DG400 to the ASH31Mi. There is no doubt that engine reliability has
    improved markedly over the years. The 31Mi definitely has the reliability of your typical car.

    Dave's bias is revealed in the statement:

    "Some older gliders have a dozen controls scattered about the cockpit and a fiddly start sequence, so demand lots of heads-down time."

    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls. Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    That is five, NOT a dozen, and they are all conveniently located in one area of the cockpit (the starter pushbutton is even a part of the throttle control). When you shut down the engine there is a prop brake for aligning the prop prior to retraction,
    but this is part of the shut down/engine stowage procedure.
    Add in on many if not most:
    Master switch for engine system
    Associated breaker or fuse
    Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From R@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 17 18:45:14 2022
    I once thought the C-130, flying tactical missions, was the greatest fun. It was surpassed flying the 747 like Sky King flew Songbird….making pylon turns around cumulus at 300kts while climbing out, or descending in.
    Hard to image but that was exceeded by the 31. A pure joy. Incredible connection to the energy.
    The engine is nothing more than a tool, like a tow rope or landing gear. You use it when you need it or you put it away.
    I consider it a luxury addition that gives me choices and relieves my wife of crew duties.
    But the engine is not the mission. It’s all about being out on course. Flying the magic.
    No words or trolling can change it.

    5 steps..

    Eng switch
    Extension (10.8 secs)
    Ignition
    Bumper
    Start

    Climbing in 20 secs……no altitude loss as I’m slowing from 70kts thermal search speed to 60kts climb speed.
    If it doesn’t start…you land.

    Tip: I leave fuel valve open during flight.

    Cheers,

    R

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 2G@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed Aug 17 19:46:47 2022
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 4:40:18 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dan Marotta wrote on 8/13/2022 3:53 PM:
    Stemme claims 50:1 glide angle. Should I deploy the engine, my glide ratio, in still air, MAY
    drop to 49:1 or thereabouts. And the Rotax 914 is as reliable as a Toyota. ...Except for that
    damned turbo waste gate, but I wouldn't need the turbo for a self retrieve.

    But then, again, Whereas I COULD land it in a field, I'd be stuck since I have no trailer.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/13/22 16:07, [email protected] wrote:
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an
    article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain
    the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this purist, even the manufacturer
    sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is
    that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior
    machine will get you out of a bind at the snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of
    the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have A Plan" as the author
    suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my
    skills have not deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist
    You missed the point, Bob, which was to be ready to be a "pure" sailplane whenever you decide
    to start the engine. And only the clueless or thoughtless claim a "pure" sailplane doesn't need
    a "safety cushion". Fact is, glider pilots are taught from the beginning of their training to
    have cushions (generally altitude). You know that, and since you always make it back to
    Hibiscus (well, at least the last 5 years), you've demonstrated you use cushion(s).

    Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, let me take this opportunity to explain a few things about the difference between a purist and the motorglider mentality. Actually this is what the author was trying to convey IMHO, and a few of the MG guys cannot seem to get their arms
    around the conclusion of the article. Purist do not have a safety cushion as you described, we have a DT, AKA decision termination of a flight. There is a big difference between a safety cushion and the termination conclusion. The safety cushion is the
    motor, and therefore overrides the termination conclusion, we see that often in motorglider flights where the pilot relies on the start of the engine when the termination factor has already been disregarded. A good example of this that I witnessed was at
    the Seniors contest a few years back when a guy should have terminated at a nearby airport only to rely on the motor as a safety cushion and the motor, as it does more than you admit, did not start and the pilot landed his motorglider in a field
    surrounded by cows and had to leave it there until the next day to get it out and back to the hovel of Seminole. As the author so eloquently stated that even the manufacturer suggested treating the motorglider as a pure glider and employed decision
    termination at the airport that he had just left only to rely on that non reliable windmill. Please re-read the article and you will probably come across with a different understanding as what the author was trying to convey, I think he was right on
    target! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, you need to go back and read the article AGAIN. Dave NEVER regarded the motor as a "safety margin." If you think that you are sadly mistaken. This is a direct quote from the article:

    "We are required by the certification criteria to plan for the possibility of the motor failing at any time and fly such that no matter how and when and where it fails, we can make a safe landing, because fail it will."

    Us motorglider pilots have been telling you this time and TIME AGAIN, but you keep ignoring it out of, I assume, extreme ignorance.

    More ignorance: the 13:1 figure applies to the DG400 and DG800A (not later models). I have measured the glide angle of the ASH26E at 20:1; this is a HUGE difference.

    The example you gave is exactly the opposite of your "analysis." The pilot did not depend upon the engine to start, but had a safe landing option as Plan A. Granted, it would have been more convenient to land at an airport, but his choice was not
    unsafe. There is a BIG difference between safety and convenience. The same applies to a pure glider.

    Dave over-emphasizes unreliability, practically stating that if the engine starts it is a surprise. I have thousands of hours of flight experience in motorgliders varying from the DG400 to the ASH31Mi. There is no doubt that engine reliability has
    improved markedly over the years. The 31Mi definitely has the reliability of your typical car.

    Dave's bias is revealed in the statement:

    "Some older gliders have a dozen controls scattered about the cockpit and a fiddly start sequence, so demand lots of heads-down time."

    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls. Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    That is five, NOT a dozen, and they are all conveniently located in one area of the cockpit (the starter pushbutton is even a part of the throttle control). When you shut down the engine there is a prop brake for aligning the prop prior to retraction,
    but this is part of the shut down/engine stowage procedure.
    Hey Dickhead, I said "Safety Cushion", not margin, what took you so long to respond?

    Hey Bobby, it's the same thing. BTW, would you use that language around your grandkids?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 2G@21:1/5 to Hank Nixon on Wed Aug 17 19:54:21 2022
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 5:35:51 AM UTC-7, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dan Marotta wrote on 8/13/2022 3:53 PM:
    Stemme claims 50:1 glide angle. Should I deploy the engine, my glide ratio, in still air, MAY
    drop to 49:1 or thereabouts. And the Rotax 914 is as reliable as a Toyota. ...Except for that
    damned turbo waste gate, but I wouldn't need the turbo for a self retrieve.

    But then, again, Whereas I COULD land it in a field, I'd be stuck since I have no trailer.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/13/22 16:07, [email protected] wrote:
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an
    article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain
    the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this purist, even the manufacturer
    sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is
    that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior
    machine will get you out of a bind at the snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of
    the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have A Plan" as the author
    suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my
    skills have not deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist
    You missed the point, Bob, which was to be ready to be a "pure" sailplane whenever you decide
    to start the engine. And only the clueless or thoughtless claim a "pure" sailplane doesn't need
    a "safety cushion". Fact is, glider pilots are taught from the beginning of their training to
    have cushions (generally altitude). You know that, and since you always make it back to
    Hibiscus (well, at least the last 5 years), you've demonstrated you use cushion(s).

    Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, let me take this opportunity to explain a few things about the difference between a purist and the motorglider mentality. Actually this is what the author was trying to convey IMHO, and a few of the MG guys cannot seem to get their arms
    around the conclusion of the article. Purist do not have a safety cushion as you described, we have a DT, AKA decision termination of a flight. There is a big difference between a safety cushion and the termination conclusion. The safety cushion is the
    motor, and therefore overrides the termination conclusion, we see that often in motorglider flights where the pilot relies on the start of the engine when the termination factor has already been disregarded. A good example of this that I witnessed was at
    the Seniors contest a few years back when a guy should have terminated at a nearby airport only to rely on the motor as a safety cushion and the motor, as it does more than you admit, did not start and the pilot landed his motorglider in a field
    surrounded by cows and had to leave it there until the next day to get it out and back to the hovel of Seminole. As the author so eloquently stated that even the manufacturer suggested treating the motorglider as a pure glider and employed decision
    termination at the airport that he had just left only to rely on that non reliable windmill. Please re-read the article and you will probably come across with a different understanding as what the author was trying to convey, I think he was right on
    target! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, you need to go back and read the article AGAIN. Dave NEVER regarded the motor as a "safety margin." If you think that you are sadly mistaken. This is a direct quote from the article:

    "We are required by the certification criteria to plan for the possibility of the motor failing at any time and fly such that no matter how and when and where it fails, we can make a safe landing, because fail it will."

    Us motorglider pilots have been telling you this time and TIME AGAIN, but you keep ignoring it out of, I assume, extreme ignorance.

    More ignorance: the 13:1 figure applies to the DG400 and DG800A (not later models). I have measured the glide angle of the ASH26E at 20:1; this is a HUGE difference.

    The example you gave is exactly the opposite of your "analysis." The pilot did not depend upon the engine to start, but had a safe landing option as Plan A. Granted, it would have been more convenient to land at an airport, but his choice was not
    unsafe. There is a BIG difference between safety and convenience. The same applies to a pure glider.

    Dave over-emphasizes unreliability, practically stating that if the engine starts it is a surprise. I have thousands of hours of flight experience in motorgliders varying from the DG400 to the ASH31Mi. There is no doubt that engine reliability has
    improved markedly over the years. The 31Mi definitely has the reliability of your typical car.

    Dave's bias is revealed in the statement:

    "Some older gliders have a dozen controls scattered about the cockpit and a fiddly start sequence, so demand lots of heads-down time."

