Development of the Microlift Glider

Piero Morelli
OSTIV Sailplane Development Panel
[email protected]

Presented at the Motorless Flight Symposium, 8-10 October 2004, Varese, Italy

Introduction It should be made clear that compliance with mass and

At its annual meeting on February 28th, 2004, the FAI wing loading limits is enough for a glider to be officially
International Gliding Commission, IGC, took an important considered a “microlift glider”. However, it may occur that
decision. Upon a proposal from OSTIV (the International such a glider is unable to exploit microlift efficiently. In fact,
Scientific and Technical Organisation for Soaring Flight), the it is very important that some flying characteristics and
following definition of a so called MICROLIFT GLIDER was qualities are possessed in addition. Here the skill and
adopted for inclusion in the FAI Sporting Code, Section 3, experience of the designer play a decisive role.
Gliding. The definition has just come into effect on October The number of existing Microlift gliders worldwide is
1st, 2004: very small. They are not produced in a completed form,
MICROLIFT GLIDER a glider with a maximum takeoff although some initiatives in this direction seem to be on the
mass not exceeding 220 kg and a maximum wing loading way (the Lighthawk of Danny Howell, in Southern California).
not exceeding 18 kg/m2. The best known of all, the Carbon Dragon (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4)
The following note is added: designed by Jim Maupin and Irv Culver, a few of which are
These gliders are intended for utilizing very weak actually flying, are all homebuilt upon a set of drawings which
atmospheric lift conditions, hardly usable for conventional can be purchased. Reliable data on the number of existing
sailplanes. completed Carbon Dragon are not available, but certainly they
This is a preliminary step for the creation of a new FAI are a small percentage (not more than 10% of the number of
Class (in addition to the existing ones: Open, 18metre, sets of drawings sold - about 400).
15metre, Standard, World, Club, Ultralight). When World Figure 5 shows the American Woodstock, another
records will be acknowledged by FAI for this new Class, and successful design by Jim Maupin. It is interesting to note that
eventually World and/or Continental Championships, under Gary Osoba was able to use microlift with this glider in
specific FAI Rules, will be organized [1]. successful record flights, although its empty mass is
Diagram 1, taken from reference [1], illustrates the relative considerably higher than with the Carbon Dragon.
domains of the Microlift glider, just introduced in the FAI Figures 6 and 7 relate to the German ULF-1, about 30 of
Sporting Code, and the already existent (since several years) which have been homebuilt upon a set of drawings available
Ultralight glider. Both have the same max-mass limitation for purchase. Here the performance is less than with other
(Wmax) but a different max. wing loading (Wmax/S). The types in order to keep simplicity and cost at a lower level.
relative position of those we call “conventional” sailplanes is Microlift flights are not reported upon.
also roughly indicated in Diagram 1. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the Swiss Archaeopteryx, [6],
Whereas “conventional” sailplanes are mainly designed chief designer Roger Ruppert, which combines a wing span of
for cross-country flight, i.e., for speed and distance, using the 13 metre with an astonishing empty mass of 45 kg, including a
well known atmospheric phenomena as thermals, ridge or rocket recovery parachute. Microlift exploitation is claimed to
slope effects, cold fronts, waves, the “microlift” glider is be possible but no evidence is provided so far.
designed for the exploitation of air motions within the These are just examples, more is coming from France,
atmospheric boundary layer, having nothing to do with the Ireland, Ukraine…and where else?
boundary layer of the aerodynamicists. For the meteorologists Due to the very low empty mass required, homebuilding
the atmospheric boundary layer is a layer of air from ground to requires a few thousands man hours of very skilled
a limited height of the order of a few hundred metre, where craftsmanship and expensive materials. Therefore the
transient convective processes preceding and following the big Microlift glider is not a cheap machine, it is rather a very
convection, familiar to “conventional” glider pilots, takes place expensive machine and as such it would probably remain if
[2] [3]. produced in small numbers and made available on the market.
In typical conditions, weak air motions occur with vertical
components which the conventional sailplane is unable to The FAI philosophy for Classes
exploit. On the other hand, a special sailplane, designed for One objection to the creation of a Microlift Glider Class is
very low rate of sink and very small circling radius, may be the small number of existing Microlift gliders worldwide.
able to exploit these feeble air motions for sustained flight and However, is there any philosophy in the creation of glider
even for climbing [4]. This is the Microlift Glider. classes by FAI through its specialized Commission, the IGC?

