A Tale of Two Elevations Most soaring participants cannot believe my argument that 2 soaring universes exist for our

toy sailplanes. They think that flying is flying, and the experience of (random trial and error) conditioned and reinforced by academias professionals is better than engineered and controlled trial and error. Unfortunately the complexity of the majority, because of advanced life styles, with their desire for full state of art toys (all the whistle and bells) blinds them to details of what has actually happened to their soaring toys. Locked into a paradigm they rationalize that they are doing duration (i.e. the title of their task), by the employment of performance efficiency. Thus they fly handicapped - promoting the use of extreme skills to perform menial duration tasks. To add to that complexity, they attempt to convert the model into a miniature aircraft, and have it venture into a full size sailplanes territory (which tends to filter out models that were designed as vocational adult toys i.e. without professionalism). This snobbery totally blinds the major soaring fraternity to the fact that the size of the soaring universe really dedicates the tactics of prolonging flight (duration), and that there are two basic programs that yields success. 1) Full size sailplanes and models that emulate them: They launch into the upper air, and typically work air from 1000 ft to cloud base. This is an unlimited soaring world -where the disadvantaged grounded pilot has only his eyesight the limit. 2) Model sailplanes that are more related to soaring birds than full size sailplanes: They launch to a low altitude (200 ft AGL typ.) and concentrate on climbout, rather then performance, for duration (where performance does yield benefits, but must be compromised/balanced for maximizing duration). Now when I bring up my point that there appears to be two complete different worlds for soaring, most think I have lost my marbles. Lift is lift - and it makes no difference what altitude, is a common attitude; and one that I will attempt here to dispel. I chose to be a sport flier and design and build my own equipment while using many fields that are available to me; that are a bit smaller than ideal. I believe this is a better condition for entry level flying than attempting to fly the high launch with equipment that is machine made, expensive, and is not easily repaired. This state of affairs of flying a lower launch to fit the small field has made me aware that to capitalize on these conditions some design constraints must be examined. As the hand launch pilots are aware, low altitude thermals are merely feeders for a main body of lift that will exist in the upper air. Some of these lower thermals will dissipate, whereas others may cumulatively bust through an inversion layer and combine to reinforce a main body of lift. These feeder thermals are the prime target for the typical low launcher. Most pilots believe the smallness of the HL machines is the secret for working the low lift; whereas the reality is that there is only one variable that controls success (and wingspan, profile design, or fuselage length is not it). It is airspeed primarily! To fly the

small thermals one needs to turn tight, but without a large bank angle - and slow flight is the only way to obtain this state. Size is an important factor because of the Reynolds effect, so if one is not hand chucking, and using a short high start to fling his sailplane, wing area becomes crucial. The only limit on wingspan is the maintenance of lift at the slower wings tip when engaged in turning flight (this can be improved upon by using antistall strips (turbulators), washout, and/or a rectangular wing planform. The Ellipse wing planform may be an efficient planform for cross-country work, however for attempting to fly slow and spiral tight, the rectangular planform is the superior. Right off the bat we are looking for the largest sailplane (for Reynoldss effect) with the least wing span (meaning a low aspect ratio wing with a parallel chord wing planform - within the limits of aspect ratio efficiency); when we are talking short launch - with our eyes open to work the little HL type of thermals more efficiently than the struggling little HLs (that are now common). I think I must define the difference of Sailplane approaches; that are simply expressed by soaring birds. The icon of soaring birds to Joe Wurts (for example) is the Black Albatross; a very heavy bird that has a low CD to establish low sink at high airspeeds. My icon on the other hand is the Fregata Magnificeno (man o war frigate); a tropical bird that can lock its wings and soar for days over the islands. It too has a low CD, however its light weight limits its airspeed. So following suite on this fact lets have a theoretical contest between Joe and myself of 2 mile cross country so as to imbed concept. Joe does this feat in 15 minutes with his design concentrated upon flying a sailplane dedicated to do work. I do the same task, but in 60 minutes. Joe believes he won; whereas I believe I won -- if the task was labeled duration!! Duration means staying up for the longest time. Efficiency means doing a job in the least time. With this in mind, the attributes necessary to accomplish Joes and my goals are totally different. The greatest soaring creature on the planet is the Monarch butterfly breaking all kinds of records for distance traveled. Yes, it even puts down the Black Albatross; however it cheats when it uses the jet-stream!! Regardless, when the task is duration and one wants to use the small thermals of the lower air, the design of the aircraft is distorted a bit closer to a dandelions fluff, or parachute. Obviously the fluff has a bit of problem of landing close to launching, or navigating from thermal to thermal, so compromises must be made. Al Sugar 10-26-04