    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls. Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    That is five, NOT a dozen, and they are all conveniently located in one area of the cockpit (the starter pushbutton is even a part of the throttle control). When you shut down the engine there is a prop brake for aligning the prop prior to retraction,
    but this is part of the shut down/engine stowage procedure.
    Add in on many if not most:
    Master switch for engine system
    Associated breaker or fuse
    Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH

    The master is already on because you launched (and for all your other instruments!). The fuse is not something you set. The fuel is on because you already launched. The DG400 does not have a prop stop, only a mechanical brake after the engine is stopped.

    Bottom line: it is STILL five.

    Tom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 18 05:31:47 2022
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 4:40:18 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:19:16 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Dan Marotta wrote on 8/13/2022 3:53 PM:
    Stemme claims 50:1 glide angle. Should I deploy the engine, my glide ratio, in still air, MAY
    drop to 49:1 or thereabouts. And the Rotax 914 is as reliable as a Toyota. ...Except for that
    damned turbo waste gate, but I wouldn't need the turbo for a self retrieve.

    But then, again, Whereas I COULD land it in a field, I'd be stuck since I have no trailer.

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/13/22 16:07, [email protected] wrote:
    I jus finished reading the August edition of Soaring and came across page 21 which titles an
    article , "How Low Can You Start That Motor"? Some of the highlights of the article explain
    the unreliability of the motorglider, which is not news to this purist, even the manufacturer
    sees the motorglider as a platform that should be treated as a PURE glider. The point made is
    that the motorglider is not a Toyota or Honda or Chevy, so don't think that the inferior
    machine will get you out of a bind at the snap of finger. That 13 to 1 is a fine example of
    the drag of that windmill, even a 2-33 is better. Yes, "Have A Plan" as the author
    suggested. I don't have to worry about that, I am a PURIST, no need for a safety cushion, my
    skills have not deteriorated that much. Old Bob, The Purist
    You missed the point, Bob, which was to be ready to be a "pure" sailplane whenever you decide
    to start the engine. And only the clueless or thoughtless claim a "pure" sailplane doesn't need
    a "safety cushion". Fact is, glider pilots are taught from the beginning of their training to
    have cushions (generally altitude). You know that, and since you always make it back to
    Hibiscus (well, at least the last 5 years), you've demonstrated you use cushion(s).

    Oh, that 13:1 applies to just a few motorgliders with mast up, engine stopped. It certainly
    doesn't apply to most Schleicher gliders (20:1 for my 26E), FES gliders, or jet sustainers.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, let me take this opportunity to explain a few things about the difference between a purist and the motorglider mentality. Actually this is what the author was trying to convey IMHO, and a few of the MG guys cannot seem to get their arms
    around the conclusion of the article. Purist do not have a safety cushion as you described, we have a DT, AKA decision termination of a flight. There is a big difference between a safety cushion and the termination conclusion. The safety cushion is the
    motor, and therefore overrides the termination conclusion, we see that often in motorglider flights where the pilot relies on the start of the engine when the termination factor has already been disregarded. A good example of this that I witnessed was at
    the Seniors contest a few years back when a guy should have terminated at a nearby airport only to rely on the motor as a safety cushion and the motor, as it does more than you admit, did not start and the pilot landed his motorglider in a field
    surrounded by cows and had to leave it there until the next day to get it out and back to the hovel of Seminole. As the author so eloquently stated that even the manufacturer suggested treating the motorglider as a pure glider and employed decision
    termination at the airport that he had just left only to rely on that non reliable windmill. Please re-read the article and you will probably come across with a different understanding as what the author was trying to convey, I think he was right on
    target! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, you need to go back and read the article AGAIN. Dave NEVER regarded the motor as a "safety margin." If you think that you are sadly mistaken. This is a direct quote from the article:

    "We are required by the certification criteria to plan for the possibility of the motor failing at any time and fly such that no matter how and when and where it fails, we can make a safe landing, because fail it will."

    Us motorglider pilots have been telling you this time and TIME AGAIN, but you keep ignoring it out of, I assume, extreme ignorance.

    More ignorance: the 13:1 figure applies to the DG400 and DG800A (not later models). I have measured the glide angle of the ASH26E at 20:1; this is a HUGE difference.

    The example you gave is exactly the opposite of your "analysis." The pilot did not depend upon the engine to start, but had a safe landing option as Plan A. Granted, it would have been more convenient to land at an airport, but his choice was not
    unsafe. There is a BIG difference between safety and convenience. The same applies to a pure glider.

    Dave over-emphasizes unreliability, practically stating that if the engine starts it is a surprise. I have thousands of hours of flight experience in motorgliders varying from the DG400 to the ASH31Mi. There is no doubt that engine reliability has
    improved markedly over the years. The 31Mi definitely has the reliability of your typical car.

    Dave's bias is revealed in the statement:

    "Some older gliders have a dozen controls scattered about the cockpit and a fiddly start sequence, so demand lots of heads-down time."

    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls. Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    That is five, NOT a dozen, and they are all conveniently located in one area of the cockpit (the starter pushbutton is even a part of the throttle control). When you shut down the engine there is a prop brake for aligning the prop prior to
    retraction, but this is part of the shut down/engine stowage procedure.
    Hey Dickhead, I said "Safety Cushion", not margin, what took you so long to respond?
    Hey Bobby, it's the same thing. BTW, would you use that language around your grandkids?

    Dh, if I had grandkids they would call you the same name. One of the guys up in Richland informed me that that was the name that the group gave to you. Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Greenwell@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Thu Aug 18 06:18:40 2022
    On 8/18/2022 5:31 AM, [email protected] wrote:
    ...
    That is five, NOT a dozen, and they are all conveniently located in one area of the cockpit (the starter pushbutton is even a part of the throttle control). When you shut down the engine there is a prop brake for aligning the prop prior to
    retraction, but this is part of the shut down/engine stowage procedure.
    Hey Dickhead, I said "Safety Cushion", not margin, what took you so long to respond?
    Hey Bobby, it's the same thing. BTW, would you use that language around your grandkids?

    Dh, if I had grandkids they would call you the same name. One of the guys up in Richland informed me that that was the name that the group gave to you. Old Bob, The Purist

    But not this guy in Richland, WA, who does not think either of you is a DH.

    --
    Eric Greenwell - USA
    - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Sinclair@21:1/5 to Eric Greenwell on Thu Aug 18 10:04:46 2022
    On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 6:18:45 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:.





    On 8/18/2022 5:31 AM, [email protected] wrote:
    ...
    That is five, NOT a dozen, and they are all conveniently located in one area of the cockpit (the starter pushbutton is even a part of the throttle control). When you shut down the engine there is a prop brake for aligning the prop prior to
    retraction, but this is part of the shut down/engine stowage procedure.
    Hey Dickhead, I said "Safety Cushion", not margin, what took you so long to respond?
    Hey Bobby, it's the same thing. BTW, would you use that language around your grandkids?

    Dh, if I had grandkids they would call you the same name. One of the guys up in Richland informed me that that was the name that the group gave to you. Old Bob, The Purist
    But not this guy in Richland, WA, who does not think either of you is a DH. --
    Eric Greenwell - USA
    - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications









    Dave,
    I just read your (no punches pulled), article in Soaring on MotorGliders. Well done, much needed information. I lost a good friend who was trying to get familiar with a new ship with an electric motor. Killed under unknown circumstances on his third
    flight, but I believe the cause to be, new ship, new technology with an old mind and reflexes!
    JJ

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Nadler@21:1/5 to Hank Nixon on Fri Aug 19 08:00:24 2022
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls.
    Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH

    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 2G@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Fri Aug 19 21:09:15 2022
    On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:00:31 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls.
    Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH
    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...

    1. I don't use the prop brake to start the engine, only to stop the prop AFTER you have run the engine - maybe that's why it didn't start for you.
    2. The DG400 doesn't have a manual primer - but if you wasted your time searching for it that would explain why you didn't get it started.
    3. The DG400 has an emergency override motor extension switch if the regular switch doesn't work, but would ONLY be used in an emergency - maybe that is why you couldn't start it.

    One REALLY shouldn't present themselves as an authority on a glider that they have not flown.

    Tom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 20 05:28:16 2022
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:00:31 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls.
    Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH
    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...
    1. I don't use the prop brake to start the engine, only to stop the prop AFTER you have run the engine - maybe that's why it didn't start for you.
    2. The DG400 doesn't have a manual primer - but if you wasted your time searching for it that would explain why you didn't get it started.
    3. The DG400 has an emergency override motor extension switch if the regular switch doesn't work, but would ONLY be used in an emergency - maybe that is why you couldn't start it.

    One REALLY shouldn't present themselves as an authority on a glider that they have not flown.

    Tom
    Hey DH, you sure are making a lot of friends! Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 2G@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sat Aug 20 15:55:42 2022
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:28:18 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:00:31 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls.
    Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH
    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...
    1. I don't use the prop brake to start the engine, only to stop the prop AFTER you have run the engine - maybe that's why it didn't start for you.
    2. The DG400 doesn't have a manual primer - but if you wasted your time searching for it that would explain why you didn't get it started.
    3. The DG400 has an emergency override motor extension switch if the regular switch doesn't work, but would ONLY be used in an emergency - maybe that is why you couldn't start it.