TECHNICAL SOARING 13 VOLUME 30, NO. 1/2 - January/April 2006

In other words, are there clear cut criteria which differentiate As a matter of fact, it must be acknowledged that very
one Class from the others? little documentation on microlift flights is available. Gary
Annex 1 to this paper gives a brief history of the FAI Osoba’s and some other pilots’ flights, however, using the
glider classes, from which it can be understood that no clear Carbon Dragon and other light gliders (the Woodstock, for
cut criteria differentiate one FAI Class from the other. In some instance) have been widely witnessed over the years.
cases, without any explicit statement in the Sporting Code, a As reported by Osoba, the exploitation of microlift often
Class takes into account the cross country performance in requires dynamic soaring techniques which are not familiar to
terms of distance and speed in typical conditions of thermal pilots of conventional sailplanes. Here a problem arises: how
convection, through the limitation of the wing span and the to teach pilots? Is a two-seater microlift sailplane feasible?
glider variable geometry. This is the case with the Open, 18- This is dubious because of the mass and wing loading
metre, 15-metre classes. In other cases the cost of the glider limitations. A flight simulator would probably do, but what
and the ease of operation are also taken into account as for the about the cost?
Standard Class and the Ultralight. Pilots who beautifully homebuilt their Carbon Dragon
With the World Class the pilots compete in equal admitted that they fly it as a conventional sailplane, which in
conditions, flying the same glider type at the same total mass. many cases is an ineffective means to extract energy from
Moreover, a relatively cheap World Class glider is available microlift.
for the promotion of gliding worldwide.
The Club Class allows gliders belonging to different Basic design characteristics of a Microlift sailplane
classes but no more competitive therein to compete at world As implied by the definition, essential characteristics are a
level. low rate of sink and a small circling radius. Therefore a low
What about the not yet established Microlift Class? takeoff mass and a low wing loading are required. Not
Here, in addition to the capacity of exploiting the big enough, however. A high maximum lift coefficient (CLmax)
thermal convection, as the conventional sailplanes do, the of the wing, obtainable by the choice of the wing airfoils and
capacity of exploiting “microlift”, which conventional the adoption of wing flaps, is beneficial in this respect, because
sailplanes are unable to do, is the discriminating factor. The it allows the same rate of sink and circling radius with higher
FAI definition recalled at the beginning of this paper is values of the glider mass and of the wing loading, therefore
intended to promote this capacity. Therefore, world records or improving the penetration, a precious characteristic in
competition tasks of this Class should demonstrate the ability headwind conditions.
of sustained flight within the boundary layer, i.e., at very low A high CLmax, however, must be accompanied by
altitude [2]. The lower the flight altitude the higher the irreproachable stalling characteristics in straight and circling
scoring! [5] flight. What we call “microlift” is a kind of turbulent unsteady
This makes clear that the creation of the FAI Microlift motion. The necessity to search for the transient lift
Class, through the expected, and hoped for proliferation of components of it, often requires to manoeuvre the glider
Microlift gliders, opens the way to an extension of the soarable promptly in pitch, roll and yaw to the limits of the envelope.
atmospheric domain. The attempt to attain such an ambitious The time of response needs to be considerably smaller than on
goal is well worth the tentatively introduction of this new class. conventional sailplanes.
The stall of the wing must not be accompanied by any
Microlift: reality or fake? appreciable loss of altitude and lack of lateral/directional
Most probably microlift soaring has been experienced control.
more or less consciously by hang glider pilots flying high Due to the typical low altitude flight the outlanding must
performance hang gliders. But, who knows? The case of Gary be possible and safe on small patches of land at the lowest
Osoba [4] is an exceptional one, that of an experienced glider possible speed. Powerful airbrakes are necessary.
and hang glider pilot at the same time. A very attractive peculiarity of the Microlift glider is the
No clear cut definition is available neither from pilots nor variety of possible launching methods: aero-tow, winch
from meteorologists. All we know is the description of weak, launching, auto-tow, bungee launching, foot-launching, roll-
unsteady air motions with vertical components, taking place in down launching. The availability of the related necessary
the atmospheric boundary layer, typically early in the morning equipment and accessories should be assured since the design
and/or late in the afternoon, i.e., before or after the big stage.
convection takes place in the upper atmosphere, which
conventional sailplanes – but Microlift sailplanes as well - are A perspective of development of microlift soaring
able to exploit. [2] [3] The acceptance by FAI of the Microlift glider definition
The literature about what we call microlift is so scarce and upon the OSTIV proposal is a big and a small step forward. A
sparse - that appealing to glider pilots in particular – that even big step because it appears as the official recognition at
a pilot of great experience and reputation may not believe in its international level of a new form of soaring flight in a
existence, at least in the form useable for soaring flight. perspective of its development. A small step because the FAI

