Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
I fully agree with Gary and Mike D the handicaps for the 19 20m gliders need
improving for these gliders to be competitive in open class
With respect to the current generation of 18m gliders the handicaps for flying
these in open class should be such to discourage this from happening or ban
them from open class.
At the 2010 multi class flying my nimbus 2, I was told by my European
competitor flying a 18m glider in open class that I was flying really good but
if I wanted to be competitive I needed to upgrade to a 18m hot ship !
Peter
Sent from my HTC
- Reply message -
From: Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au
To: apos;Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.apos;
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Subject: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Date: Thu, Aug 18, 2011 11:20
Hi Gary Mike DAs promised I have asked the Handicap Committee to review your
comments regarding the current handicaps. Firstly, Re Mike Durrant’s comments,
the handicap Committee takes handicap complaints seriously, they assess the
gliders performance and polar carefully and usually err in favour of the
complainant. It was a surprise to the committee to hear that there is a
problem with the Jantar 19 and they have committed to review all of these older
open class sports handicaps for the next season. This should ideally address
any issues with the Nimbus 2 that Robert Hart raised also. Secondly with regard
to Gary Stevens’ comments, the Committee wants it to be known categorically
that they address all pilot requests without bias. ( One of the committee
members in fact, I couldn’t improve the ASW20B handicap, even though he
believed it needed adjusting, until he had sold his own ASW20B to avoid this
implication of bias). The handicap review took into account ALL submissions
made by pilots and reviewed ALL the aircraft on the MultiClass and Club and
Sports Class Handicap Lists. This was a comprehensive review which went back
to absolute basics of the handicaps and rebuilt them from the ground up. The
technical data, international experience and handicaps, aircraft age,
differences in technology, and local soaring conditions were all taken into
account. The results of the review are encompassed in the current handicaps now
published on the GFA website. Best regards, ROSS From:
aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Ross McLean
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 10:44 PM
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Hi Gary Mike DThanks for your emails,
very much appreciated. I have referred them to the Handicap Committee for
discussion and will respond back to this forum with their thoughts and comments
asap.As Bruce is still returning from Uvalde (with a very heavy 18m 1st Place
winner’s trophy) it may take a few days but I will get back to you.ROSS From:
aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of
gstev...@bigpond.com
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 8:50 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.; 'tom claffey'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Hi Ross,I understand that the HC was
reviewing handicaps, mainly to update and/or correct anomalies resulting from
incorrect original input data, new data, manufacturer's changes to designs, and
such like, rather than making radical changes. In a volunteer organisation, it
is not surprising that such anomalies can and do occur, and indeed you and your
Committee (and those that have gone before you), have generally done a good job
under sometimes (no doubt), trying circumstances. I applaud your recent
earlier request to aircraft owners to contact you, in the case of seemingly
erroneous handicaps. You, and fellow committee members are not mind readers,
after all! Can you/Will you/Are you now in a position, to give us a detailed
update, on all the glider types considered in the review, and the changes (if
any), that the Committee decided to instigate, as a result of the review? If
the review still has some way to go, when do you expect the Committee's
findings and decisions to be made known? I do appreciate that a written report
to the Australian Gliding Fraternity may involve some/a lot of work on your
part, but I think that in the past, the reasons for some (no doubt necessary),
changes have not been explained - either adequately, or at all, and led in some
quarters, to ongoing resentment to seemingly biased decisions, by the
Committee. {Is it possible that Nigel is possibly suggesting this - tongue in
cheek of course! .Gasp!} In this day and age transparency is everything. I
await your response with interest. Gary- Original Message - From: Ross
McLean To: 'tom claffey' ; 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in
Australia.' Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 6:45 PMSubject: Re: [Aus-soaring]
Aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
On 18/08/11 11:26, Ross McLean wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. Ross I haven't noticed many ASW20's flying in open class, so I really don't see the relevance of that comment. What I do see is that there is (apparently) only 1% difference between the 1960's aerodynamics of the Nimbus 2 and the 1980's aerodynamics of the ASH26 (even allowing for the significant difference in span). Furthermore, the Duo DIscus (again 1980's aerodynamic technology) now has a 2% *advantage* over a Nimbus 2 (and virtually the same span). I truly do not understand. I would REALLY love to see how these are calculated - is the formula published? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Give me the ASW20 any day :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 11:26 AM, Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:46 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Mike and All, If you really want to buy one, I have HDY (15/16.6m configurations), with many extras ready to go, with a fresh Form 2, at around $60,000! Google Mike Maddock's site at Maddog Composites, and check out Trading Post for basic details and a photo. If this appeals, either email me or give me a call on 03 5352 4938. Regards, Gary - Original Message - From: Mike Durrant To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Cc: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring inAustralia. Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Give me the ASW20 any day :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 11:26 AM, Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:46 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au+61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring -- ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
