2010 Proposed US Sports Class Handicaps
Deltasierra
the SSA Website: http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6242029070.
Please submit comments prior to February 1, directed to me at
delta...@mindspring.com (please include a telephone #).
David Stevenson
Andy
> The proposed Sports Class Handicaps are now available for viewing on
> the SSA Website: http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6242029070.
> Please submit comments prior to February 1, directed to me at
>
> David Stevenson
Can someone please explain how the sailplane specific handicap weight
is derived?
thanks
Andy
Brian
Simple answer, take the published empty weight and add 280 lbs. (250
for pilot and 30 for instruments) There may be some other factors
depending on the sailplane.
Brian
Andy
Thanks Brian.
The SSA handicap weight for the ASW 28 seems to be about 40lb too
low. Serial 28048 empty weight excluding instruments as weighed at
the factory was 540.4 lb. The SSA handicap weight appears to assume
an empty weight of 778-280 = 498 lb.
I shall respond to David and ask that other ASW-28 owners do the same
if they agree the handicap weight is not correct.
I'd be curious to know where an empty weight of 498 lb is published.
I know brochures published before the prototype was built grossly
underestimated the empty weight.
Andy
Wayne Paul
"Andy" <a.du...@netzero.net> wrote in message news:3e49a511-5958-4dc0...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Andy
> http://www.easternsailplane.com/sailplane/asw28.htmllist the weight as 518 lbs with minimal equipment. 498 would be correct if the "minimal equipment" weighs 20 lbs.
That seems to be the text from a factory brochure. It also lists the
ballistic recovery chute as an option but it never was available.
I hope SSA handicap data are not derived from brochure data if
conflicting actual factory weight data are available.
Andy
jcarlyle
I can empathize. My LS8-18 is listed in brochures as weighing 540 lbs
empty, but the factory weighing was 610 lbs empty. With me in it, I'm
well over the SSA handicap weight.
-John
mattm
250lb pilot?! I knew we've been gaining weight on average but isn't
that
excessive (and even with a 15lb parachute). Anyway, the HpH 304C
seems
underweight also. That would point to an empty weight of 508. The
one I've
flown was 586 at last weighing, so even assuming 30lbs of instruments
that's
almost 50lbs heavier. For the ASW-19 (which I fly now) that formula
points to
an empty uninstrumented weight of 550lbs, and my particular plane is
581lbs
empty, so that works out fine.
-- Matt
Andy
I received a private reply from David in which he indicates that "To
come up with a handicap, 250lb not 280lb
is added to the empty weight".
Since 2 different people have 2 different answers can anyone point me
to the SSA rule or policy that is used to derive the handicap weight?
Andy
Tony
> The proposed Sports Class Handicaps are now available for viewing on
> the SSA Website: http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6242029070.
> Please submit comments prior to February 1, directed to me at
>
> David Stevenson
I may be missing something. That link takes me to the current Sports
Class Handicaps. There is no mention anywhere on that page or on the
SSA site in general, of proposed 2010 Sports Class Handicaps. Are
they simply not changing from last year?
Tony
Brian
>
> - Show quoted text -
My answer came from David as well, talking specifically about HP
gliders. I wasn't sure if all other gliders were done the same way.
Thus the disclaimer in my answer. My understanding was 250 lbs for
pilot parachute, water etc and 30lbs for instruments.
It seems to work for the published empty weight of the HP gliders.
Brian
Brian
The HP handicaps have already been changed. If your handicap has not
changed then it is probably the same as last year.
Brian
Dave Nadler
With due deference to Mr. Stevenson ;-)
Greg Arnold
I am not a racer, so I have no business making a comment. However, this
is RAS, so why not?
Why doesn't the SSA use the German handicaps?
http://www.daec.de/se/downfiles/2009/DMSt-WO2009.pdf
They seem to work fine for the OLC. Much simpler than what is used now.
The SSA handicaps try to handicap differences to several decimal places,
yet have some obvious anomalies, such as less favorable handicaps for
gliders that are burdened with the weight of engines. Maybe that makes
sense on a booming day, but what is the logic on a weak day?
If you want complexity, why not start with the German handicaps and
adjust them for the weight of the glider. Or try something like what is
being used in the South African Nationals, where similar gliders appear
to all have the same handicaps on the same day, but handicaps vary from
day to day depending on the strength of the day.
mattm
> Dave Nadler wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 11:59 am, Andy <a.dur...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >> can anyone point me
> >> to the SSA rule or policy that is used to derive the handicap... ?
>
>
> > With due deference to Mr. Stevenson ;-)
>
> I am not a racer, so I have no business making a comment. However, this
> is RAS, so why not?
>
> Why doesn't the SSA use the German handicaps?
>
> http://www.daec.de/se/downfiles/2009/DMSt-WO2009.pdf
>
> They seem to work fine for the OLC. Much simpler than what is used now.
>
> The SSA handicaps try to handicap differences to several decimal places,
> yet have some obvious anomalies, such as less favorable handicaps for
> gliders that are burdened with the weight of engines. Maybe that makes
> sense on a booming day, but what is the logic on a weak day?
>
> If you want complexity, why not start with the German handicaps and
> adjust them for the weight of the glider. Or try something like what is
> being used in the South African Nationals, where similar gliders appear
> to all have the same handicaps on the same day, but handicaps vary from
> day to day depending on the strength of the day.
That question has been asked, but for now the US handicaps were
originally
developed by Carl Herold by analyzing US contest results. Noone knows
for
sure how Carl did it. Since then the handicaps get tweaked from time
to time,
plus the contest rules specify how they get tweaked for adding
winglets or
modifying the plane in various ways.
