Avoiding the best eyesight contest

[yyz]

I've been lurking, thanks to Google Translate, on the German rc soaring threads and have noticed a common theme and/or concern about GPS Triangle racing and rc OLC (online soaring contest) flights where the pilots have clearly flown beyond what seems like the limits of human vision.

While I am wholeheartedly behind the "rules light" emphasis behind this form of flying, I believe that allowing flights beyond reasonable human vision is a recipe for disaster, literally. We could objectively make a list of bad scenarios but I don't think that is necessary. We all understand the dangers and responsibilities that go along with flying large, heavy and fast scale gliders.

A small group of us that aero tow at Visalia regularly have been trying to get as much on-the-job training as possible during our monthly meetings. The air is a bit dirty at this site and it is often very difficult to tow to or beyond the typical 500 meter (~1600 feet) AGL maximum course entry altitude but when you release, you are WAY up there. Modestly, I have better than average distance vision and can barely see a large 6-meter ship at that height even on clear days.

I noticed in one European OLC flight submission that the maximum altitude was over 1,500 meters (~5,000 feet)! Clearly, the gentleman "flying" the plane didn't have visual on the sailplane and was flying FPV-like (first person view ala flying a UAV using onboard video) using the SkyNavigator software and a softly-tuned glider.

My point is this: if this form of sailplane flying is going to become popular in the US (and other parts of the world for that matter) , do we really want it to turn into a contest of vision? Most of us are likely in the 30-60 something years-old range so clearly this doesn't help promote any growth in the sport.

My suggestion is this: like full-scale soaring, place an altitude cap on the flight. If you "bust" it (go over it) your flight gets zero (0) points. The "system" can be made to warn you when you are approaching this altitude and already indicates your current height so you KNOW how high you are.

I hate adding more rules, regulations, complications, etc to anything but some sanity needs to prevail here and make this a test of soaring ability and not how far you and your helper can see/guess/speculate. 600 meters is damn high and I think that should be the cap.

I would really appreciate other's thoughts and constructive criticism,

Mike

[eschlitzkus]

I don't like the 500 meter start height at all. 400 meters would be much better as a start height because you start at 500 to speed through the start line at 400. Still not much GPS action here on the east coast. Hope the cost of the units comes down so we can get enough people to make a contest.

[Steve P]

I did a 2500 tow at the New England event last wekeend. That's ENOUGH! Heck, full scale tows are only 2500 -- or 3000 if you're willing to spring for an extra $5 :-)

Flying RC at 5000 or relying on FPV is a huge risk and something that, if frequently documented, would be ripe for FAA intervention over here -- they already have their sights on RC airplanes. I like your suggestion of a cap, since the GPS event requires data, that one additional datapoint is not a big issue. I'm with Erich, we need dependable affordable equipment that makes this easy for folks to enter or for clubs to buy a few units and host events.

[stihac]

[QUOTE=Steve P;4028]I did a 2500 tow at the New England event last wekeend. That's ENOUGH! QUOTE]

I don't know much about GPS racing but I've seen Steve's 2500' tow last weekend and it sure was hard to see anything.

Petr

[yyz]

Thanks guys for your feedback. As I found out recently, traveling internationally with your glider to a GPS Triangle event is insanely and prohibitively expensive so I wonder if truly international competition will be feasible.

I am also curious if we shouldn't tweak the rules a bit to better suit our flying tastes/styles/regulations in the US.

Lowering the start gate to 400 meters from 500 meters would definitely be a good start, in my opinion. I also like the idea of the tow pilot dropping you off between 450 and 500 meters. The glider pilot sorts out what he does from there to the start line.

And we do need to find a cheaper solution for tracking the flights.

[RickS]

The software allows you to create a task with a maximum start height of 300, 400, or 500 meters. The distance to the pylons can be anywhere from 150 to 500 meters in 50 m increments. So if the visibility is no good, just create a lower and/or shorter course. There is no one height/distance that will be perfect for every day. I have seen days at all of the fields I have flown at where the vision was good to 900 + meters. And I have seen other days at those same fields where 400 m was a stretch.

Rick

[fnev]

I fully agree with YYZ suggestion/position. As a long time large glider (scale and non scale) builder and flier I am always amazed by some statements regarding the heights some people claim they are flying at. The same goes with distances, all of this within "visual" range. Today, with the advent of real time telemetry, it is very easy to check "the feel" against some hard facts. When flying with a 5 meter glider and asking experienced pilots who are watching at what height/distance the glider is, they are almost all the time completely out with their "guesses"...

I think this new format of flying model gliders in a competitive way is very exciting and may give a new dimension, therefore life, to this (relatively) confidential segment of our hobby. In France started over 20 years ago a format of contest called F3I (and sanctioned by the FAI). The gliders are smaller and must have a scale appearance with a minimum fuselage cross section and fit within the FAI rules (mass, wing loading). The towing altitude is 200 meters. You have a sped task and a duration task, too much like (larger) F3B for me. Why not taking some basis of this (recognized) event and reformat with the triangle racing ideas?

I have worked on a 5 meters machine that would fit within the FAI regulations but still retains the characteristics/performances of the large(r) scale models. It has a (very) scale look and its complexity (6 servos wing, retracts, etc). My idea is to "mass" produce this model (all composite) at a reasonable cost and this could become a "standard" type racing. One key design driver is to have a machine with a max mass of 5 kilos fully equipped (FAI) but able to take a "substantial" amount of ballast and still be able to sustain "high" G's flight loads.

Doing so will limit the sizes, costs, logistics and complexity of the triangle racing as it is developing right now. On top of this it would give the opportunity for a broader number of hobbyist to get involved with a very exciting event. It will as well simplify greatly the organization of such events as the required "air space" and the foot print on the ground wouldn't be as stringent and would "open" more fields to such contest.