    One REALLY shouldn't present themselves as an authority on a glider that they have not flown.

    Tom
    Hey DH, you sure are making a lot of friends! Old Bob, The Purist

    Hey Bobby, how is the search for the new airstrip going?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Agnew@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 20 17:40:50 2022
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 6:55:44 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:28:18 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:00:31 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls. Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH
    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...
    1. I don't use the prop brake to start the engine, only to stop the prop AFTER you have run the engine - maybe that's why it didn't start for you.
    2. The DG400 doesn't have a manual primer - but if you wasted your time searching for it that would explain why you didn't get it started.
    3. The DG400 has an emergency override motor extension switch if the regular switch doesn't work, but would ONLY be used in an emergency - maybe that is why you couldn't start it.

    One REALLY shouldn't present themselves as an authority on a glider that they have not flown.

    Tom
    Hey DH, you sure are making a lot of friends! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, how is the search for the new airstrip going?

    Why do you find such pleasure in the troubles of a club that is potentially going to have to move? RAS sparring is one thing, but you seem to enjoy the fact that a fellow club might be losing their home. Do you care about promoting soaring at all? It
    looks like Bob has bested you in that area.

    FWIW - There are a number of private airports in the area discussing the possibility of hosting the club. Plus, there is always the chance that the sale of New Hibiscus won't go through this time. Old ag strips can be a real estate environmental
    hairball.

    In the meantime, it's pretty low use the club's challenges as a personal attack on a fellow SSA member.

    PA

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 2G@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sat Aug 20 20:02:21 2022
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 6:55:44 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:28:18 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:00:31 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls. Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH
    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...
    1. I don't use the prop brake to start the engine, only to stop the prop AFTER you have run the engine - maybe that's why it didn't start for you.
    2. The DG400 doesn't have a manual primer - but if you wasted your time searching for it that would explain why you didn't get it started.
    3. The DG400 has an emergency override motor extension switch if the regular switch doesn't work, but would ONLY be used in an emergency - maybe that is why you couldn't start it.

    One REALLY shouldn't present themselves as an authority on a glider that they have not flown.

    Tom
    Hey DH, you sure are making a lot of friends! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, how is the search for the new airstrip going?
    Why do you find such pleasure in the troubles of a club that is potentially going to have to move? RAS sparring is one thing, but you seem to enjoy the fact that a fellow club might be losing their home. Do you care about promoting soaring at all? It
    looks like Bob has bested you in that area.

    FWIW - There are a number of private airports in the area discussing the possibility of hosting the club. Plus, there is always the chance that the sale of New Hibiscus won't go through this time. Old ag strips can be a real estate environmental
    hairball.

    In the meantime, it's pretty low use the club's challenges as a personal attack on a fellow SSA member.

    PA

    Who said I was finding pleasure in anything? I was making a simple inquiry, that's all.

    Tom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 21 13:31:18 2022
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 6:55:44 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:28:18 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:00:31 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls.
    Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH
    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...
    1. I don't use the prop brake to start the engine, only to stop the prop AFTER you have run the engine - maybe that's why it didn't start for you.
    2. The DG400 doesn't have a manual primer - but if you wasted your time searching for it that would explain why you didn't get it started.
    3. The DG400 has an emergency override motor extension switch if the regular switch doesn't work, but would ONLY be used in an emergency - maybe that is why you couldn't start it.

    One REALLY shouldn't present themselves as an authority on a glider that they have not flown.

    Tom
    Hey DH, you sure are making a lot of friends! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, how is the search for the new airstrip going?
    Why do you find such pleasure in the troubles of a club that is potentially going to have to move? RAS sparring is one thing, but you seem to enjoy the fact that a fellow club might be losing their home. Do you care about promoting soaring at all? It
    looks like Bob has bested you in that area.

    FWIW - There are a number of private airports in the area discussing the possibility of hosting the club. Plus, there is always the chance that the sale of New Hibiscus won't go through this time. Old ag strips can be a real estate environmental
    hairball.

    In the meantime, it's pretty low use the club's challenges as a personal attack on a fellow SSA member.

    PA
    Who said I was finding pleasure in anything? I was making a simple inquiry, that's all.

    Tom
    DH, don't you ever get tired of getting your ass kicked? As Bluejet stated, we will be better and stronger than ever, even if X52 does sell we have plans for the future. Next week we will put 5 new glider pilots in the air, yes five more purist to
    contribute to this sport. Based on projections I will do more than 1200 tows myself in 2022. What have you done to support the soaring world? We have a great club and we are still growing, just as the kids that we are putting into the air, they might
    just give you an ear full, which you deserve. Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 2G@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Aug 21 21:54:49 2022
    On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:31:20 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 6:55:44 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:28:18 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:00:31 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls.
    Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH
    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...
    1. I don't use the prop brake to start the engine, only to stop the prop AFTER you have run the engine - maybe that's why it didn't start for you.
    2. The DG400 doesn't have a manual primer - but if you wasted your time searching for it that would explain why you didn't get it started.
    3. The DG400 has an emergency override motor extension switch if the regular switch doesn't work, but would ONLY be used in an emergency - maybe that is why you couldn't start it.

    One REALLY shouldn't present themselves as an authority on a glider that they have not flown.

    Tom
    Hey DH, you sure are making a lot of friends! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, how is the search for the new airstrip going?
    Why do you find such pleasure in the troubles of a club that is potentially going to have to move? RAS sparring is one thing, but you seem to enjoy the fact that a fellow club might be losing their home. Do you care about promoting soaring at all?
    It looks like Bob has bested you in that area.

    FWIW - There are a number of private airports in the area discussing the possibility of hosting the club. Plus, there is always the chance that the sale of New Hibiscus won't go through this time. Old ag strips can be a real estate environmental
    hairball.

    In the meantime, it's pretty low use the club's challenges as a personal attack on a fellow SSA member.

    PA
    Who said I was finding pleasure in anything? I was making a simple inquiry, that's all.

    Tom
    DH, don't you ever get tired of getting your ass kicked? As Bluejet stated, we will be better and stronger than ever, even if X52 does sell we have plans for the future. Next week we will put 5 new glider pilots in the air, yes five more purist to
    contribute to this sport. Based on projections I will do more than 1200 tows myself in 2022. What have you done to support the soaring world? We have a great club and we are still growing, just as the kids that we are putting into the air, they might
    just give you an ear full, which you deserve. Old Bob, The Purist

    Hey Bobby, why are you so ANGRY?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 22 12:02:33 2022
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:54:51 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:31:20 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 6:55:44 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:28:18 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:00:31 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls.
    Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH
    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...
    1. I don't use the prop brake to start the engine, only to stop the prop AFTER you have run the engine - maybe that's why it didn't start for you.
    2. The DG400 doesn't have a manual primer - but if you wasted your time searching for it that would explain why you didn't get it started.
    3. The DG400 has an emergency override motor extension switch if the regular switch doesn't work, but would ONLY be used in an emergency - maybe that is why you couldn't start it.

    One REALLY shouldn't present themselves as an authority on a glider that they have not flown.

    Tom
    Hey DH, you sure are making a lot of friends! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, how is the search for the new airstrip going?
    Why do you find such pleasure in the troubles of a club that is potentially going to have to move? RAS sparring is one thing, but you seem to enjoy the fact that a fellow club might be losing their home. Do you care about promoting soaring at all?
    It looks like Bob has bested you in that area.

    FWIW - There are a number of private airports in the area discussing the possibility of hosting the club. Plus, there is always the chance that the sale of New Hibiscus won't go through this time. Old ag strips can be a real estate environmental
    hairball.

    In the meantime, it's pretty low use the club's challenges as a personal attack on a fellow SSA member.

    PA
    Who said I was finding pleasure in anything? I was making a simple inquiry, that's all.

    Tom
    DH, don't you ever get tired of getting your ass kicked? As Bluejet stated, we will be better and stronger than ever, even if X52 does sell we have plans for the future. Next week we will put 5 new glider pilots in the air, yes five more purist to
    contribute to this sport. Based on projections I will do more than 1200 tows myself in 2022. What have you done to support the soaring world? We have a great club and we are still growing, just as the kids that we are putting into the air, they might
    just give you an ear full, which you deserve. Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, why are you so ANGRY?

    Dream on DH! Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 2G@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Aug 22 15:21:45 2022
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:54:51 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:31:20 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 6:55:44 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:28:18 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:00:31 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls.
    Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH
    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...
    1. I don't use the prop brake to start the engine, only to stop the prop AFTER you have run the engine - maybe that's why it didn't start for you.
    2. The DG400 doesn't have a manual primer - but if you wasted your time searching for it that would explain why you didn't get it started.
    3. The DG400 has an emergency override motor extension switch if the regular switch doesn't work, but would ONLY be used in an emergency - maybe that is why you couldn't start it.

    One REALLY shouldn't present themselves as an authority on a glider that they have not flown.

    Tom
    Hey DH, you sure are making a lot of friends! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, how is the search for the new airstrip going?
    Why do you find such pleasure in the troubles of a club that is potentially going to have to move? RAS sparring is one thing, but you seem to enjoy the fact that a fellow club might be losing their home. Do you care about promoting soaring at
    all? It looks like Bob has bested you in that area.