JUST FLY FASTER ! From: gstev...@bigpond.com To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net CC: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:16:48 +1000 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Hi Mike and All, If you really want to buy one, I have HDY (15/16.6m configurations), with many extras ready to go, with a fresh Form 2, at around $60,000! Google Mike Maddock's site at Maddog Composites, and check out Trading Post for basic details and a photo. If this appeals, either email me or give me a call on 03 5352 4938. Regards, Gary - Original Message - From: Mike Durrant To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Cc: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring inAustralia. Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Give me the ASW20 any day :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 11:26 AM, Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:46 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au+61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Robert It wasn't a gratuitous statement honestly. I was just trying to show that the relationship between the Nimbus and the equivalent age 15 Metre hasn't changed. The ASW20 is from the same era as the Nimbus 2 and the ASG29 is the same era as the Nimbus 4. Plus Open Class is just that, there is nothing preventing an ASW20 competing in Open Class then or now. The problem facing the handicappers is that the Nimbus 2 technology is over 40 years old (1971 first production Nimbus 2) and the ASG29/JS1 is state of the art 21st Century aerodynamics technology. An awful lot of advancement has occurred in aerodynamics and composite technology in 40 years. Add to that the condition of the airframe, wing surface, seals, flexibility, weight and so on, you can begin to see the scale of the problem one is presenting to the handicappers. It is the equivalent of trying to make Jack Brabham's 1971 Formula 1 race car competitive with the current Red Bull F1 race car, it just can't be done effectively. Nothing personal or derogatory to yourself or the beautiful Nimbus 2 aircraft is intended at all. Best regards, ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 8:46 PM To: Ross McLean; Soaring in Australia Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 18/08/11 11:26, Ross McLean wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. Ross I haven't noticed many ASW20's flying in open class, so I really don't see the relevance of that comment. What I do see is that there is (apparently) only 1% difference between the 1960's aerodynamics of the Nimbus 2 and the 1980's aerodynamics of the ASH26 (even allowing for the significant difference in span). Furthermore, the Duo DIscus (again 1980's aerodynamic technology) now has a 2% advantage over a Nimbus 2 (and virtually the same span). I truly do not understand. I would REALLY love to see how these are calculated - is the formula published? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
In the late 70s were 15M speeds faster than open class speeds? I think Malcom Jinks and Tony Tabart would disagree! Tom From: Mike Durrant durr...@gmail.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Cc: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring inAustralia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Give me the ASW20 any day :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 11:26 AM, Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. ROSS From:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:46 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Back in the 80s I remember flying GOD in Nationals at Waikerie where we started as soon as we could and finished most days at dusk just squeezing home over the fence.long time since I have flown those kind of tasks.once you cruise all day above 80 give me a ASW 20...it's the combination of tasking and the polar envelope you are using that has changed...IMHO Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 19/08/2011, at 1:06 AM, tom claffey to...@yahoo.com wrote: In the late 70s were 15M speeds faster than open class speeds? I think Malcom Jinks and Tony Tabart would disagree! Tom From: Mike Durrant durr...@gmail.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Cc: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring inAustralia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Give me the ASW20 any day :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 11:26 AM, Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:46 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
And hit the ground earlier :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 10:20 PM, Mark Goodley markgood...@hotmail.com wrote: JUST FLY FASTER ! From: gstev...@bigpond.com To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net CC: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:16:48 +1000 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Hi Mike and All, If you really want to buy one, I have HDY (15/16.6m configurations), with many extras ready to go, with a fresh Form 2, at around $60,000! Google Mike Maddock's site at Maddog Composites, and check out Trading Post for basic details and a photo. If this appeals, either email me or give me a call on 03 5352 4938. Regards, Gary - Original Message - From: Mike Durrant To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Cc: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring inAustralia. Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Give me the ASW20 any day :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 11:26 AM, Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:46 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