[yyz]

Rick,

That makes sense if you are going to have a contest where everyone flies the same set of rules, at the same venue and on the same set of days. However, it doesn't work for the OLC flights where flights from all over the world are compared and a "winner" determined at the end of the year. Not a real big deal having that merit badge for most of us but it would be nice to have a level playing field so that truly could fly and compare flights with pilots in other parts of the world.

Sure, we could go out the desert and fly much higher in clearer skies but then it's a test of where you live and where you fly rather than how good of a pilot you are. Maybe it just is the way it is and we all go see our optometrist and get thicker glasses....

Mike

The software allows you to create a task with a maximum start height of 300, 400, or 500 meters. The distance to the pylons can be anywhere from 150 to 500 meters in 50 m increments. So if the visibility is no good, just create a lower and/or shorter course. There is no one height/distance that will be perfect for every day. I have seen days at all of the fields I have flown at where the vision was good to 900 + meters. And I have seen other days at those same fields where 400 m was a stretch.

Rick

[yyz]

You're agreement with me aside, I think this is a step in the right direction. It sounds like we have similar backgrounds so that might be driving the similarity in thinking.

On one hand, I really like the idea of a one-design class. The sailboat racing community has been doing that for decades and it just makes sense. On the other hand, I go out of my way to have a glider that not many other people have. If I am going to spend the money and time to build something, I would like it to be unique. Maybe that's just my thing.

Personally, I like flying 1:3 scale gliders as that size feels very real, performance wise, and are reasonably visible at modest altitudes. The extra room in the fuselage and lack of issue with attaining a fixed all-up competitive weight are pluses as well. You're right on the money with your 5 meter span as that is 1:3 of the standard and 15-meter class full-scale gliders. Unfortunately, almost everyone that has such a glider is flying it with the "18 meter" tips which wouldn't be allowed in your 5 meter class. Maybe you need to go up a meter?

It's really not at all surprising that the GPS "heavy hitters" are flying the 1:3 scale Duo Discus and Arcus. Those both have very stable (easy to fly) geometries, with reasonable aspect ratios (are visible) and maximize span in the "class" (better performance). It would be interesting to see how a well built 1:3 Nimbus 4, ASW-22 or other uber open-class ship would do if it was made strong enough to fly at maximum wing loading (high speed). At that point, you need to start breaking up the "1:3" class into subclasses to be fair but you have so few people flying that it doesn't make much sense to separate them.

My point about the limited altitude was to at least get everyone flying in the "same air", make the visual aspect of the activity more prominent (think wife, girlfriend, other onlooker) and truly test piloting skills.

This might also be a very strong motivator:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/29/opinio...-plane-attack/

Off the podium for a while,

Mike

I fully agree with YYZ suggestion/position. As a long time large glider (scale and non scale) builder and flier I am always amazed by some statements regarding the heights some people claim they are flying at. The same goes with distances, all of this within "visual" range. Today, with the advent of real time telemetry, it is very easy to check "the feel" against some hard facts. When flying with a 5 meter glider and asking experienced pilots who are watching at what height/distance the glider is, they are almost all the time completely out with their "guesses"...

I think this new format of flying model gliders in a competitive way is very exciting and may give a new dimension, therefore life, to this (relatively) confidential segment of our hobby. In France started over 20 years ago a format of contest called F3I (and sanctioned by the FAI). The gliders are smaller and must have a scale appearance with a minimum fuselage cross section and fit within the FAI rules (mass, wing loading). The towing altitude is 200 meters. You have a sped task and a duration task, too much like (larger) F3B for me. Why not taking some basis of this (recognized) event and reformat with the triangle racing ideas?

I have worked on a 5 meters machine that would fit within the FAI regulations but still retains the characteristics/performances of the large(r) scale models. It has a (very) scale look and its complexity (6 servos wing, retracts, etc). My idea is to "mass" produce this model (all composite) at a reasonable cost and this could become a "standard" type racing. One key design driver is to have a machine with a max mass of 5 kilos fully equipped (FAI) but able to take a "substantial" amount of ballast and still be able to sustain "high" G's flight loads.

Doing so will limit the sizes, costs, logistics and complexity of the triangle racing as it is developing right now. On top of this it would give the opportunity for a broader number of hobbyist to get involved with a very exciting event. It will as well simplify greatly the organization of such events as the required "air space" and the foot print on the ground wouldn't be as stringent and would "open" more fields to such contest.

[fnev]

Well, I do see your point but with all the "upcoming regulations" (???) I believe that starting on a basis that would fit the FAI rules could alleviate potential "hurdles" down the road... Believe me this is going to be a major (no kidding) problem pretty soon. This is the main reason I (personally) will stick to 5 meters span/5 kilos compliant gliders from now on. Regarding the mass you always can "cheat" if your design allows for ballast. In fact the design I came up with shows the best performances around 7 kilos all up mass. For info: all calculations are done with pretty powerful softwares that I use for my work.

The other advantages of staying within a "reasonable" size are the relative ease of packaging/transport. I do travel by plane with my gliders and a 2 meters box is well accepted on most airlines if organized well ahead of departure. There again the all up mass of the box plays an important roll as the airline companies become more and more stringent regrading the mass of each individual items you want to take along. This has nothing to do with the weight limits but is linked to the handling and what ground personal may have to carry.

When I was speaking of a mono class, this is only one aspect as within the basic design drivers I briefly explained anyone could come up with its own design. In the process you would get a next level of competition and, maybe, a similar design/manufacturing explosion of ideas like the F3B/F3J disciplines are experiencing today.