TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #125

  • Ann Tekatch
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5
  • Thank you received: 0
This is very exciting news! I shared it with some of my flying buddies today and they are equally pumped about it. There is no doubt that membership in the LSF will grow rapidly with this parallel program. My first love will always be unpowered sailplanes, but what a blast it will be to complete my Level V then tackle the ESAP!!

And, of course, some of those folks who start with the ESAP will likely come over to the quiet side . It's a win-win for the LSF.

Congratulations to you for bringing this forward!!

Ann Tekatch
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #126

  • Ed Anderson
  • Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • Thank you received: 0

Curtis Suter wrote: Another issue I can see is this:
All thermal duration tasks will be attempted with an electric sailplane equipped with an altitude limiting device set to a maximum launch height of 200 meters (656.17 feet) and a maximum motor run time of 30 seconds.

This may need a change or reworded because my limiter will cut the motor off at 200m but it's quite easy to use the potential energy from the motor run to overfly that altitude by a small margin thus wouldn't that make the task non-compliant? Just splitting hairs but I can see someone asking that question.

[/b]

And comments have been made about anti-zoom concerns. Why?

I have heard this argument before, yet there is no altitude limit of any kind set for a launch off a winch or a hi-start. You and I could be flying identical gliders. We could be launching off the same 900 foot winch line yet your launch could beat mine by 150 feet. Somehow that does not seem to bother anyone for string launches when it comes to SAP tasks.

But when it comes to e-soaring if my launch is 200 meters and yours is 210, that seems to be some huge issue. Why? Does it really matter? If it does then why doesn't it matter for winch launching?

If that is going to be a serious issue then we need to go back and FIX the original SAP to specify launch height from winch and hi-start, which I do not endorse. We now have easy tools to measure that. Otherwise we need to let this concern go.

As a % variation between launch heights the e-soaring will be much more consistent than winch or hi-start launched version. Winch launches can vary by 100% and no one cares. E-soaring might vary by 10% and this is a big issue?

Who cares?

And, what about hand launch? A good DLG launch is 150 feet. Some can hit 200 feet. Yet no one has ever raised a concern about that variation.

Really, this should be an absolute non-issue.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #127

  • Gil Gauger
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5
  • Thank you received: 0
Sorry but I believe you are missing the issue entirely. In string launch events the skillset used during the launch includes knowing whether your plane is structurally and aerodynamically capable of converting energy stored in the launching device into increased altitude, airspeed, or both and perfecting the skills to do so. In ALES and F5J the general consensus is to incorporate a hard launch cap. This is why manufacturers have included programmable cut off limits and anti-zoom features and contest rules are structured accordingly. I personally don't care if you overshoot but the point is that, as a trade off of the skills to perfect string launching being tested in the SAP, the ESAP instead tests the skills necessary to NOT exceed that cap. In the end all anyone really cares about is the part after the powered phase of the flight.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #128

  • Ed Anderson
  • Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • Thank you received: 0
Okay
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #129

  • Tim McCann
  • Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Thank you received: 0

jdadmin wrote: To answer the questions of the previous post:
To quote the Proposal: "There will be one LSF with two parallel SAP's". Therefore any one who attains the required Levels in either SAP may vote on those issues. No, there won't be a separate emblem for those in the ESAP.

My Position:
The procedure to achieve LSF membership and issuance of a membership number and authorization to display the LSF insignia is set forth in ARTICLE XVI-SOARING ACCOMPLISHMENTS PROGRAM which can only be amended by the “Super Requirements” of ARTICLE XII Section II

Since the product of achievement of the proposed eSAP would be exactly the same as the SAP with no distinction in member privileges and accolades, adoption of an eSAP as proposed would in fact be an amendment of the SAP and subject to the “Super Requirements”

A thinly veiled semantic end run around the bylaws that would likely not stand up to arbitration and an insult to previous achievers. A motor glider organization must be distinctly separate to have any legitimacy.
Tim McCann LSF Level V #79
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #130

  • Curtis Suter
  • Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 0
Then this would make the CAM limiter from Soaring Circuits unusable.
I don't think this is the intent from Jim Decks comment here: www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=26376006&postcount=96

Curtis



ggauger wrote: The wording was very carefully chosen. Read it carefully as well. It says launch altitude, not motor cutoff altitude. Every task in the SAP has behind it the goal of testing growth in certain skillsets. In this case it includes learning to use the anti-zoom features of the limiters or adjusting the cutoff altitude appropriately.

Curtis Suter wrote: Another issue I can see is this:
All thermal duration tasks will be attempted with an electric sailplane equipped with an altitude limiting device set to a maximum launch height of 200 meters (656.17 feet) and a maximum motor run time of 30 seconds.

This may need a change or reworded because my limiter will cut the motor off at 200m but it's quite easy to use the potential energy from the motor run to overfly that altitude by a small margin thus wouldn't that make the task non-compliant? Just splitting hairs but I can see someone asking that question.

The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #131

  • Curtis Suter
  • Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 0
eAnderson,
It is of no issue for me, the extra zoom at the end is negligible in my opinion.

Curtis
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #132

  • Ed Anderson
  • Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • Thank you received: 0

Curtis Suter wrote: eAnderson,
It is of no issue for me, the extra zoom at the end is negligible in my opinion.

Curtis


I agree completely!

ggauger wrote: Sorry but I believe you are missing the issue entirely. In string launch events the skillset used during the launch includes knowing whether your plane is structurally and aerodynamically capable of converting energy stored in the launching device into increased altitude, airspeed, or both and perfecting the skills to do so. In ALES and F5J the general consensus is to incorporate a hard launch cap. This is why manufacturers have included programmable cut off limits and anti-zoom features and contest rules are structured accordingly. I personally don't care if you overshoot but the point is that, as a trade off of the skills to perfect string launching being tested in the SAP, the ESAP instead tests the skills necessary to NOT exceed that cap. In the end all anyone really cares about is the part after the powered phase of the flight.


Launching skill is not tested or measured in relation to the SAP or eSAP program. The things that are measured by the SAP or eSAP program come after the launch no matter what launch method you use, string, motor or hand launch.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #133

  • Don Harban
  • Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Thank you received: 0
The issue of making the ESAP launch comparable to the existing SAP launch FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT TASKS is immaterial. The way the current SAP is written one could tie 984 feet of monofilament to the bumper of a truck and probably exceed 1000 feet on a launch including zoom.

However much overrun one can reasonably expect, electric planes are VERY unlikely to get that high.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #134

  • Curtis Suter
  • Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 0

The issue of making the ESAP launch comparable to the existing SAP launch FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT TASKS is immaterial.

Agreed.

The way the current SAP is written one could tie 984 feet of monofilament to the bumper of a truck and probably exceed 1000 feet on a launch including zoom.

Agreed as well.

However much overrun one can reasonably expect, electric planes are VERY unlikely to get that high.

Agreed. But in the standard SAP it's left ambiguous as it should be. But in the proposed eSAP it's a limitation. It just needs reworded. It's like a speed limit, if it's 55mph and you get a ticket going over the limit what are you going to tell the Judge?

Curtis

PS dHarban I think that was the shortest post you've ever written! ;)
The topic has been locked.
Time to create page: 0.365 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum