Flytec
Wills Wing

Oz Report

Volume 4, Number 36
Tuesday, February 22 2000

https://OzReport.com
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

to Table of Contentsto next topic CIVL democracy

Mon, Feb 21 2000, 11:00:00 pm GMT

CIVL|Dennis Pagen

Notice all the debate that has raged around the issues that will be discussed at the upcoming CIVL meeting (this week)? (If not you may want to subscribe to the CIVL mailing list by sending an e-mail message to «robot» with the command: subscribe civl-info-l).

Did you ever see as much comment and commotion before a CIVL meeting?  I doubt if there has ever been as much ferment and debate about the relevant issues as there has been before this meeting.

That doesn't mean that all the discussion is well informed, or that the answers have been found, but it does mean that the hang gliding community will be much better represented at this meeting, than they have in a long time.  People got excited about Class II definitions, about glider safety standards (but not about wheels). It was great to see these and other issues get a thorough airing.

The USHGA has a new President and a new Competition Committee Chairman, and together they are making sure that pilot's opinions are being heard by our CIVL representative, Dennis Pagen, and through him, the entire CIVL board of directors.  The members of the USHGA Competition Committee, as well as top competition pilots, have been poled about the relevant issues.  The e-mail that has gone out from many interested pilots has had a very big effect on how the USHGA will be represented at this CIVL meeting.

But this is not just a US phenomenon.  Due to the international nature of the Internet, pilots from around the world have responded to the upcoming issues and contacted their representatives to discuss their positions.

A commitment to hearing the pilot's concerns, a major new means of communication, a free and unfettered press, and new leadership in our membership organization has made for great changes, and I expect these to continue.

Discuss "CIVL democracy" at the Oz Report forum   link»

to Table of Contentsto next topic Enough with the Swifts already

Mon, Feb 21 2000, 11:00:01 pm GMT

CIVL|David "Dave" Sharp|Dennis Pagen

I have been told that most CIVL representatives want to get the Swifts (and their associated fully-faired brethren) out of Class II (or out of competition with hang gliders). As we understand it, Dennis Pagen was assigned by CIVL the task of coming up with a way to do that, and you got to see the results of that effort (https://OzReport.com/4.15). Dennis has now been instructed by the USHGA Competition Committee to vote against his own proposal.

While it has been argued that Dennis' proposal will not accomplish CIVL's goal, that doesn't mean that a new proposal won't come to the fore, which accomplishes the goal of separating the hang gliders from the sailplanes (although probably not in time to stop their migration to Florida this spring).

Dave Sharp, and others, have argued for weight limits, and we expect this discussion to take place at the CIVL meeting.  Weight limits are linked generally to foot-launch ability, so there is an opening there.  Weight limits don't have to be strict, but could allow for other evidence of foot launch ability if certain weights are exceeded.  They could be applied to Class I and Class II gliders as currently defined.

Dave has consistently argued that weight limits also make it quite difficult to incorporate full fairings on these sailplanes.  If true, then we're back to gliders with similar performances competing against each other.

Discuss "Enough with the Swifts already" at the Oz Report forum   link»

to Table of Contentsto next topic More on aluminum aerofoil base tubes

Mon, Feb 21 2000, 11:00:02 pm GMT

James Freeman|Kevin Frost

Kevin Frost, «StaHi», writes regarding the aerofoil base tubes from James Freeman:

Just got mine, pretty enough to hang on the wall.  But…you gotta figure out the 'right' angle yourself, then drill the holes and hope you are correct.  My idea is to put a streamer low on the nose wire or at the end of an old Hall wind indicator extension and as I fly the glider at 45 mph mark a line on a DT parallel to the streamer.  Any better ideas?  Is 45 a reasonable speed to use?

James Freeman, «jfreeman», writes back:

Figuring out the angle is done just as Kevin suggests.  You want a 0° AoA for the speedbar at whatever speed you glide at most often - say 35mph. A piece of yarn on the front wire that extends past the downtube works fine.  Fly at the desired speed with flaps/VG at optimal setting, mark where the wool intersects the upright with a felt pen.  Land.  On the ground use a straight edge to mark on the upright a line from the wool on the front wire to the intersection mark on the upright . Measure the angle.  This is exactly the angle you need to set the 0° AoA.

