Title: Message
I have
to agree with Ians comments on the higher performance open class, there will
never be a fair competition in a club class contest, with empty gliders and
average LD's around the 40's, competing against high 50's, this showed on the
days where we had to cross blue to get
Title: Message
- Original Message -
From:
RF Developments Pty Ltd
To: 'Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:08
AM
Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] Queensland
Easter Comps etc
I
have to agree with Ian
Title: Message
GOOD ON YOU IVAN Congratulations Ian
M
- Original Message -
From:
RF Developments Pty Ltd
To: 'Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:08
AM
Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] Queensland
Easter
Title: Message
Looking at the scores, they appear right, it's just how they confuse the
sspeed and handicapped speed statement - its a little confusing - it's just the
scoring program
Nigel
Nigel Andrews
Managing Director
RF Developments Pty Ltd
"A Queensland Company devoted to Re
At 06:40 AM 19/04/04 +1000, you wrote:
If numbers and perceived handicapping shortcomings are a problem why not
split into two classes? Handicaps work best over a narrow range of
performance.
Mike
Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments
phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
fax
Yes it would be possible to have Standard/under 18m - 18metre/openclass?
At 06:40 AM 19/04/04 +1000, you wrote:
If numbers and perceived handicapping shortcomings are a problem why not
split into two classes? Handicaps work best over a narrow range of
performance.
Mike
Borgelt Instrument
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 10:29, Mike Borgelt wrote:
> If numbers and perceived handicapping shortcomings are a problem why not
> split into two classes? Handicaps work best over a narrow range of
> performance.
True - but this is a fun comp and having a third class (we already have
two, with the clu
Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert
Hart
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 6:28 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Queensland Easter Comps etc
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 10:29, Mike Borgelt wrot
At 08:27 AM 20/04/04 +1000, you wrote:
>"increases the scorer workload and as such I would oppose it"
>
>This is not true, the additional time is minimal, the initial setup is
>the only time taken, having seen Mike Codlings excellent scoring program
>I would have no problems in doing that extra cla
ards
Woolley Pup Pup
From: Robert Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Queensland Easter Comps etc
Date: 19 Apr 2004 18:28:21 +1000
WRT 'big wing' gliders, it's worth noting that a Nimbus 4 DM, Nimbus 2c
(not Alice), DG 500 and two Duo Discus gliders flew - bu
EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam
Woolley
Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 15:48
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Queensland Easter Comps etc
I say... "Here..Here!!" Congratulations Bruce on a Sensational Perfromance!
Can't wait until next year to attend this Fantast
nt: Monday, April 19, 2004 6:28 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Queensland Easter Comps etc
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 10:29, Mike Borgelt wrote:
> If numbers and perceived handicapping shortcomings are a problem why
> not split into two cl
12 matches
Mail list logo