    FWIW - There are a number of private airports in the area discussing the possibility of hosting the club. Plus, there is always the chance that the sale of New Hibiscus won't go through this time. Old ag strips can be a real estate
    environmental hairball.

    In the meantime, it's pretty low use the club's challenges as a personal attack on a fellow SSA member.

    PA
    Who said I was finding pleasure in anything? I was making a simple inquiry, that's all.

    Tom
    DH, don't you ever get tired of getting your ass kicked? As Bluejet stated, we will be better and stronger than ever, even if X52 does sell we have plans for the future. Next week we will put 5 new glider pilots in the air, yes five more purist to
    contribute to this sport. Based on projections I will do more than 1200 tows myself in 2022. What have you done to support the soaring world? We have a great club and we are still growing, just as the kids that we are putting into the air, they might
    just give you an ear full, which you deserve. Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, why are you so ANGRY?
    Dream on DH! Old Bob, The Purist

    Hardly - you have a LONG track record of nasty (and false) motorglider comments, among others. Now you are using gutter language. So sad...

    Tom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 23 12:29:13 2022
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 6:21:47 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:54:51 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:31:20 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 6:55:44 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:28:18 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:00:31 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls.
    Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH
    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...
    1. I don't use the prop brake to start the engine, only to stop the prop AFTER you have run the engine - maybe that's why it didn't start for you.
    2. The DG400 doesn't have a manual primer - but if you wasted your time searching for it that would explain why you didn't get it started.
    3. The DG400 has an emergency override motor extension switch if the regular switch doesn't work, but would ONLY be used in an emergency - maybe that is why you couldn't start it.

    One REALLY shouldn't present themselves as an authority on a glider that they have not flown.

    Tom
    Hey DH, you sure are making a lot of friends! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, how is the search for the new airstrip going?
    Why do you find such pleasure in the troubles of a club that is potentially going to have to move? RAS sparring is one thing, but you seem to enjoy the fact that a fellow club might be losing their home. Do you care about promoting soaring at
    all? It looks like Bob has bested you in that area.

    FWIW - There are a number of private airports in the area discussing the possibility of hosting the club. Plus, there is always the chance that the sale of New Hibiscus won't go through this time. Old ag strips can be a real estate
    environmental hairball.

    In the meantime, it's pretty low use the club's challenges as a personal attack on a fellow SSA member.

    PA
    Who said I was finding pleasure in anything? I was making a simple inquiry, that's all.

    Tom
    DH, don't you ever get tired of getting your ass kicked? As Bluejet stated, we will be better and stronger than ever, even if X52 does sell we have plans for the future. Next week we will put 5 new glider pilots in the air, yes five more purist
    to contribute to this sport. Based on projections I will do more than 1200 tows myself in 2022. What have you done to support the soaring world? We have a great club and we are still growing, just as the kids that we are putting into the air, they might
    just give you an ear full, which you deserve. Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, why are you so ANGRY?
    Dream on DH! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hardly - you have a LONG track record of nasty (and false) motorglider comments, among others. Now you are using gutter language. So sad...

    Tom
    The DH, which is reference to you is far beyond being gutter language, it is just a realistic description of you, as I mentioned prior, your reputation precedes your appearance. Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jfitch@21:1/5 to Frank Whiteley on Tue Aug 23 14:07:05 2022
    I cannot find a link on the SSA website to download anything. But:

    Dave seems to have had an unfortunate series of motorglider ownership experiences. Others have had better experiences. In 22 years, I have had exactly one failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plug), zero occurrences of in-flight
    failure or failure to start, and have had to take unwanted tows about 5 times (out of hundreds of launches) due either to scheduled or unscheduled maintenance of the engine.

    The glider part of a motorglider is no more complex than any glider. The engine installation makes it more complicated as a system, but the engine installation is not functionally required for towed operation, so reliability is identical to a towed
    glider, if considering the same task. Maintenance of the engine/glider system, in my estimation and with my glider, is about 3x what the glider alone would be - however less than the glider/Pawnee system maintenance alternative.

    In flight, there is definitely more complexity near a forced termination of flight (i.e. landout), if one wants to avail oneself of the option of self retrieve (and it is an option, not a necessity). One has to decide when to begin the engine start
    procedure, keeping in mind that it may not cooperate. I do agree that one should always act surprised if it starts (though as I mentioned I have always been surprised). If you don't like surprises, then don't exercise that option.

    If you cannot deal with the extra complexity, or cannot exercise the self control required to fly responsibly and depend on your life for surprises, then a motorglider is not for you. Where problems occur, they are most often in a mismatch of skill or
    expectation with reality. You cannot really say "motorgliders are unreliable" - compared to what? They are what they are. Just don't misunderstand what they are.

    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:51:40 AM UTC-7, Frank Whiteley wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:52:52 AM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Frank Whiteley wrote on 8/15/2022 6:07 PM:
    ...
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that it was
    one of the better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    Until the August Soaring is available online, I can't quote any specifics from the article. In
    the meantime, ponder this: "unreliable" is a judgement, not a fact.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, August 2022 is now online. Delayed through no fault of the SSA but the PDF was late this month. Delivery of the print edition has been a bit uneven also since maybe June. My July copy arrived 7/25, but my August arrived 8/7, yet I spoke with
    someone today still looking for his August copy. The office says there've been no production nor printing delays any month. The USPS advised businesses last fall that first class business mail would slow going forward, but nothing was said about other
    categories.

    Frank Whiteley

    Just got it! The delay was frustrating, as so many were referencing Dave's article, and I
    couldn't read it. It's puzzling the PDF isn't available weeks before the printed copy, as it
    requires nothing physical for it to be generated.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric,

    The PDF was not received until late last week and is modified before publication including indexing to make it word searchable and to add links and to improve some of the graphic elements. It is not fully up to our standards as received. The process is
    not as trivial as you think. I don't know what the delay was in getting it to the SSA.

    Frank

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Greenwell@21:1/5 to jfitch on Tue Aug 23 15:06:53 2022
    On 8/23/2022 2:07 PM, jfitch wrote:
    I cannot find a link on the SSA website to download anything. But:

    Dave seems to have had an unfortunate series of motorglider ownership experiences. Others have had better experiences. In 22 years, I have had exactly one failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plug), zero occurrences of in-flight
    failure or failure to start, and have had to take unwanted tows about 5 times (out of hundreds of launches) due either to scheduled or unscheduled maintenance of the engine.

    The glider part of a motorglider is no more complex than any glider. The engine installation makes it more complicated as a system, but the engine installation is not functionally required for towed operation, so reliability is identical to a towed
    glider, if considering the same task. Maintenance of the engine/glider system, in my estimation and with my glider, is about 3x what the glider alone would be - however less than the glider/Pawnee system maintenance alternative.

    In flight, there is definitely more complexity near a forced termination of flight (i.e. landout), if one wants to avail oneself of the option of self retrieve (and it is an option, not a necessity). One has to decide when to begin the engine start
    procedure, keeping in mind that it may not cooperate. I do agree that one should always act surprised if it starts (though as I mentioned I have always been surprised). If you don't like surprises, then don't exercise that option.

    If you cannot deal with the extra complexity, or cannot exercise the self control required to fly responsibly and depend on your life for surprises, then a motorglider is not for you. Where problems occur, they are most often in a mismatch of skill or
    expectation with reality. You cannot really say "motorgliders are unreliable" - compared to what? They are what they are. Just don't misunderstand what they are.

    My 27 years of motorglider experience closely matches Jon's experience (maybe it's a
    Schleicher thing). To those who insist "motorgliders are unreliable" should wonder why the
    majority of sailplanes sold have a motor. Would pilots really fork over an extra
    $30,000-$60,000 to buy an unreliable glider?

    Most of those buyers get a (self-launching) motorglider because they want one that gets
    them in the air more reliably than a towed glider, and all of them get it because it gets
    them home more reliably. You can point out all the ways a motorglider can fail to perform
    properly, but we owners know there isn't always a towplane when you we one, whether it's
    the launch or a retrieve and the reliability a motor brings to our flying is worth the
    extra cost, complexity, and occasional motor problem.

    Of course, if you are Ramy Yanetz, and a tow plane magically appears exactly where and
    when you need one, well then, don't bother with a motor!

    https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=9169517#comment

    --
    Eric Greenwell - USA
    - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Eric Greenwell on Tue Aug 23 15:56:22 2022
    On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:07:02 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    On 8/23/2022 2:07 PM, jfitch wrote:
    I cannot find a link on the SSA website to download anything. But:

    Dave seems to have had an unfortunate series of motorglider ownership experiences. Others have had better experiences. In 22 years, I have had exactly one failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plug), zero occurrences of in-
    flight failure or failure to start, and have had to take unwanted tows about 5 times (out of hundreds of launches) due either to scheduled or unscheduled maintenance of the engine.

    The glider part of a motorglider is no more complex than any glider. The engine installation makes it more complicated as a system, but the engine installation is not functionally required for towed operation, so reliability is identical to a towed
    glider, if considering the same task. Maintenance of the engine/glider system, in my estimation and with my glider, is about 3x what the glider alone would be - however less than the glider/Pawnee system maintenance alternative.

    In flight, there is definitely more complexity near a forced termination of flight (i.e. landout), if one wants to avail oneself of the option of self retrieve (and it is an option, not a necessity). One has to decide when to begin the engine start
    procedure, keeping in mind that it may not cooperate. I do agree that one should always act surprised if it starts (though as I mentioned I have always been surprised). If you don't like surprises, then don't exercise that option.