Alternatively you can just eyeball the speedbar to align with the marked line.  Hang gliders operate from about 5-15° AoA (roughly). Best glide is around 7° AoA.  On most gliders the A-frame is raked forward relative to a perpendicular to the keel by about 7-8°. Taking the keel as the 0° AoA reference (fairly close but not actually correct) you can see that you need to angle the base tube long axis down by around 15 (7+~7-8) degrees with respect to a perpendicular to the upright.  This is a small but noticeable amount.  All angles are approximate and depend on A-frame rake, sail planform, sweep, twist, VG setting, anhedral/dihedral.

The stall angle for the base tube is about +/-11° (symmetrical). The coefficient of drag does not actually change much in the range -8 to +8°. In other words you have ~16-22° to play with versus the ~10° AoA range we fly in which gives you some margin.  As parasitic drag is at a maximum at high speeds (low AoA) it may be better to set for a 0° AoA at these speeds, although you will as a result be close to stall AoA for the bar at low (thermalling) speeds.  Using a wool tuft lets you choose whatever speed you like.  A tad over best glide is probably optimal.

You must not under any circumstances set the bar perpendicular to the upright, it must be aimed downwards.  Perpendicular it will only have a 0° AoA at negative glider AoA's - who wants optimal performance in a tumble!

Discuss "More on aluminum aerofoil base tubes" at the Oz Report forum   link»

to Table of Contentsto next topic James on helmets

Mon, Feb 21 2000, 11:00:03 pm GMT

helmet|James Freeman|Lowell Tindell

Lowell Tindell, «pixures», wrote into the Oz Report asking if I could recommend a safe helmet.  I asked James Freeman, James Freeman, «jfreeman», and here's what he said::

I wrote the article on helmets to give you an idea what to look for.

Helmets certified to EN966 are at least tested to a standard

Bicycle helmets in general seem better than many full face HG helmets because they have significantly thicker foam, especially at the front of the head which is where hang glider pilots often impact.

My helmet is a Nocai, which was a German Helmet manufacturer who used a foam bicycle helmet as the basis of the helmet.  This then had a fiberglass shell added.  The resulting helmet is light, comfortable and passed EN966. Unfortunately they have gone out of business.

Carbon/Kevlar shells are fine but they are not going to help you in most circumstances.  Crushable foam, and the foam alone absorbs the impact.  The hard shell will only help if you hit a sharp object by spreading the load to the foam.  From the point of view of what you hit in a crash most of the earth is flat (at least in comparison to the size of a helmet), so the shell usually does nothing.  It does help to protect the foam but I wouldn't get to hung up on shell material.

We will be manufacturing open face helmets like my Nocai at our flight park.  The first protos have been made and when I get around to it we will get them certified and on the market.  This project is on the back burner because we have more important projects (i.e. one's which will make some money!) to complete first.

Sorry I can't say, "buy this."

Remember it's better to use your superior judgment and skills to avoid situations where you have to use your superior helmet.

Discuss "James on helmets" at the Oz Report forum   link»

to Table of Contentsto next topic Michael Champlin XC Contest results

Mon, Feb 21 2000, 11:00:04 pm GMT

Michael Champlin XC Contest 1999|John Scott

The results of the 1999 Michael Champlin XC contest follow:

Pilot Points Craft
Mark Poustinchian 4687.76 Rw, Fw
Davis Straub 4662.04 RW
Armand Acchione 4056.25 FW
Ramy Yanetz 3500.00 RW
Pete Lehman 3450.00 FW
Larry Bunner 3281.11 FW
Kevin Fost 3215.00 RW
John James 2891.25 FW
Bo Hagewood 2780.00 FW
Tony Deleo 2751.35 PG
Rich Burton 2730.00 FW
Eric Reed 2480.51 PG
Greg Dinauer 2210.00 Rw, Fw
Fleming Lauridsen 2134.92 FW
Stewart Midwinter 2051.51 RW
Mark Bolt 1835.00 FW
Dan Chappell 1638.00 RW
Scott Smith 1475.00 FW
Deane Williams 1241.84 RW
John Greynald 1100.00 FW
Roman Lotric 1100.00 PG
Ralf Market 1100.00 PG
Dave Wheden 1100.00 FW
Warren Seipman 1100.00 FW
Marc Hill 1100.00 PG
Mike Degtoff 1100.00 FW
Russ Brown 1097.00 FW
John Scott 1096.50 FW
David Taylor 1084.27 FW
Nancy Smith 1080.00 FW
Per-Arne Holmstad 1000.00 PG
Rita Edris 989.00 RW
Thomas Mullin 880.00 FW
D. Ulisnik 764.71 PG
Lori Allen 399.50 FW
Tim McIntyre 366.50 FW
Dan Maguire 298.00 FW
James Asher 200.00 FW
Tom Lanning 187.50 FW
John Ivey 92.50 FW

John Scott, «brettonwoods», writes:

The Michael Champlin World XC Challenge is a yearlong cross-country contest designed to allow pilots from every region and soaring craft the opportunity to compete against one another.  There is no entry fee or pre-registration requirements.  The Challenge is open to sailplanes, hang gliders, foot-launch rigid wings and paragliders.

Because of the disparity in not only the performance levels among aircraft, but in regional XC potential as well, a handicapping system has been applied.  To keep things simple the Challenge uses site distance records as the basis for scoring.  Hang glider pilots will score themselves against hang glider records; paraglider pilots will score themselves against paragliding records, etc.  Multi-wing pilots can submit scores for each aircraft, or submit multi-craft scores for one total.  To help pilots determine their flight scores a site record page has been set up under the heading "Sites." As you look over the various records listed on the page, please feel free to add any other records that you know about; we encourage you.

The Challenge has three divisions: "Open," for flights that take place on any day (including weekends) throughout the year; "Weekend," for, like the name implies, flights that take place on weekends only; and "Single Surface," for flights that take place on single surface hang gliders.  Each pilot may compete in all three divisions.

The Rules

Scoring: For each flight score divide your flight mileage by that particular site' s distance record then multiply by 1000. For example, if a site record is 100 miles and a pilot flies 75, then that pilot will score 750 points ((75/100) *1000). If a pilot breaks a site record, however, the maximum allowable score for the flight is 1100 pts.  (1000 pts.  for the flight itself, plus 100 pts in bonus).

Pilots will submit their top 5 scores from at least two different sites.  If a pilot only flies one site then that pilot will only be allowed to submit 4 scores.  The highest point total possible is 5500; a pilot will have to break the distance record of 5 different sites to achieve it. Please round scores to the hundredth place.  Also, except for record-breaking flights, flight distances are to be measured in half-mile increments rounded backwards.  As stated on the "Home Page," pilots base their scores on the site records of their individual aircraft.

If a site record is broken during the course of the competition year, all other scores for that site will be dropped to the relationship of the new record.  If a site record is broken more than once the previous record holder will be allowed to keep his/her bonus points, but will have their overall score for the site dropped according to the new relationship, including if it is the same pilot.  Site records broken by nonparticipating pilots WILL BE RECOGNIZED.

Site Rules: The site record has to have been established before the first of the year.  It must be at least 50kms.  Triangles and "Out and Returns" are allowed if a site has established records for each.  Pilots must fly complete Triangles and Out and Returns.  Triangles must meet FAI requirements: the shortest leg must be equal to or greater than 28% of the total.

Foot Launched Rigid Wing Rules:

Existing RW site records must be at least 50 miles, and EXCEED all other records for the site, excluding sailplane records.

The following rules apply to sites that don't have established RW records or if they fall short of the criteria set above:

1) Pilots will use existing FW or PG records, depending on which is the farthest.

2) No bonus points will be given out until after the existing FW or PG record is broken ONCE.