On 18/08/11 23:47, Ross McLean wrote: The problem facing the handicappers is that the Nimbus 2 technology is over 40 years old (1971 first production Nimbus 2) and the ASG29/JS1 is state of the art 21^st Century aerodynamics technology. An awful lot of advancement has occurred in aerodynamics and composite technology in 40 years. Ross I thought the point of handicaps was specifically to address the above issue. The condition of the aircraft is not something that should concern the handicappers - they should just assume the aircraft is 'as new' (or as best fettled) and compare with other 'as new' gliders. Is there a formula being used to calculate handicaps factoring in such things as max/min wing loading and polar? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
[Aus-soaring] Darling Downs weather for the weekend of 20 - 21 August 2011 - updated
Hi folks The updated forecast is available at http://the-white-knight-speaks.blogspot.com - it still looks like a reasonably good weekend. -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
At 01:06 AM 19/08/2011, you wrote: In the late 70s were 15M speeds faster than open class speeds? I think Malcom Jinks and Tony Tabart would disagree! Tom Would someone please dig up the results from say the Renmark Nationals(Cirrus and Hornet in Standard class vs Nimbus etc in Open), the following year at Narromine and Benalla 79-80 and Waikerie 80 - 81(15m classes and at Narromine in 77-78 the 15m and Open flew the same tasks - 15M was in Open class too), Narromine 81 - 82(LS4 came on the scene) and see how these terrible old gliders went when flown by good pilots, please? Just use the speeds of the people from first down to 90% of the winning score. Then we can all bleat from a position of knowledge. Probably less fun, though. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978 phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Well, I can't help much but here goes. I don't have any results from Narromine 1978, and I have points results but no speeds from Waikerie 81. Average winners speeds were: YearPlaceOpen15M Std 77Renmark 112.9 (.94) 106.6 (.97) 103.5 79Cunderdin 97.1 (.99)96.6 (.91) 87.8 80Benalla 114.4 (.97) 110.8 (.93) 102.5 Overall108.1 (.97) 104.7 (.94) 97.9 The figures in brackets are the percentage speed differences between the classes (Open-15m and 15m-Std). I only used winners speeds (I'm not that much of a masochist and anyway winners speed is all that is often available) but I have researched before and found a good deal of consistency in the spread of speeds, so it is probably still a fair comparison. In all those contests Open and 15 metre flew the same task - though of course the start gate opening would have been different. Nimbus 2's won every contest in Open Class, 15M were shared (Pik 20, Mini-Nimbus and ASW20) and in Standard Class Hornet, Cirrus and Jantar shared the honours. Differences seem larger when speeds are higher, in favour of Open Class - which would question the lead-sled theory - and the difference between Open and 15 Metre is generally less than between 15 metre and standard. I found only a couple of individual days when a 15 metre winning speed was higher than an Open class winning speed, and when that happened it was by a whisker. You were definitely better off with long wings, and probably still are. Cheers /Tim/ /tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare/ On 19/08/2011 10:40, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 01:06 AM 19/08/2011, you wrote: In the late 70s were 15M speeds faster than open class speeds? I think Malcom Jinks and Tony Tabart would disagree! Tom Would someone please dig up the results from say the Renmark Nationals(Cirrus and Hornet in Standard class vs Nimbus etc in Open), the following year at Narromine and Benalla 79-80 and Waikerie 80 - 81(15m classes and at Narromine in 77-78 the 15m and Open flew the same tasks - 15M was in Open class too), Narromine 81 - 82(LS4 came on the scene) and see how these terrible old gliders went when flown by good pilots, please? Just use the speeds of the people from first down to 90% of the winning score. Then we can all bleat from a position of knowledge. Probably less fun, though. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978 phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
A little earlier (1974) but lots of good Nimbus 2 vs. Std. Cirrus data here: http://www.ssa.org/usteam/adobe%20pdf/1974%20WGC.pdf ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
At 03:24 PM 19/08/2011, you wrote: Well, I can't help much but here goes. I don't have any results from Narromine 1978, and I have points results but no speeds from Waikerie 81. Average winners speeds were: YearPlaceOpen15M Std 77Renmark 112.9 (.94) 106.6 (.97) 103.5 79Cunderdin 97.1 (.99)96.6 (.91) 87.8 80Benalla 114.4 (.97) 110.8 (.93) 102.5 Overall108.1 (.97) 104.7 (.94) 97.9 Thanks, Tim. I wasn't there but they were still talking about the great weather at Renmark the next year at Narromine. Cunderdin was low and blue with broken thermals so the Open class may have been at a disadvantage in the climbs at times. The Benalla contest was a good mix of weather and these results would seem to show that the Open Class gliders of the day, mainly Nimbus 2s were a bit better than the ASW20 etc. Maybe the feeling that they aren't as good is because of the pilots nowadays? Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978 phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