    If you cannot deal with the extra complexity, or cannot exercise the self control required to fly responsibly and depend on your life for surprises, then a motorglider is not for you. Where problems occur, they are most often in a mismatch of skill
    or expectation with reality. You cannot really say "motorgliders are unreliable" - compared to what? They are what they are. Just don't misunderstand what they are.
    My 27 years of motorglider experience closely matches Jon's experience (maybe it's a
    Schleicher thing). To those who insist "motorgliders are unreliable" should wonder why the
    majority of sailplanes sold have a motor. Would pilots really fork over an extra
    $30,000-$60,000 to buy an unreliable glider?

    Most of those buyers get a (self-launching) motorglider because they want one that gets
    them in the air more reliably than a towed glider, and all of them get it because it gets
    them home more reliably. You can point out all the ways a motorglider can fail to perform
    properly, but we owners know there isn't always a towplane when you we one, whether it's
    the launch or a retrieve and the reliability a motor brings to our flying is worth the
    extra cost, complexity, and occasional motor problem.

    Of course, if you are Ramy Yanetz, and a tow plane magically appears exactly where and
    when you need one, well then, don't bother with a motor!

    https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=9169517#comment
    --
    Eric Greenwell - USA
    - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
    Eric, Ramy is a member of a unique and respected group of glider pilots known as PURIST! there may be a day where he decides to go over to the dark side and he will forever be a purist to us select group of glider pilots void of motors. Ramy makes some
    great flight with that PURE 29. that must drive the motorglider guys crazy. Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Greenwell@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Aug 23 16:44:09 2022
    On 8/23/2022 3:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:07:02 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    On 8/23/2022 2:07 PM, jfitch wrote:
    I cannot find a link on the SSA website to download anything. But:

    Dave seems to have had an unfortunate series of motorglider ownership experiences. Others have had better experiences. In 22 years, I have had exactly one failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plug), zero occurrences of in-
    flight failure or failure to start, and have had to take unwanted tows about 5 times (out of hundreds of launches) due either to scheduled or unscheduled maintenance of the engine.

    The glider part of a motorglider is no more complex than any glider. The engine installation makes it more complicated as a system, but the engine installation is not functionally required for towed operation, so reliability is identical to a towed
    glider, if considering the same task. Maintenance of the engine/glider system, in my estimation and with my glider, is about 3x what the glider alone would be - however less than the glider/Pawnee system maintenance alternative.

    In flight, there is definitely more complexity near a forced termination of flight (i.e. landout), if one wants to avail oneself of the option of self retrieve (and it is an option, not a necessity). One has to decide when to begin the engine start
    procedure, keeping in mind that it may not cooperate. I do agree that one should always act surprised if it starts (though as I mentioned I have always been surprised). If you don't like surprises, then don't exercise that option.

    If you cannot deal with the extra complexity, or cannot exercise the self control required to fly responsibly and depend on your life for surprises, then a motorglider is not for you. Where problems occur, they are most often in a mismatch of skill
    or expectation with reality. You cannot really say "motorgliders are unreliable" - compared to what? They are what they are. Just don't misunderstand what they are.
    My 27 years of motorglider experience closely matches Jon's experience (maybe it's a
    Schleicher thing). To those who insist "motorgliders are unreliable" should wonder why the
    majority of sailplanes sold have a motor. Would pilots really fork over an extra
    $30,000-$60,000 to buy an unreliable glider?

    Most of those buyers get a (self-launching) motorglider because they want one that gets
    them in the air more reliably than a towed glider, and all of them get it because it gets
    them home more reliably. You can point out all the ways a motorglider can fail to perform
    properly, but we owners know there isn't always a towplane when you we one, whether it's
    the launch or a retrieve and the reliability a motor brings to our flying is worth the
    extra cost, complexity, and occasional motor problem.

    Of course, if you are Ramy Yanetz, and a tow plane magically appears exactly where and
    when you need one, well then, don't bother with a motor!

    https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=9169517#comment
    --
    Eric Greenwell - USA
    - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
    Eric, Ramy is a member of a unique and respected group of glider pilots known as PURIST! there may be a day where he decides to go over to the dark side and he will forever be a purist to us select group of glider pilots void of motors. Ramy makes some
    great flight with that PURE 29. that must drive the motorglider guys crazy. Old Bob, The Purist

    We motored pilots admire him because he's a nice guy that can fly terrific flights, and is
    willing to land away occasionally in pursuit of those flights. He is not known as a
    "PURIST" amongst the pilots (motored or towed) I hang out with. We don't care how he gets
    launched or how he gets home, we only care about the magic in between.

    You could get the same respect if you were a nicer guy that flew a lot more aggressively
    than you do now. :^)
    --
    Eric Greenwell - USA
    - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 2G@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Aug 23 21:33:53 2022
    On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 12:29:15 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 6:21:47 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:54:51 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:31:20 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 6:55:44 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:28:18 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:00:31 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls.
    Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH
    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...
    1. I don't use the prop brake to start the engine, only to stop the prop AFTER you have run the engine - maybe that's why it didn't start for you.
    2. The DG400 doesn't have a manual primer - but if you wasted your time searching for it that would explain why you didn't get it started.
    3. The DG400 has an emergency override motor extension switch if the regular switch doesn't work, but would ONLY be used in an emergency - maybe that is why you couldn't start it.

    One REALLY shouldn't present themselves as an authority on a glider that they have not flown.

    Tom
    Hey DH, you sure are making a lot of friends! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, how is the search for the new airstrip going?
    Why do you find such pleasure in the troubles of a club that is potentially going to have to move? RAS sparring is one thing, but you seem to enjoy the fact that a fellow club might be losing their home. Do you care about promoting soaring
    at all? It looks like Bob has bested you in that area.

    FWIW - There are a number of private airports in the area discussing the possibility of hosting the club. Plus, there is always the chance that the sale of New Hibiscus won't go through this time. Old ag strips can be a real estate
    environmental hairball.

    In the meantime, it's pretty low use the club's challenges as a personal attack on a fellow SSA member.

    PA
    Who said I was finding pleasure in anything? I was making a simple inquiry, that's all.

    Tom
    DH, don't you ever get tired of getting your ass kicked? As Bluejet stated, we will be better and stronger than ever, even if X52 does sell we have plans for the future. Next week we will put 5 new glider pilots in the air, yes five more purist
    to contribute to this sport. Based on projections I will do more than 1200 tows myself in 2022. What have you done to support the soaring world? We have a great club and we are still growing, just as the kids that we are putting into the air, they might
    just give you an ear full, which you deserve. Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, why are you so ANGRY?
    Dream on DH! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hardly - you have a LONG track record of nasty (and false) motorglider comments, among others. Now you are using gutter language. So sad...

    Tom
    The DH, which is reference to you is far beyond being gutter language, it is just a realistic description of you, as I mentioned prior, your reputation precedes your appearance. Old Bob, The Purist

    Hey Bobby, that is a TOTAL REFLECTION of YOU and YOUR character - it has nothing to do with me. You are an angry, bitter old man to be pitied. I feel sorry for you...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Charles Longley@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 23 22:33:41 2022
    On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 9:33:55 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 12:29:15 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 6:21:47 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:54:51 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:31:20 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 6:55:44 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:28:18 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:00:31 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls.
    Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH
    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...
    1. I don't use the prop brake to start the engine, only to stop the prop AFTER you have run the engine - maybe that's why it didn't start for you.
    2. The DG400 doesn't have a manual primer - but if you wasted your time searching for it that would explain why you didn't get it started.
    3. The DG400 has an emergency override motor extension switch if the regular switch doesn't work, but would ONLY be used in an emergency - maybe that is why you couldn't start it.

    One REALLY shouldn't present themselves as an authority on a glider that they have not flown.

    Tom
    Hey DH, you sure are making a lot of friends! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, how is the search for the new airstrip going?
    Why do you find such pleasure in the troubles of a club that is potentially going to have to move? RAS sparring is one thing, but you seem to enjoy the fact that a fellow club might be losing their home. Do you care about promoting
    soaring at all? It looks like Bob has bested you in that area.

    FWIW - There are a number of private airports in the area discussing the possibility of hosting the club. Plus, there is always the chance that the sale of New Hibiscus won't go through this time. Old ag strips can be a real estate
    environmental hairball.

    In the meantime, it's pretty low use the club's challenges as a personal attack on a fellow SSA member.

    PA
    Who said I was finding pleasure in anything? I was making a simple inquiry, that's all.

    Tom
    DH, don't you ever get tired of getting your ass kicked? As Bluejet stated, we will be better and stronger than ever, even if X52 does sell we have plans for the future. Next week we will put 5 new glider pilots in the air, yes five more
    purist to contribute to this sport. Based on projections I will do more than 1200 tows myself in 2022. What have you done to support the soaring world? We have a great club and we are still growing, just as the kids that we are putting into the air, they
    might just give you an ear full, which you deserve. Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, why are you so ANGRY?
    Dream on DH! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hardly - you have a LONG track record of nasty (and false) motorglider comments, among others. Now you are using gutter language. So sad...

    Tom
    The DH, which is reference to you is far beyond being gutter language, it is just a realistic description of you, as I mentioned prior, your reputation precedes your appearance. Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, that is a TOTAL REFLECTION of YOU and YOUR character - it has nothing to do with me. You are an angry, bitter old man to be pitied. I feel sorry for you...
    You motorglider pilots are a bunch of queers. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. ;)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dan Marotta@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 24 10:55:20 2022
    Did, too!

    Did Not!

    Sticks and stones...

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/23/22 22:33, 2G wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 12:29:15 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 6:21:47 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:54:51 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:31:20 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 6:55:44 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:28:18 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:09:17 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:00:31 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:36:00 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have NEVER seen a motorglider with a "dozen" engine controls. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave conveniently doesn't cite said glider. The DG400, a pretty old motorglider, has:
    1. Motor extension/retraction
    2. Ignition
    3. Choke
    4. Throttle
    5. Starter
    Add in on many if not most:
    6. Master switch for engine system
    7. Associated breaker or fuse
    8. Fuel safety cutoff valve.
    9. Mechanical prop stop position.
    Not a dozen, but closer
    UH
    Also, depending on model:
    10. manual prop brake
    11. manual primer
    12. emergency override switch (or switches)

    But I've probably forgotten some...
    1. I don't use the prop brake to start the engine, only to stop the prop AFTER you have run the engine - maybe that's why it didn't start for you.
    2. The DG400 doesn't have a manual primer - but if you wasted your time searching for it that would explain why you didn't get it started.
    3. The DG400 has an emergency override motor extension switch if the regular switch doesn't work, but would ONLY be used in an emergency - maybe that is why you couldn't start it.

    One REALLY shouldn't present themselves as an authority on a glider that they have not flown.

    Tom
    Hey DH, you sure are making a lot of friends! Old Bob, The Purist >>>>>>>>> Hey Bobby, how is the search for the new airstrip going?
    Why do you find such pleasure in the troubles of a club that is potentially going to have to move? RAS sparring is one thing, but you seem to enjoy the fact that a fellow club might be losing their home. Do you care about promoting soaring at
    all? It looks like Bob has bested you in that area.

    FWIW - There are a number of private airports in the area discussing the possibility of hosting the club. Plus, there is always the chance that the sale of New Hibiscus won't go through this time. Old ag strips can be a real estate environmental
    hairball.

    In the meantime, it's pretty low use the club's challenges as a personal attack on a fellow SSA member.

    PA
    Who said I was finding pleasure in anything? I was making a simple inquiry, that's all.

    Tom
    DH, don't you ever get tired of getting your ass kicked? As Bluejet stated, we will be better and stronger than ever, even if X52 does sell we have plans for the future. Next week we will put 5 new glider pilots in the air, yes five more purist to
    contribute to this sport. Based on projections I will do more than 1200 tows myself in 2022. What have you done to support the soaring world? We have a great club and we are still growing, just as the kids that we are putting into the air, they might
    just give you an ear full, which you deserve. Old Bob, The Purist
    Hey Bobby, why are you so ANGRY?
    Dream on DH! Old Bob, The Purist
    Hardly - you have a LONG track record of nasty (and false) motorglider comments, among others. Now you are using gutter language. So sad...

    Tom
    The DH, which is reference to you is far beyond being gutter language, it is just a realistic description of you, as I mentioned prior, your reputation precedes your appearance. Old Bob, The Purist

    Hey Bobby, that is a TOTAL REFLECTION of YOU and YOUR character - it has nothing to do with me. You are an angry, bitter old man to be pitied. I feel sorry for you...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to jfitch on Wed Aug 24 13:21:13 2022
    On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 5:07:07 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
    I cannot find a link on the SSA website to download anything. But:

    Dave seems to have had an unfortunate series of motorglider ownership experiences. Others have had better experiences. In 22 years, I have had exactly one failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plug), zero occurrences of in-flight
    failure or failure to start, and have had to take unwanted tows about 5 times (out of hundreds of launches) due either to scheduled or unscheduled maintenance of the engine.

    The glider part of a motorglider is no more complex than any glider. The engine installation makes it more complicated as a system, but the engine installation is not functionally required for towed operation, so reliability is identical to a towed
    glider, if considering the same task. Maintenance of the engine/glider system, in my estimation and with my glider, is about 3x what the glider alone would be - however less than the glider/Pawnee system maintenance alternative.

    In flight, there is definitely more complexity near a forced termination of flight (i.e. landout), if one wants to avail oneself of the option of self retrieve (and it is an option, not a necessity). One has to decide when to begin the engine start
    procedure, keeping in mind that it may not cooperate. I do agree that one should always act surprised if it starts (though as I mentioned I have always been surprised). If you don't like surprises, then don't exercise that option.

    If you cannot deal with the extra complexity, or cannot exercise the self control required to fly responsibly and depend on your life for surprises, then a motorglider is not for you. Where problems occur, they are most often in a mismatch of skill or
    expectation with reality. You cannot really say "motorgliders are unreliable" - compared to what? They are what they are. Just don't misunderstand what they are.

    Fitch, I hope you have returned back home safely from the adventures on the pacific into Alaska, I was pondering if and when you would return. I would consider Dave as an authority on motorgliders, although I have never met the gentleman I have seen some
    of his OLC flights, and his experience speaks for itself . You continue to talk about all this motorglider experience over 26 years yet I still only see a few flights posted. On the other hand Eric takes his motorglider to Ely and sits there the entire
    time working on his motorglider and posting only one flight, am I missing something?
    I certainly have not been as active lately as I would like to have been, the fishing boat is keeping me busy when I am not towing those fantastic purist. The invitation still stands, bring those motorglider down to Florida and we will go for a flight,
    Eric, make sure all the maintenance is done before you get here.
    Well, guess I better get going because tomorrow is a fishing day, headed out to the deep blue early and hopefully will bring home a few grouper for the evening dinner. Old Bob, The Purist. Except for the fishing boat, 900 hp of outboard.>
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:51:40 AM UTC-7, Frank Whiteley wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:52:52 AM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Frank Whiteley wrote on 8/15/2022 6:07 PM:
    ...
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that it was
    one of the better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    Until the August Soaring is available online, I can't quote any specifics from the article. In
    the meantime, ponder this: "unreliable" is a judgement, not a fact.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, August 2022 is now online. Delayed through no fault of the SSA but the PDF was late this month. Delivery of the print edition has been a bit uneven also since maybe June. My July copy arrived 7/25, but my August arrived 8/7, yet I spoke
    with someone today still looking for his August copy. The office says there've been no production nor printing delays any month. The USPS advised businesses last fall that first class business mail would slow going forward, but nothing was said about
    other categories.

    Frank Whiteley

    Just got it! The delay was frustrating, as so many were referencing Dave's article, and I
    couldn't read it. It's puzzling the PDF isn't available weeks before the printed copy, as it
    requires nothing physical for it to be generated.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric,

    The PDF was not received until late last week and is modified before publication including indexing to make it word searchable and to add links and to improve some of the graphic elements. It is not fully up to our standards as received. The process
    is not as trivial as you think. I don't know what the delay was in getting it to the SSA.

    Frank

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Greenwell@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed Aug 24 15:24:23 2022
    On 8/24/2022 1:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 5:07:07 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
    I cannot find a link on the SSA website to download anything. But:

    Dave seems to have had an unfortunate series of motorglider ownership experiences. Others have had better experiences. In 22 years, I have had exactly one failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plug), zero occurrences of in-
    flight failure or failure to start, and have had to take unwanted tows about 5 times (out of hundreds of launches) due either to scheduled or unscheduled maintenance of the engine.

    The glider part of a motorglider is no more complex than any glider. The engine installation makes it more complicated as a system, but the engine installation is not functionally required for towed operation, so reliability is identical to a towed
    glider, if considering the same task. Maintenance of the engine/glider system, in my estimation and with my glider, is about 3x what the glider alone would be - however less than the glider/Pawnee system maintenance alternative.

    In flight, there is definitely more complexity near a forced termination of flight (i.e. landout), if one wants to avail oneself of the option of self retrieve (and it is an option, not a necessity). One has to decide when to begin the engine start
    procedure, keeping in mind that it may not cooperate. I do agree that one should always act surprised if it starts (though as I mentioned I have always been surprised). If you don't like surprises, then don't exercise that option.

    If you cannot deal with the extra complexity, or cannot exercise the self control required to fly responsibly and depend on your life for surprises, then a motorglider is not for you. Where problems occur, they are most often in a mismatch of skill or
    expectation with reality. You cannot really say "motorgliders are unreliable" - compared to what? They are what they are. Just don't misunderstand what they are.
    Fitch, I hope you have returned back home safely from the adventures on the pacific into Alaska, I was pondering if and when you would return. I would consider Dave as an authority on motorgliders, although I have never met the gentleman I have seen
    some of his OLC flights, and his experience speaks for itself . You continue to talk about all this motorglider experience over 26 years yet I still only see a few flights posted. On the other hand Eric takes his motorglider to Ely and sits there the
    entire time working on his motorglider and posting only one flight, am I missing something?
    I certainly have not been as active lately as I would like to have been, the fishing boat is keeping me busy when I am not towing those fantastic purist. The invitation still stands, bring those motorglider down to Florida and we will go for a flight,
    Eric, make sure all the maintenance is done before you get here.
    Well, guess I better get going because tomorrow is a fishing day, headed out to the deep blue early and hopefully will bring home a few grouper for the evening dinner. Old Bob, The Purist. Except for the fishing boat, 900 hp of outboard.>

    Dave Nadler is an authority on motorgliders, but so is Jon Fitch, myself, and others.
    Many, many more fly them, but don't think about them, treating them as just a tool to get
    more soaring. Our experiences differ very much, depending on which motorgliders we've
    flown and where we've flown them, and this naturally affects our remarks about them. Our
    interests and priorities also differ, and you see Dave tending to focus on the problems
    encountered, and I tend to focus on the freedom they offer. My ASH26E and I have flown
    from Winter Haven, FL, from Clear, AK, and many, many places in between. Many, maybe the
    majority, of those places did not have a towplane.