-- Matt
mattm
> > On Jan 4, 11:59 am, Andy <a.dur...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >> can anyone point me
> >> to the SSA rule or policy that is used to derive the handicap... ?
>
>
> > With due deference to Mr. Stevenson ;-)
>
> I am not a racer, so I have no business making a comment. However, this
> is RAS, so why not?
>
> Why doesn't the SSA use the German handicaps?
>
> http://www.daec.de/se/downfiles/2009/DMSt-WO2009.pdf
>
> They seem to work fine for the OLC. Much simpler than what is used now.
>
> The SSA handicaps try to handicap differences to several decimal places,
> yet have some obvious anomalies, such as less favorable handicaps for
> gliders that are burdened with the weight of engines. Maybe that makes
> sense on a booming day, but what is the logic on a weak day?
>
> If you want complexity, why not start with the German handicaps and
> adjust them for the weight of the glider. Or try something like what is
> being used in the South African Nationals, where similar gliders appear
> to all have the same handicaps on the same day, but handicaps vary from
> day to day depending on the strength of the day.
That question has been asked, but for now the US handicaps were
JJ Sinclair
specifically the weight was manufactures listed (brochure) weight +
250 pounds. Military says a man with parachute = 200 + 50 pounds of
instruments, battery, O2, etc. I think todays allowed weights are much
more liberal.
I also think the handicap system we have works well and I for one am
quite happy with it.
JJ
sisu1a
Seems fairly sensible (but then again so does using IGC handicpaps for
any ships they are already issued for...) but I still wonder what the
deal is with the SZD-59 though.
The SSA list has a 62lb difference between the 13.2 and 15m versions.
The wingtips that get removed only knock like 10lbs off the the weight
and other than the tips it's the same ship. I'm within both weight
limits, but am still curious.
PZL Bielsko SZD-59 Acro SC 13.2 820 1.075
PZL Bielsko SZD-59 Standard SC 15 882 0.99
-Paul
mattm
Beware that these are not "limits" but the baseline weight for the
published
handicap. Your actual contest handicap is determined by the weight
conversion
rule 11.6.1.2.2: If Competition Weight (Rule 6.12.3) is different from
the specified
Handicap Weight, theHandicap Factor shall be multiplied by the
following:
1.0 - ((Competition Weight) - (Handicap Weight)) * 0.0002
So, e.g. if your weight is 820 without the wing tips and 830 with
them, then your
handicap will be 1.075 without and 0.99 * (1 - ((830-882) * 0.0002) =
1.0104 with them.
There used to be a 50lb deadband around the handicap weight but that's
gone away.
-- Matt
Andy
>
> Beware that these are not "limits" but the baseline weight for the
> published handicap.
While that is true for sports class is is most certainly not true for
FAI classes flying under no ballast rules. No handicap is used in FAI
classes but the handicap weight is applied under the following rule:
6.8.3 ‡ † No-ballast rules No-ballast rules shall apply on a day when
the CD has announced this prior to the first launch.
6.8.3.1 Disposable ballast is prohibited with the exception of
disposable tail ballast.
6.8.3.2 Fixed ballast is permitted, but not more than an amount that
brings the sailplane to its maximum handicap weight, as defined in the
SSA Sailplane Handicap List.
Bottom line - if you are well over handicap weight then you fly with
no penalty. If you are under handicap weight you can add fixed
ballast but only increase weight to the handicap weight. The handicap
weight is therefore a wing loading limitation that is applied to some
pilots but not to others in the same contest class.
Andy
mattm
Interesting. The same wording is present in sports class for fixed
ballast as well.
So, the only "limit" involved is that you can only add fixed ballast
up to that point.
On the other hand I've don't know of pilots adding fixed ballast in
sports class,
but I wouldn't be surprised if they did in a national contest if
conditions were strong.
-- Matt
Rick Culbertson
> ballast as well.
> So, the only "limit" involved is that you can only add fixed ballast
> up to that point.
> On the other hand I've don't know of pilots adding fixed ballast in
> sports class,
> but I wouldn't be surprised if they did in a national contest if
> conditions were strong.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gents,
Just for fun, and I'm not knocking the SSA HC author as I'm sure it's
another example of a thankless job but, can someone tell me how or why
the 15m 27s SSA HC is disadvantaged vs the 15m V2s & 29s per the
numbers below? I know it's only a slight disadvantage, but really?
with the exception of the ax the SSAs HC allowable weights are all
higher than the 27s so what gives? besides the obvious ;-)
Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2ax W 15 780 0.883
Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2bx W 15 805 0.884
Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2cx W 15 859 0.885
Schleicher ASG-29 W 15 821 0.884
Schleicher ASW-27 W 15 788 0.880
To comment on Matt’s question above about pilots adding fixed ballast;
I know if I attend the Sport Nationals at Parowan, the only US contest
site I know of that has had un-ballasted task speeds break the 100 mph
barrier, I'll be sure to be at the full allowed HC weight, fixed of
course after plenty of drinking water and tail ballast. I'm certain I
wouldn’t be alone in this obvious goal!
21
Andy
> I know if I attend the Sport Nationals at Parowan, the only US contest
> site I know of that has had un-ballasted task speeds break the 100 mph
> barrier, I'll be sure to be at the full allowed HC weight, fixed of
> course after plenty of drinking water and tail ballast. I'm certain I
> wouldn’t be alone in this obvious goal!
Why would you bother? If you are less than the handicap weight for a
sports class contest your handicap is adjusted in your favor. Better
that than be injured (or worse) by poorly fitted fixed ballast in an
bad off airport landing.
The inequitable handicap weight is only an issue in FAI classes flying
under no ballast rules. Here there is no handicap adjustment.
Andy