TECHNICAL SOARING 14 VOLUME 30, NO. 1/2 - January/April 2006

decision is based more on verbal and written unofficial reports A link with Paul MacCready
than on objective documentation. Such a kink should be established during this research
What is the evidence we possess? activity in order to benefit from his unique competence and
(a) Witness of low altitude flights mainly made by the experience in this area, as pilot, designer, meteorologist. At
American pilot Gary Osoba in a period of over 20 years, over one time he expressed a belief that, if a sailplane having 0.30
American territory, mainly Southern California. m/s rate of sink were available, sustained soaring flight would
(b) Availability of a few light gliders, mainly the Carbon be possible any place, any time! As probably known by
Dragon, designed by the American engineers Jim Maupin and everybody in the gliding world, his vision of an extended
Ilv Culver, intended as a foot-launchable high performance domain for soaring flight is a long standing one.
hang-glider, but resulting similar to a conventional sailplane of
13.6 m wing span, except for the very low empty mass of 68 Conclusion
kg and a wing loading of approx.12 kg/m2 (with a 90kg pilot A pessimistic view: no pilot was able to achieve in the
on board). years what Gary Osoba described in his articles and reports
(c) Scientific papers by meteorologists Wally Wallington (see for instance [4]). Osoba is such an outstanding pilot that
(1983) and researchers of the German Institute for the Physics no one of the many who tried was able to emulate him. No
of the Atmosphere (1985), describing convective air motions video recording or equivalent documentation of Osoba’s
within the atmospheric boundary layer. Wallington’s paper [2] flights was ever made available to pilots interested to try and
predicts the exploitation of these motions when suitable light learn. The negative attitude of estimated pilots discouraged
sailplanes will be available. further attempts. The effort to transfer the knowledge was not
(d) Many articles on microlift gliders and on microlift soaring adequate. The prediction of competent meteorologists was
published on soaring magazines worldwide, most of them in disregarded. The initiative to conquer a new domain for
recent years. soaring flight was clearly unsuccessful.
It is not much, but probably enough to convince glider An optimistic view could lead us to imagine that in a
pilots that microlift soaring is not a fake! reasonable number of years some hundreds of Microlift gliders
fly in different countries worldwide. Their pilots know how to
Further steps forward exploit microlift covering distances at respectable speed
To speed up the process of development of the Microlift without exceeding (for long stretches at least) a few hundred
glider, and Microlift soaring thereby, several initiatives could metres altitude. When the big thermal convection develops
be undertaken. they need not rely on microlift, if any, they can enjoy flying
higher in the same way conventional sailplanes do. When the
Documentation air would not support any more, they experience successful
To collect and publish reports and documents on glider outlandings, so easy at 30 km/h! If some headwind is there
and hang-glider flights allegedly exploiting microlift. This they can perform a quasi vertical approach, helicopter-wise!
material should be verified and classified on the basis of This kind of performance suggests a different task philosophy.
criteria to be worked out by meteorologists. OSTIV could play An example: a low altitude limitation over the contest terrain
a key role on the promotion and organization of this initiative. would be introduced, exceeding it would entail penalties. The
An OSTIV Working Group of experts could be designated. challenge is to stay up as long as possible to the preset altitude
limit; or to cover the maximum distance in a given time
Connection with hang-gliding without exceeding the preset altitude, or being penalized for
The connection could be made through the FAI Hang- this. (see [5] for more). Moreover, this type of performance
gliding Commission to verify if there is an interest of could make competition tasks appealing to the public (see [1]
experienced hang-glider pilots and experts to join the OSTIV and [5]). Wishful thinking? I hope not!
Working Group and contribute to the advancement of
knowledge in this area. References
[1] Piero Morelli, Why Microlift Soaring?, XXVII OSTIV Congress,
Promotion of video recordings July 2003, Leszno, Poland.
Such videos could be shot by small video-cameras [2] C.E. Wallington, Potential Exploration and Use of Miniscale Lift
installed onboard a microlift sailplane, showing instrument Patterns – OSTIV Publication XVII, 1983.
readings and external references during stretches of flights [3] Anne M. Jochum, The Vertical Structure of the Convective
Boundary Layer from Motorglider Measurements, XX OSTIV
with evidence of microlift exploitation. If made available to Congress, August 1985, Rieti, Italy.
interested groups at a reasonable price these videos would [4] Gary Osoba, Toward a 20 Hour Work-Week – Sailplane Builder,
probably be a powerful means “to stimulate interest and July 1995. Gary Osoba, More on Microlift Techniques –
support with many more people and inspire more pilots and Sailplane Builder, July 1995.
designers” (quoted from [5]). [5] Eric de Boer, Some Additional Remarks Concerning Microlift
Soaring, XXVII OSTIV Congress, July 2003, Leszno, Poland.