    You are missing quite a bit, as you still seem confused by brake failure, as if that had
    something to do with motorgliders. You also seem confused by the OLC: do you know you can
    look at more than one year? Start at 2007 (when OLC started), and work your way forward,
    to see where and how often I've flown. That will miss 21 years, unfortunately, but you
    have to start somewhere :^)

    I'd like to visit Florida again, but it's not a compelling glider destination, and it's
    3000 miles to get there. There are some great soaring areas along the way, so the trip can
    still be worthwhile, even if the destination has only modest offerings. Here's a better
    plan: we meet half way at Moriarty, where the soaring is much better, and so is the
    scenery. Maybe Dan will give us rides in his gyrocopter. Bring your oxygen bottle!

    --
    Eric Greenwell - USA
    - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jfitch@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed Aug 24 15:18:43 2022
    Old Bob, you aren't a Purist or you would be fishing from a rowboat or at least under sail. I'm still southbound on the boat, now in Canada near the north end of Vancouver Island. I may yet make it back for a few flights before End Of Season in Truckee.

    To answer your question, yes you have missed something, willfully and persistently. You define and contain your life to OLC. There are those of us (who are many) that don't give a damn about OLC and don't post there. I've said this before but it just
    whistles through the vacuum and out your other ear. Also, it is 22 years of motorglider experience, not 26 - let's stick to the facts (and not the alternative ones) - while you have no cross country motorglider experience at all. You've said as much, and
    we would have seen it as you live your life on OLC. I've told you where to find records of some of my flights, but you aren't really interested, I don't blame you for that, I'm not interested in yours or anyone else' typically.

    On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 1:21:15 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 5:07:07 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
    I cannot find a link on the SSA website to download anything. But:

    Dave seems to have had an unfortunate series of motorglider ownership experiences. Others have had better experiences. In 22 years, I have had exactly one failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plug), zero occurrences of in-
    flight failure or failure to start, and have had to take unwanted tows about 5 times (out of hundreds of launches) due either to scheduled or unscheduled maintenance of the engine.

    The glider part of a motorglider is no more complex than any glider. The engine installation makes it more complicated as a system, but the engine installation is not functionally required for towed operation, so reliability is identical to a towed
    glider, if considering the same task. Maintenance of the engine/glider system, in my estimation and with my glider, is about 3x what the glider alone would be - however less than the glider/Pawnee system maintenance alternative.

    In flight, there is definitely more complexity near a forced termination of flight (i.e. landout), if one wants to avail oneself of the option of self retrieve (and it is an option, not a necessity). One has to decide when to begin the engine start
    procedure, keeping in mind that it may not cooperate. I do agree that one should always act surprised if it starts (though as I mentioned I have always been surprised). If you don't like surprises, then don't exercise that option.

    If you cannot deal with the extra complexity, or cannot exercise the self control required to fly responsibly and depend on your life for surprises, then a motorglider is not for you. Where problems occur, they are most often in a mismatch of skill
    or expectation with reality. You cannot really say "motorgliders are unreliable" - compared to what? They are what they are. Just don't misunderstand what they are.
    Fitch, I hope you have returned back home safely from the adventures on the pacific into Alaska, I was pondering if and when you would return. I would consider Dave as an authority on motorgliders, although I have never met the gentleman I have seen
    some of his OLC flights, and his experience speaks for itself . You continue to talk about all this motorglider experience over 26 years yet I still only see a few flights posted. On the other hand Eric takes his motorglider to Ely and sits there the
    entire time working on his motorglider and posting only one flight, am I missing something?
    I certainly have not been as active lately as I would like to have been, the fishing boat is keeping me busy when I am not towing those fantastic purist. The invitation still stands, bring those motorglider down to Florida and we will go for a flight,
    Eric, make sure all the maintenance is done before you get here.
    Well, guess I better get going because tomorrow is a fishing day, headed out to the deep blue early and hopefully will bring home a few grouper for the evening dinner. Old Bob, The Purist. Except for the fishing boat, 900 hp of outboard.>
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:51:40 AM UTC-7, Frank Whiteley wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:52:52 AM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Frank Whiteley wrote on 8/15/2022 6:07 PM:
    ...
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that it
    was one of the better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    Until the August Soaring is available online, I can't quote any specifics from the article. In
    the meantime, ponder this: "unreliable" is a judgement, not a fact. >> --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, August 2022 is now online. Delayed through no fault of the SSA but the PDF was late this month. Delivery of the print edition has been a bit uneven also since maybe June. My July copy arrived 7/25, but my August arrived 8/7, yet I spoke
    with someone today still looking for his August copy. The office says there've been no production nor printing delays any month. The USPS advised businesses last fall that first class business mail would slow going forward, but nothing was said about
    other categories.

    Frank Whiteley

    Just got it! The delay was frustrating, as so many were referencing Dave's article, and I
    couldn't read it. It's puzzling the PDF isn't available weeks before the printed copy, as it
    requires nothing physical for it to be generated.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric,

    The PDF was not received until late last week and is modified before publication including indexing to make it word searchable and to add links and to improve some of the graphic elements. It is not fully up to our standards as received. The
    process is not as trivial as you think. I don't know what the delay was in getting it to the SSA.

    Frank

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to jfitch on Wed Aug 24 15:41:17 2022
    On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 6:18:45 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
    Old Bob, you aren't a Purist or you would be fishing from a rowboat or at least under sail. I'm still southbound on the boat, now in Canada near the north end of Vancouver Island. I may yet make it back for a few flights before End Of Season in Truckee.


    To answer your question, yes you have missed something, willfully and persistently. You define and contain your life to OLC. There are those of us (who are many) that don't give a damn about OLC and don't post there. I've said this before but it just
    whistles through the vacuum and out your other ear. Also, it is 22 years of motorglider experience, not 26 - let's stick to the facts (and not the alternative ones) - while you have no cross country motorglider experience at all. You've said as much, and
    we would have seen it as you live your life on OLC. I've told you where to find records of some of my flights, but you aren't really interested, I don't blame you for that, I'm not interested in yours or anyone else' typically.
    On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 1:21:15 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 5:07:07 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
    I cannot find a link on the SSA website to download anything. But:

    Dave seems to have had an unfortunate series of motorglider ownership experiences. Others have had better experiences. In 22 years, I have had exactly one failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plug), zero occurrences of in-
    flight failure or failure to start, and have had to take unwanted tows about 5 times (out of hundreds of launches) due either to scheduled or unscheduled maintenance of the engine.

    The glider part of a motorglider is no more complex than any glider. The engine installation makes it more complicated as a system, but the engine installation is not functionally required for towed operation, so reliability is identical to a towed
    glider, if considering the same task. Maintenance of the engine/glider system, in my estimation and with my glider, is about 3x what the glider alone would be - however less than the glider/Pawnee system maintenance alternative.

    In flight, there is definitely more complexity near a forced termination of flight (i.e. landout), if one wants to avail oneself of the option of self retrieve (and it is an option, not a necessity). One has to decide when to begin the engine start
    procedure, keeping in mind that it may not cooperate. I do agree that one should always act surprised if it starts (though as I mentioned I have always been surprised). If you don't like surprises, then don't exercise that option.

    If you cannot deal with the extra complexity, or cannot exercise the self control required to fly responsibly and depend on your life for surprises, then a motorglider is not for you. Where problems occur, they are most often in a mismatch of skill
    or expectation with reality. You cannot really say "motorgliders are unreliable" - compared to what? They are what they are. Just don't misunderstand what they are.
    Fitch, I hope you have returned back home safely from the adventures on the pacific into Alaska, I was pondering if and when you would return. I would consider Dave as an authority on motorgliders, although I have never met the gentleman I have seen
    some of his OLC flights, and his experience speaks for itself . You continue to talk about all this motorglider experience over 26 years yet I still only see a few flights posted. On the other hand Eric takes his motorglider to Ely and sits there the
    entire time working on his motorglider and posting only one flight, am I missing something?
    I certainly have not been as active lately as I would like to have been, the fishing boat is keeping me busy when I am not towing those fantastic purist. The invitation still stands, bring those motorglider down to Florida and we will go for a flight,
    Eric, make sure all the maintenance is done before you get here.
    Well, guess I better get going because tomorrow is a fishing day, headed out to the deep blue early and hopefully will bring home a few grouper for the evening dinner. Old Bob, The Purist. Except for the fishing boat, 900 hp of outboard.>
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:51:40 AM UTC-7, Frank Whiteley wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:52:52 AM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Frank Whiteley wrote on 8/15/2022 6:07 PM:
    ...
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that it
    was one of the better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    Until the August Soaring is available online, I can't quote any specifics from the article. In
    the meantime, ponder this: "unreliable" is a judgement, not a fact.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, August 2022 is now online. Delayed through no fault of the SSA but the PDF was late this month. Delivery of the print edition has been a bit uneven also since maybe June. My July copy arrived 7/25, but my August arrived 8/7, yet I spoke
    with someone today still looking for his August copy. The office says there've been no production nor printing delays any month. The USPS advised businesses last fall that first class business mail would slow going forward, but nothing was said about
    other categories.