3) If there is no existing RW record and the longest FW or PG record is less than 50 miles (the 50km minimum still applies), RW pilots will base their scores on 50 miles, not the FW or PG record.  Pilots can start earning bonus points if and when they break the 50 mile barrier at these particular sites.

Single Surface Hang Gliding Division

For the equivalent of hang 4s and higher, single surface records used for scoring will be based on 60% of the double surface record at the start of the year; this would not change if the double surface record happens to be broken during the course of the year.  It would change, however, if a single surface pilot flies further than the 60% mark.  That pilot will earn 1100 points, and provide the marker for which single surface scores for that site will be based.  For the equivalent of hang 3s and lower, records will be based on 40% of the double surface record; this would not change if the double surface OR hang 4 single surface record is broken during the course of the year.

For sites that have known single surface records, the equivalent of hang 4s and higher will use the record as the basis for scoring, not whatever 60% of the double surface record may be. Hang 3s and lower will base their scores on ⅔s the known record, not 40% of the double surface record; this would not change if the record is broken by a hang 4 pilot during the course of the year.

The single surface division is separate from the main contest.  If single surface pilots want to compete against double surface records, however, they are more than welcome do to so, and can participate in the Open and Weekend divisions.

Winning Scores:

Pilots must submit their HONOR SYSTEM scores by February 1st of the following year.  The winners will be awarded their prizes shortly thereafter once their scores are checked for accuracy.  For those pilots who think they have a chance of winning please keep a record of all of your flights for the year; in the event of a tie, you will be asked to submit your 6th highest point total and so on until a clear winner is decided.  Although pilots don' t have to submit their scores until February of the following, we encourage you to submit your flights now.

Discuss "Michael Champlin XC Contest results" at the Oz Report forum   link»

to Table of Contentsto next topic Help Save Our Sites

Mon, Feb 21 2000, 11:00:05 pm GMT

Don Mills|John Redding|Northern California Foot Launched Pilots Association|USHGA

Don Mills, «Glidedon», writes:

The Northern California Foot Launched Pilots Association based in Redding Ca. has been instrumental in developing and improving 10 flying sites in northern CA. The NCFLPA currently insures 7 sites.  One of the sites is in the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area, one of the few places in the country where flying is allowed in a park administered by the National Park Service.  Four sites involve agreements with private property owners.  The remainder are on USFS land.

These sites include: Hat Creek Rim Herd Peak Whaleback South Fork Mt./Shasta Bally WNRA Shasta Dam Mammoth Mine

We need your help in securing these sites for future pilots.  We feel that it is important to keep these sites insured and in continuous use in order to keep legacy rights to the sites.

Unfortunately due to dwindling local pilot involvement, the hard work and effort that has gone into the development of these sites over past years may go to waste.  Our current liability is about $800.00 a year to insure these sites.  We are currently trying to establish an endowment fund to invest and pay for insurance on these sites.  Any contribution you could make would help this effort and help secure these sites for the future.

Make checks payable to Northern California Foot Launched Pilots Association (NCFLPA ) and Mail to:

NCFLPA Site Fund
P. O. Box 491686
Redding, CA 96049-1686

If you do not wish to make a donation but would like to join our club, dues are $25.00 per year and come with radio frequency privileges on clear channels (except in major metropolitan areas ). The radio privileges are worth it alone if you're not a ham.

Sincerely,

Don Mills, USHGA 54088 NCFLPA, USHGA PC007 Past President, Secretary, Treasurer, Safety Officer, Fund Raiser

Discuss "Help Save Our Sites" at the Oz Report forum   link»

The Oz Report, a near-daily, world wide hang gliding news ezine, with reports on competitions, pilot rankings, political issues, fly-ins, the latest technology, ultralight sailplanes, reader feedback and anything else from within the global HG community worthy of coverage. Hang gliding, paragliding, hang gliders, paragliders, aerotowing, hang glide, paraglide, platform towing, competitions, fly-ins. Hang gliding and paragliding news from around the world, by Davis Straub.

The Oz Report is being read from (approximately) these locations:
Locations of visitors to this page