TECHNICAL SOARING 15 VOLUME 30, NO. 1/2 - January/April 2006

[6] Archaeopteryx, Swiss ultralight sailplane, Internet: (USA), 1985 (Italy), 1987 (Australia), 1989 (Austria), 1991
http://www.zhwin.ch/archaeopteryx (USA), 1993 (Sweden), 1995 (New Zealand), 1997 (France),
1999 (Germany), 2001 (South Africa), 2003 (Poland). The
ANNEX 1 next one has been decided already for 2006 in Sweden.
The growing experience with the 15 metre class showed
A brief history of FAI glider classes that a considerable improvement of performance at relatively
If we look at the history of gliding and of IGC in the post- low cost could be obtained by adding wing tips, each 3 metre
WW2 period, and in particular at the World Gliding spanwise, to the 15 metre wing, thus increasing the wing span
Championships in the years 1948 to 2003, we find no Class to 18 metre.
definition at the start (1948 Switzerland, 1950 Sweden), i.e., all A new 18 metre Class was introduced in 1998. The first
competitors flew in the same unlimited, therefore undefined World Championship for this class was held in 2001 (Spain),
Class. another following in 2003 (Poland). No records are
In 1952 (Spain), 1954 (England), 1956 (France) a Two- acknowledged for this class.
seater Class competed in addition to the Single-seater Class. The difference between the 15 metre Class and the 18
The reason for this? Not known to me. The second person on metre Class is only the wing span. One can see that a new
board could be an additional pilot, or simply an additional concept has been adopted to create a new class. For
mass, or a navigator or whatever. A plausible reason for the consistency one could think of a class structure simply based
introduction of this class could be the existence of a number of on the wing span, thus having, for instance: 12m Class, 15
high performance two-seaters which would be given a chance metre Class, 18 metre Class, 21 metre Class, 24 metre Class,
to be used for high level competition. But, if this was the case, going on or stopping here for operational reasons!
couldn’t it be achieved simply allowing only one person (the This is not the IGC choice.
pilot) on board of the two-seater glider? The opportunity of introducing a one-design class and, at
In 1958 (Poland) a big change occurred, the introduction the same time promoting the availability of a simple, safe, low-
of a new Class, the Standard Class, grouping gliders complying cost glider contributing to the expansion of gliding worldwide,
with specifications laid down by OSTIV: wing span not was recognized by IGC in 1988, when the process of creating a
exceeding 15 metre, no flaps, no retractable landing gear, no so-called World Class was started.
expendable ballast, cloud flying permitted, no radio transceiver The 1st World Championship of the new World Class was
on board. The objective was a cheap and safe glider, in order announced in 1994 and held in Turkey in 1997, as the gliding
to counteract the tendency to sophisticated and expensive event of the 1st FAI World Air Games, organized in Turkey in
gliders. The Two-seater Class was abolished. The gliders not 1997.
complying with the Standard Class specifications were Therefore, since 1998 the number of classes having World
grouped in the so-called Open Class. Championships became six, with the related events concerning
These two classes, Open and Standard were the only two the World Class held in 1997 (Turkey), 1999 (Poland), 2001
in existence as championship classes in 1960 (Germany), 1963 (Spain), 2003 (Slovakia), and the next one decided already for