    Frank Whiteley

    Just got it! The delay was frustrating, as so many were referencing Dave's article, and I
    couldn't read it. It's puzzling the PDF isn't available weeks before the printed copy, as it
    requires nothing physical for it to be generated.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric,

    The PDF was not received until late last week and is modified before publication including indexing to make it word searchable and to add links and to improve some of the graphic elements. It is not fully up to our standards as received. The
    process is not as trivial as you think. I don't know what the delay was in getting it to the SSA.

    Frank
    Fitch, Bro, you know that I love you, only pulling your chain. Yes fishing from the rowboat would take a while to get to the gulfstream, but the Freeman and 900 horses get me there in record time.
    Now about OLC, I too spent years skirting the sky with no OLC to post, kind of felt comfortable just having a great time and causing havoc among those motorglider guys. What really gets my goat is those damn cheaters among us all. I even had a purist
    cheat to gain a Florida record that should have never been permitted.
    Now the invitation still stands for you motorglider pukes, come on down to Vero Beach and fly with me here at FD25, you can motorhome here at my place, I will throw out the red carpet, Eileen will prepare her wonderful dish of fresh ceviche, and the
    booze will be on me. You can bring Eric, as long as he spends his time flying instead of working on the POS motorglider. Please keep that Dickhead 2G somewhere near the pacific northwest where he belongs, I would hate for him to stink up the entire
    neighborhood, that smell would be awful! Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Mocho@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 24 18:40:32 2022
    Please, leave Moriarty out of the equation for your showdown. We have some DHs here already, and do not require any more.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jfitch@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed Aug 24 18:52:19 2022
    Bob, they fished the Grand Banks in rowboats, surely the Gulf Stream should be a vacation by comparison.

    I'm with you on cheaters, but don't get apoplectic about it: of what use is it to claim even a national record, knowing in your heart you cheated to get it? The only value in it is the personal prestige felt; knowing you cheated there cannot be any - it
    is its own punishment.

    I'll probably not be back to Florida anytime soon (last time was on my sailboat). I like flying in the mountains, and Florida is bankrupt in that department.

    On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 3:41:19 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 6:18:45 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
    Old Bob, you aren't a Purist or you would be fishing from a rowboat or at least under sail. I'm still southbound on the boat, now in Canada near the north end of Vancouver Island. I may yet make it back for a few flights before End Of Season in
    Truckee.

    To answer your question, yes you have missed something, willfully and persistently. You define and contain your life to OLC. There are those of us (who are many) that don't give a damn about OLC and don't post there. I've said this before but it just
    whistles through the vacuum and out your other ear. Also, it is 22 years of motorglider experience, not 26 - let's stick to the facts (and not the alternative ones) - while you have no cross country motorglider experience at all. You've said as much, and
    we would have seen it as you live your life on OLC. I've told you where to find records of some of my flights, but you aren't really interested, I don't blame you for that, I'm not interested in yours or anyone else' typically.
    On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 1:21:15 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 5:07:07 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
    I cannot find a link on the SSA website to download anything. But:

    Dave seems to have had an unfortunate series of motorglider ownership experiences. Others have had better experiences. In 22 years, I have had exactly one failure to start (first start after the winter layup, fouled plug), zero occurrences of in-
    flight failure or failure to start, and have had to take unwanted tows about 5 times (out of hundreds of launches) due either to scheduled or unscheduled maintenance of the engine.

    The glider part of a motorglider is no more complex than any glider. The engine installation makes it more complicated as a system, but the engine installation is not functionally required for towed operation, so reliability is identical to a
    towed glider, if considering the same task. Maintenance of the engine/glider system, in my estimation and with my glider, is about 3x what the glider alone would be - however less than the glider/Pawnee system maintenance alternative.

    In flight, there is definitely more complexity near a forced termination of flight (i.e. landout), if one wants to avail oneself of the option of self retrieve (and it is an option, not a necessity). One has to decide when to begin the engine
    start procedure, keeping in mind that it may not cooperate. I do agree that one should always act surprised if it starts (though as I mentioned I have always been surprised). If you don't like surprises, then don't exercise that option.

    If you cannot deal with the extra complexity, or cannot exercise the self control required to fly responsibly and depend on your life for surprises, then a motorglider is not for you. Where problems occur, they are most often in a mismatch of
    skill or expectation with reality. You cannot really say "motorgliders are unreliable" - compared to what? They are what they are. Just don't misunderstand what they are.
    Fitch, I hope you have returned back home safely from the adventures on the pacific into Alaska, I was pondering if and when you would return. I would consider Dave as an authority on motorgliders, although I have never met the gentleman I have
    seen some of his OLC flights, and his experience speaks for itself . You continue to talk about all this motorglider experience over 26 years yet I still only see a few flights posted. On the other hand Eric takes his motorglider to Ely and sits there
    the entire time working on his motorglider and posting only one flight, am I missing something?
    I certainly have not been as active lately as I would like to have been, the fishing boat is keeping me busy when I am not towing those fantastic purist. The invitation still stands, bring those motorglider down to Florida and we will go for a
    flight, Eric, make sure all the maintenance is done before you get here.
    Well, guess I better get going because tomorrow is a fishing day, headed out to the deep blue early and hopefully will bring home a few grouper for the evening dinner. Old Bob, The Purist. Except for the fishing boat, 900 hp of outboard.>
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:51:40 AM UTC-7, Frank Whiteley wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:52:52 AM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Frank Whiteley wrote on 8/15/2022 6:07 PM:
    ...
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, my comments were far from myopic, actually this is one of the first articles that actually portray the motorglider for what it actually is. I do not know the author, could care less, but the facts were right on target, I felt that
    it was one of the better and more realistic accounts of the reliability of the motorglider. I wish there were more articles like this kind in Soaring, it did not take a stand either for or against, rather stated the facts. Old Bob, The Purist

    Until the August Soaring is available online, I can't quote any specifics from the article. In
    the meantime, ponder this: "unreliable" is a judgement, not a fact.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric, August 2022 is now online. Delayed through no fault of the SSA but the PDF was late this month. Delivery of the print edition has been a bit uneven also since maybe June. My July copy arrived 7/25, but my August arrived 8/7, yet I
    spoke with someone today still looking for his August copy. The office says there've been no production nor printing delays any month. The USPS advised businesses last fall that first class business mail would slow going forward, but nothing was said
    about other categories.

    Frank Whiteley

    Just got it! The delay was frustrating, as so many were referencing Dave's article, and I
    couldn't read it. It's puzzling the PDF isn't available weeks before the printed copy, as it
    requires nothing physical for it to be generated.
    --
    Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
    - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
    Eric,

    The PDF was not received until late last week and is modified before publication including indexing to make it word searchable and to add links and to improve some of the graphic elements. It is not fully up to our standards as received. The
    process is not as trivial as you think. I don't know what the delay was in getting it to the SSA.

    Frank
    Fitch, Bro, you know that I love you, only pulling your chain. Yes fishing from the rowboat would take a while to get to the gulfstream, but the Freeman and 900 horses get me there in record time.
    Now about OLC, I too spent years skirting the sky with no OLC to post, kind of felt comfortable just having a great time and causing havoc among those motorglider guys. What really gets my goat is those damn cheaters among us all. I even had a purist
    cheat to gain a Florida record that should have never been permitted.
    Now the invitation still stands for you motorglider pukes, come on down to Vero Beach and fly with me here at FD25, you can motorhome here at my place, I will throw out the red carpet, Eileen will prepare her wonderful dish of fresh ceviche, and the
    booze will be on me. You can bring Eric, as long as he spends his time flying instead of working on the POS motorglider. Please keep that Dickhead 2G somewhere near the pacific northwest where he belongs, I would hate for him to stink up the entire
    neighborhood, that smell would be awful! Old Bob, The Purist

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dan Marotta@21:1/5 to Eric Greenwell on Thu Aug 25 18:57:12 2022
    Sure! But I have to watch the gross weight!

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/24/22 16:24, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Here's a better plan: we meet half way at Moriarty, where the soaring is
    much better, and so is the scenery. Maybe Dan will give us rides in his gyrocopter. B

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Greenwell@21:1/5 to Dan Marotta on Thu Aug 25 20:03:36 2022
    On 8/25/2022 5:57 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
    Sure!  But I have to watch the gross weight!

    Dan
    5J

    On 8/24/22 16:24, Eric Greenwell wrote:
    Here's a better plan: we meet half way at Moriarty, where the soaring is much better,
    and so is the scenery. Maybe Dan will give us rides in his gyrocopter. B

    Bob and I would ride separately, of course!

    --
    Eric Greenwell - USA
    - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
    https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)