(Argentina), 1965 (England), 1968 (Poland), 1970 (USA), France in 2006.
1972 (Yugoslavia), 1974 (Australia), 1976 (Finland). In consideration of the declared objectives, the creation of
In 1978 (France) a new so-called 15 metre Class was the World Class is fully justified (one-design, expansion of
added. The only limitation for the gliders of this class is the gliding). Who would disagree?
wing span which must not exceed 15 m. But, there is more. For many years, the proposal to create
To understand the reason for this change it is necessary to a new class in order to give owners of gliders no more
appreciate the evolution of the Standard Class (re-named 15- competitive (this occurs in a few years time!) a chance to
metre Restricted Class) after the initial objective of a cheap compete at high level has been discussed. Finally, a so-called
and safe glider. Club Class was introduced, grouping gliders of not too
Under the pressure of manufacturers and pilots (mainly different performance, tentatively equalized by handicap
from Germany), the retractable landing gear was allowed, then factors.
the prohibition of expendable ballast was withdrawn. Only the Initially, only continental championships were allowed for
span limit and the prohibition of flaps were maintained (IGC the Club Class but in 2000 (Australia) the first World
1975). Practically the only difference between the Standard Championship was held, followed by 2002 (Germany) and
and the new 15 metre Class concerns the prohibition of flaps 2004 (Norway). No records are acknowledged for this class.
on Standard gliders. Is this enough to justify the existence of a Another result was welcome: the possibility to compete at
new class? It is not, may be the answer. However, this is the world level using obsolete gliders, added commercial value to
situation since 1978 (France). Pilots seem to be comfortable the used gliders.
with this solution. At least the devaluation of existing Is this a properly defined FAI Class? This is doubtful, if
Standard gliders is avoided. one thinks that handicap factors are an artificial and
The World championships were announced and held for approximate way for compensating performance differences,
the three classes in 1978 (France), 1981 (Germany), 1983

TECHNICAL SOARING 16 VOLUME 30, NO. 1/2 - January/April 2006

and also that marketing should not be an influential factor in
these matters.
With the World Class and the Club Class added to the
Open, 18 metre, 15 metre, and Standard, the FAI Classes for
which World Championships are run have become six.
Since 1997 another FAI Class exists, the Ultralight Class,
for which world records are acknowledged but no world
championship has been held so far. The Ultralight glider is
defined as follows: A glider with a maximum takeoff mass not
exceeding 220 kg. The reason for this class is that several
successful designs complying with this definition exist. Their
performance is remarkable and their cost is relatively low.
There is now a chance that the Microlift glider evolves
into a Class. This requires world records and/or world
championships being called for and being held.

Figure 1 The Carbon Dragon schematic

Figure 2 The Carbon Dragon (below)

Figure 4 The Carbon Dragon on tow

Figure 5 Schematic of the Woodstock

TECHNICAL SOARING 17 VOLUME 30, NO. 1/2 - January/April 2006

 Figure 8 The Swiss Archaeopteryx

Figure 9 The Swiss Archaeopteryx details

TECHNICAL SOARING 18 VOLUME 30, NO. 1/2 - January/April 2006

 Diagram 1 Domain of the microlift glider

TECHNICAL SOARING 19 VOLUME 30, NO. 1/2 - January/April 2006